The Effect of Export Tax on Indonesia's Crude Palm Oil (CPO) Export Competitiveness
Author(s): Amzul Rifin
Source: ASEAN Economic Bulletin, Vol. 27, No. 2 (August 2010), pp. 173-184 Published by: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41317117 . Accessed: 07/06/2014 06:51 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. . Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ASEAN Economic Bulletin. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 203.130.231.12 on Sat, 7 Jun 2014 06:51:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ASEAN Economic Bulletin Vol. 27, No. 2 (2010), pp. 173-84 ISSN 0217-4472 print / ISSN 1793-2831 electronic DOI: 10.1355/ae27-2b The Effect of Export Tax on Indonesia's Crude Palm Oil (CPO) Export Competitiveness Amzul Rifin Crude palm oil (CPO) is one of the main export commodities of Indonesia. Besides an export commodity , it is also an essential raw material in producing cooking oil. In order to secure the availability of domestic CPO, the government of Indonesia imposed an export tax policy in September 2004. The objective of the export tax was to control the price of cooking oil at an affordable rate. The objective of this study is to describe the export tax policy on CPO imposed by the Indonesian government and to analyse the effect of the export tax on Indonesia's CPO export competitiveness compared with Malaysia , the main competitor. An export ratio equation between Indonesia and Malaysia is constructed using monthly data. The dependent variable is CPO export of both countries , meanwhile the independent variables include price ratio , export tax difference , refined palm oil export ratio , and exchange rate ratio. The result shows that Indonesia's export tax policy will cause CPO export com- petitiveness to decrease. Keywords: Crude palm oil (CPO), export tax, Indonesia. I. Introduction Palm oil has played an important role in the Indonesian economy. First, palm oil is considered to be a strategic sector since it is the raw material of the main cooking oil consumed by Indonesians (Soetrisno and Winahyu 1991). Over the years, Indonesia's domestic consumption of palm oil has increased steadily. In 1990, the consumption of palm oil was around 1.3 million tons and in 2007 the consumption increased to 4.87 million tons (United States Department of Agriculture 2008). It was projected that 77 per cent of palm oil domestic consumption was utilized in 2008 (CIC 2004). Second, palm oil is a labour-intensive sector and it contributes to employment. As palm oil plantations are located mainly outside Java island, this sector is important for poverty alleviation in the other islands. In 1997, Indonesia's oil palm industry employed over 2 million people (Casson 1999). Thirdly, palm oil is a strategic commodity for Indonesia's exports. In 2007, palm oil export ASEAN Economic Bulletin 173 Vol. 27, No. 2, August 2010 2010 ISEAS This content downloaded from 203.130.231.12 on Sat, 7 Jun 2014 06:51:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions reached US$7.8 million, about 6.9 per cent of Indonesia's total export which has increased from 4 per cent in 2003 (UN COMTRADE 2008). Indonesia and Malaysia are the major producers of palm oil. Both countries contribute almost 87 per cent of the total world production in 2007. Indonesia is the largest producer of palm oil with the production of 18.3 million tons followed by Malaysia with 17.4 million tons. Meanwhile, in the export market, both countries contribute 91 per cent of the total world palm oil export, with Malaysia being the highest with 13.7 million tons, followed by Indonesia with 13.3 million tons in 2007 (United States Department of Agriculture 2008). In September 1994, in order to maintain the availability of palm oil in the domestic market, the Indonesian government introduced an export tax. Based on a Decree of the Ministry of Finance No. 439/KMK.0 17/1 994, an export tax was imposed to control the price of cooking oil, which used crude palm oil (CPO) as its main component. Moreover, the CPO export tax was imposed to encourage refined palm oil industry to develop by setting low CPO prices. The export tax covered four types of palm oil products. These are: CPO, refined bleached deodorized palm oil (RBD PO), crude olein (CRD olein), and refined bleached deodorized olein (RBD olein). Several empirical studies on the impact of palm oil export tax on Indonesian economy has been conducted, namely Larson (1996), Marks, Larson, and Pomeroy (1998), Susila (2004), and Putri et al. (2006). These studies reveal that the export tax policy will mainly benefit consumers and hurt farmers. Hasan, Reed, and Marchant (2001) analyse specifically the effect of palm oil export tax on Indonesia's export competitiveness. The authors use export share as the instrument to measure competitiveness. Meanwhile Mohammad, Fauzi, and Ramli (1999) and Amiruddin (2003) analyse the interaction between Indonesia's and Malaysia's palm oil industry in the presence of government policy such as export tax. This study will focus on CPO rather than palm oil, which consists of CPO and refined palm oil, since most of Indonesia's export is in the form of CPO. Moreover, other studies focus on the effect of the export tax on welfare while little attention is given to the effect on export. The objective of the study is to describe the export tax policy imposed on CPO and how it affects Indonesia's CPO export competitiveness compared with its main rival, Malaysia. In addition, the export tax calculation in this article is more specific compared with other articles published. A brief overview of the export tax policy that has been imposed in Indonesia is provided in section II. A discussion on the export tax policy in Indonesia and Malaysia is provided in section III. In sections IV and V, the model and data used in the empirical analysis will be explained. This is followed by a discussion of the main result in section VI and lastly, some conclusions are presented in section VII. II. Crude Palm Oil Export Tax Policy in Indonesia The government of Indonesia has issued several regulations regarding palm oil export. Before 1978, palm oil was an export-oriented commodity. Production and export volume increased rapidly, and export volume reached 72-99 per cent of the total production (Djauhari and Pasaribu 1996). Since 1978, with the issue of government policy concerning the allocation of palm oil for domestic purposes, palm oil was no longer an export- oriented product. This policy was implemented because of the scarcity of palm oil as a raw material for cooking oil. This policy caused palm oil exports to decrease. In June 1991, the government abolished the policy by eliminating the domestic quota of palm oil in order to increase its export and attract more investments to the palm oil sector (Pahan 2008). The trade liberalization policy in 1991 resulted in an increase in both domestic price of cooking oil and the volume of palm oil export. Concerned with the higher price of cooking oil, the government issued a new policy by imposing export taxes on palm oil products in September ASEAN Economic Bulletin 174 Vol. 27, No. 2, August 2010 This content downloaded from 203.130.231.12 on Sat, 7 Jun 2014 06:51:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 1994. The government issued a Decree of Ministry of Finance No. 439/KMK.0 17/1 994 to tax CPO, RBD PO, CRD olein and RBD olein. The formula to calculate the export tax was as follows: Export Tax = Export volume x Export tariff x (Base Price - FOB Price) x Exchange rate The Free on Board (FOB) price is determined by the Ministry of Finance every month based on average prices of the world market during the previous two weeks, while the base price is the maximum export price which was free from export tax. The tax rate would get smaller as the difference between base price and export price gets bigger. The complete export duty structure for crude palm oil can be seen in Table 1. The decree was implemented up to June 1997. During the implementation, the effective export tax rate1 of CPO ranged from 0 per cent in August 1996 to the highest of 22 per cent in December 1994 (Figure 1). In July 1997, based on the Decree of Ministry of Finance No. 300/KMK/1997 the calculation method for export tax was changed to the following formula: Export Tax = Export tax tariff x Check price x Export volume x exchange rate However, when the check price has not been determined yet, the calculation of the export tax is as follows: Export Tax = Export tax tariff x FOB value x exchange rate The FOB value is the total export value stated on the Commodity Export Report or on the Certain Commodity Export Report. The new calculation differs from the earlier formula. In the previous calculation, the export tax depends only on the difference between the FOB price and the base price, and only the base price is determined by the government; meanwhile other variables, such as base price and export tariff, are fixed. The new calculation of export tax depends on the export tax tariff and the check price determined by the government. Therefore, the government can determine the magnitude of the export tax depending on the price of domestic cooking oil. When the domestic price of cooking oil is high, the government will impose a high check price and export tariff. TABLE 1 Export Duty Structure of Indonesian Crude Palm Oil According to Decree of Ministry of Finance No. 439/KMK.0 1 7/1 994 Product Price Levels Duty/ton Crude Palm Oil (CPO) Base Price: US$435 Additional: 0 % First 35 (435-470) 60% Next 35 (470-505) 56% x (EP - BP) Next 35 (505-540) 52% x (EP - BP) Next 35 (540-575) 48% x (EP - BP) Next 35 (575-610) 44% x (EP - BP) Balance (P>610) 40% x (EP - BP) Note: EP: export price; BP: base price. ASEAN Economic Bulletin 175 Vol. 27, No. 2, August 2010 This content downloaded from 203.130.231.12 on Sat, 7 Jun 2014 06:51:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 16% r - 14%
/'
g 12% - -/
'^' A.
t 10% J- '
8. ' A uj 8%
'
IX
f-
9 ' / ' i-v r'
9 e%.
yj ' - i-v r'
' /
4%
'-j
2%
'4
0% V ^ / Years FIGURE 1 Effective Export Tax Rate of Crude Palm Oil (September 1994-June 1997) Source: Author's calculation. The export tax tariff is determined by the Minister for Finance, while the check price is determined by the Ministry of Trade on a monthly basis based on the international price of CPO in Rotterdam, Netherlands. During January-April 1998 the government banned palm oil export due to limited supply of domestic palm oil product. In addition, the effective export tax rate fluctuated at the beginning of the policy implementation in 1997 and 1998. From October 2000 until June 2007, the effective export tax was relatively stable but in July 2007 the government increased the export tax tariff from 1.5 per cent to 6.5 per cent, causing the effective export tax to increase (Figures 2 and 3). In September 2007 the government issued another decree regarding the export tax tariff. Based on the decree, the export tax tariff was set to a reference price based on the international price of crude palm oil in Rotterdam. Because of the high international price of CPO, this decree was issued to secure the CPO for domestic consumption especially for making cooking oil. The decree was revised in February 2008 when the international price kept increasing. The price reached its peak in March 2008 and began to decline afterwards. With the sharp price decrease, the government again revised the regulation concerning the export tax tariff in October and December 2008 (Table 2). In the latest regulation, the minimum price when the export tax was implemented increased from US$550/ton to US$700/ton, causing the export tax in November to drop to 0. To sum up, the government implements export tax on palm oil products to guarantee the availability of CPO for producing cooking oil at an affordable price and to develop the downstream industry of palm oil. The calculation of export tax has changed twice during its implementation. The first export tax was measured using the difference of export price and base multiplied by a certain tariff. It was later changed based on the export tax tariff and check price. During the first few years, the export tax tariff was constant and the check price was determined on a monthly basis, although for several years the check price was constant. Recently, the export tax tariff fluctuates depending on the international price of CPO. ASEAN Economic Bulletin 176 Vol. 27, No. 2, August 2010 This content downloaded from 203.130.231.12 on Sat, 7 Jun 2014 06:51:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FIGURE 2 Effective Export Tax Rate of Crude Palm Oil (July 1997-December 2002) 70% 60% j-r
co lo <o oo 8 8 CM CM CM CM CM CM Years Source: Author's calculation. ASEAN Economic Bulletin 177 Vol. 27, No. 2, August 2010 This content downloaded from 203.130.231.12 on Sat, 7 Jun 2014 06:51:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TABLE 2 The Export Tax Tariff of CPO based on Decree of Ministry of Finance No. 159/PMK.0 11/2008 and No. 223/PMK.01 1/2008 Reference Price (US$1 ton) Export Tax Tariff (%) < 700 0 701 <P<750 1.5 751 < P < 800 3 801 < P < 850 4.5 851 < P < 900 6 901 < P < 950 7.5 951 <P< 1000 10 1001 < P < 1050 12.5 1051 <P< 1100 15 1101 <P< 1150 17.5 1151 <P< 1200 20 1201 < P < 1250 22.5 P > 1251 25 Source: Ministry of Finance, 2008. III. The Comparison of the Export Tax Policy between Indonesia and Malaysia The CPO export tax calculation in Malaysia is similar to the calculation used by the Indonesian government from September 1994 to June 1997. The formula is based on the difference between export price and base price which is fixed at RM650 (Table 3). Comparing the effective export tax between Indonesia and Malaysia, it can be inferred that during 1998 until June 1999, the Indonesian CPO effective export tax was higher than Malaysia's but after that period Malaysia's effective export tax was higher (Figure 4). This does not indicate that Indonesia's CPO export is more competitive than Malaysia's since one of the objectives of the Malaysian export tax was to encourage its palm oil processed industry to gain higher value addedness. IV. Empirical Analysis The export ratio equation investigates Indonesia's CPO export competitiveness compared with TABLE 3 Duty Rates on Export of Crude Palm Oil from Malaysia Price (RM/ton) Duty (%) First RM650 0 Next additional RM50 10 Next additional RM50 15 Next additional RM50 20 Next additional RM50 25 Plus on the balance 30 Source: Amiruddin (2003). Malaysia. The dependent and independent relative form comparing Indonesia against Malaysia is to incorporate the effects of competition between the two countries. By using the relative form, it can incorporate a third- country effect into the model which minimizes specification error arising from the fact that trade flows depend on cost of purchasing goods not ASEAN Economic Bulletin 178 Vol. 27, No. 2, August 2010 This content downloaded from 203.130.231.12 on Sat, 7 Jun 2014 06:51:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FIGURE 4 Malaysia and Indonesia's CPO Effective Export Tax (September 1994-December 2007) 70% 60% rr s u
50% * & 40%
1 I M g 30% 1 S 20% ~ V
^
['f , ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ </ / / Years
Malaysia Indonesia Source: Author's calculation. only from an exporting country but from other competitors (Jin and Koo 2003). Besides Jin and Koo (2003), Xing and Wan (2006) also use ratio variable as an dependent variable to explain the relation between FDI and exchange rate in Asian countries. The equation is written as follows: ( P / ' / ' v i 111 I / xi ' I , / v CPIi i 111 V I =ao+i-ln , p / 'AM V )t ' rM/ ' /C /CP! V /C /CP! riMjt ( ERl/ } /CP 1 1 + '-ln ER/ I /C"m), + a3 (TXj - TX M)t i f XRi 1 + a4.ln i - ' + t ' U rm) - ' + t ' where X : CPO export (ton) P : domestic price of CPO (rupiah or ringgit) ER : exchange rate (rupiah/US$ or ringgit/US$) TX : effective export tax (%) XR : refined palm oil export (ton) CPI : consumer price index (2000 = 100) subscript I indicates Indonesia, and M Malaysia. The dependent variable is the ratio between Indonesia's CPO export and Malaysia's CPO export. The equation investigates the com- petitiveness of Indonesia's CPO export compared with Malaysia's CPO export. The first independent variable is the real domestic price between the two countries which is the proxy of production cost. The coefficient is expected to be negative; it means that when the price ratio decreases the export ratio is predicted to increase. The second variable is real exchange rate. The coefficient is expected to be positive. When the ASEAN Economic Bulletin 179 Vol. 27, No. 2, August 2010 This content downloaded from 203.130.231.12 on Sat, 7 Jun 2014 06:51:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions rupiah depreciates relative to the ringgit, the price of CPO in the terms of rupiah will decrease, hence export ratio will increase. The next variable is refined palm oil ratio. The inclusion of the variable is to analyse the effect of the higher value-added palm oil product on CPO export. The coefficient is expected to be negative. It assumes that the two products are substitute products. It means that higher refined palm oil export will decrease export of CPO since it is utilized to produce refined palm oil. The last variable is the difference between the two countries' effective export tax. The effective export tax variable analyses the effect of both countries export tax policy to the export ratio. Starting from July 1997, the two countries implemented export tax policies with different methods of calculation. The coefficient is expected to be negative, which means that a smaller difference in effective export tax will increase Indonesia's export competitiveness to Malaysia. In determining the adequacy of the model, several tests are conducted. The Jacque-Bera statistic is utilized to test the normal distribution of the standardized residual or the normality test. If the residual is normally distributed than the Jacque-Bera stastic should not be significant. The Lagrange Multiplier (LM) test is conducted to detect serial correlation. The null hypothesis is that there is no serial correlation problem. Lastly, the Breusch-Pagan-Godfrey (BPG) is used to test for heteroscedasticity. The null hypothesis is that there is no heteroscedasticity. V. Data Sources The data used in constructing the export ratio equation is monthly data from January 2001 until December 2007, which is collected from various sources. CPO and refined palm oil export of Indonesia was compiled from Statistics Indonesia. Domestic price of CPO in Indonesia is taken from the Statistical Estate of Indonesia. Nominal exchange rate and consumer price index of Indonesia and Malaysia are from the International Financial Statistics (IFS) database of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Meanwhile, the data of Malaysia's palm oil came from the Malaysia Palm Oil Board (MPOB). The effective export tax is calculated by the author. VI. Estimation Result The result of the equation which explains Indonesia's competitiveness compared with Malaysia is reported in Table 4 which is calculated using ordinary least square (OLS) method. Two equations are constructed: the first is that all variables are in the same time frame (no lag variables); on the second equation the price ratio is in the lag form. The objective of incorporating the lag variable is to take into account the information lag of the price between the two countries. The diagnostic test on both equations show that the residual is normally distributed and there is no indication of serial correlation and hetero- scedasticity. In the first equation, the result indicates that all the variables are significant except for the price ratio. In addition, only refined palm oil export ratio sign is different from the hypothesis which is negative. The difference exists because there is an interaction between the two countries' palm oil industry. Malaysia is the fifth largest Indonesian CPO export destination in 2007 (UN COMTRADE 2008). Although Malaysia is the second largest producer of palm oil, the country also imported palm oil mainly in the form of CPO, especially from Indonesia. This is caused by three reasons: first, Indonesia is the largest producer of palm oil. Second, recently several Malaysian companies invested in Indonesia in the palm oil sector, such as opening palm oil estates and CPO refineries. In 2002, these companies planted almost 250,000 hectares of palm tree in Indonesia, which is about 5 per cent of the total area of palm trees (Teoh 2002). These companies export CPO to Malaysia in order to be processed into refined palm oil. Lastly, CPO imported from Indonesia2 is needed to supply the palm oil industry in Malaysia for producing several products of refined palm oil which is to be exported. In order to explain the positive coefficient of the refined palm oil ratio, the variable must be ASEAN Economic Bulletin 180 Vol. 27, No. 2, August 2010 This content downloaded from 203.130.231.12 on Sat, 7 Jun 2014 06:51:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TABLE 4 The Export Ratio Estimates Variables Equation 1 Equation 2 Constant -11.5155 -12.1926 (-2.9123***) (-3.0238***) Real Price Ratio -0.5147 (-1.3772) Real Price Ratio (-1) -0.7576 (-2.0955**) Real Exchange Rate Ratio 1.5971 1.7117 (3.2021***) (3.3858***) Effective Export Tax Diference -0.0971 -0.1022 (-5.2504***) (-5.2387***) Refined Palm Oil Export Ratio 0.6113 0.6482 (5.4604***) (5.7995***) R2 0.5174 0.5169 F-stat 21.1756 20.8601 Diagnostic test Jarque-Bera 0.5318 0.5246 LM x2 (1) 0.2429 0.2455 LM x2 (2) 0.3263 0.3473 LM x2 (3) 0.2637 0.3081 LM x2 (4) 0.3925 0.4025 BPG x2 0.5007 0.2892 Note: The number in the parenthesis is the t value. *** significant at 1 per cent. ** significant at 5 per cent. analysed. An increase in Indonesia's refined palm oil export will cause a decrease in CPO export including exports to Malaysia. Hence, Malaysia's CPO which is intended to be exported will be used to produce refined palm oil to replace the CPO import from Indonesia. As a result, Malaysia's CPO export will decrease. Therefore, when the refined palm oil export ratio increases, caused by an increase in Indonesia's refined palm oil export and decrease in Malaysia's refined palm oil export, it is predicted to increase the CPO export ratio. This is caused by the decrease in Malaysia's CPO export which is larger than the decrease in CPO export of Indonesia. A 1 per cent depreciation of the rupiah com- pared to the ringgit is predicted to increase export ratio by 1.5971 per cent. Depreciation in the rupiah will make CPO from Indonesia cheaper which creates more incentive for producers to export their CPO. Jin and Koo (2003) also reveal that exchange rate is one of the important factors in determining the U.S. market share of wheat in East Asia. The focus of this paper is on the effective export tax variable. The implementation of export tax will decrease the domestic price, while increasing the export price. Figure 5 illustrates the effect of export tax at a rate of t. The domestic price of export falls to ph reducing the sum of ASEAN Economic Bulletin 181 Vol. 27, No. 2, August 2010 This content downloaded from 203.130.231.12 on Sat, 7 Jun 2014 06:51:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FIGURE 5 The Imposition of Export Tax Price
' y s 'A p;=pt+t
v pF 'Byf' j | ' D !
i
i
2 - '
xt XF Quantity of exports source: Helpman and Krugman (1959). consumer and producer surplus by the area of pFDCpt. However, the tax yields revenue equal to after tax volume multiplied by the tax rate or the area of p*tACpt. The loss of tax is equal to the area of BCD, while a terms of trade gain equal to the area of p*tABpF (Helpman and Krugman 1989). The econometric result reveals that a 1 per cent increase in the effective export tax difference is predicted to decrease the CPO export ratio by 0.0971 per cent. Therefore an increase in Indonesia's effective export tax relative to Malaysia will decrease Indonesia's CPO export assuming a constant Malaysia's CPO export. After July 1997, the export tax calculation was different between the two countries. Indonesia relied on the figure determined by the government; meanwhile Malaysia's calculation depended on the FOB price of CPO which is determined by the market. Hence, when Indonesia's government increased either check price or the export tax rate, it will decrease the competitiveness of CPO export compared to Malaysia. This findings support the result of Hasan, Reed, and Marchant (2001) which showed that the imposition of export tax has long-lasting, negative effects on the competitiveness of the Indonesian palm oil industry. On the other hand, this finding indicates that the export tax policy has been able to meet one of its objectives, which is to limit CPO export in order to supply to domestic refined palm oil industry. As argued by Susila (2004) the policy has been an effective instrument to control domestic CPO and the price of cooking oil. The second equation employs a one month lag of price ratio. The result indicates that the price ratio becomes significant at 5 per cent level. This shows that the export ratio is influenced by the one month lag of price ratio instead of the price ratio in the same month. The other variables have relatively the same coefficient with the first equation. Comparing with other coefficients of the independent variables, the effect of export tax is relatively small. On the other hand, only the export tax variable is under the control of the government. Therefore, the government can determine its level such as in the case when the international price decreases, the government can set the export tax to 0 per cent. ASEAN Economic Bulletin 182 Vol. 27, No. 2, August 2010 This content downloaded from 203.130.231.12 on Sat, 7 Jun 2014 06:51:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The implementation of export tax has conflicting results. By imposing export tax, CPO export will decrease but, on the other hand, the government needs to control the availability of domestic CPO to be processed into cooking oil and to keep the price affordable. Therefore, the government must correctly determine the magnitude of the export tax which at least minimizes the negative effect of both objectives. The imposing of export tax tariff based on the international price is a proper policy to protect the cooking oil consumer and also to support farmers and exporters. VII. Conclusion Export tax policy has been imposed since 1994 and the calculation was changed in 1997. In September 2007, coping with the high international price of CPO, the government set the export tax tariff according to the international price of CPO. By imposing the export tax policy, the Indonesia's CPO export competitiveness will decrease. The decrease of the export competitiveness has positive and negative impacts. The policy will hurt the palm oil industry since it causes exports to decrease. Meanwhile, the positive impact is that the decrease in competitiveness will hopefully encourage the CPO producer to sell the product domestically in order to process it into refined palm oil which has greater value added than CPO. This will make it more profitable to export the product in the form of refined palm oil. NOTES The author wishes to thank Professor Masayoshi Honma (University of Tokyo), Professor Yuqing Xing (National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies) and Dr Jayant Menon (Asian Development Bank) for providing useful comments and suggestions. 1. From the period of September 1994-June 1997, effective export tax is calculated as follows: f(FOB-BP)*TR' I J where FOB is the FOB CPO price, BP is the base price and TR is the CPO tax rate. Meanwhile the second method which is implemented from July 1997 is calculated as follows: where CP is the check price and P is the international price of CPO. 2. From 1990 to 2007, in average 83.24 per cent of Malaysia's CPO import came from Indonesia. REFERENCES Amiruddin, Mohd Nasir. "Palm Oil Products Exports, Prices and Export Duties: Malaysia and Indonesia Compared". Oil Palm Industry Economic Journal 3, no. 2 (2003): 21-31. Capricorn Indonesia Consult (CIC) Inc. Studi Tentang Industri dan Perkebunan Kelapa Sawit Indonesia, 2003. [The Study of Indonesia's Palm Tree Estate, 1997]. Indonesia: Capricorn Indonesia Consult, 2004. Casson, Anne. "The Hesitant Boom: Indonesia's Oil Palm Sub-Sector in An Era of Economic Crisis and Political ASEAN Economic Bulletin 183 Vol. 27, No. 2, August 2010 This content downloaded from 203.130.231.12 on Sat, 7 Jun 2014 06:51:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Change". Program on the Underlying Causes of Deforestation, Bogor Indonesia, Centre for International Forestry Research, 1999. Decrees of Ministry of Finance, Republic of Indonesia. (Various Decrees and years.) Decrees of Ministry of Trade and Industry, Republic of Indonesia. (Various Decrees and years.) Department of Agriculture. "Tree Crop Estates Statistic of Indonesia 2003-2005: Oil Palm". Department of Agriculture, Indonesia, 2006. Djauhari, Achmad and Sahat M. Pasaribu. "Produksi dan Pemasaran Minyak Kelapa Sawit". [Palm Oil Production and Marketing]. In Ekonomi Minyak Goreng Indonesia [The Economy of Indonesia's Cooking Oil], edited by Beddu Amang, Pantjar Simatupang and Anas Rachman. Indonesia: IPB Press, 1996. Hasan, Mohamad F., Michael R. Reed, and Mary A. Marchant. "Effects of an Export Tax on Competitiveness: The Case of the Indonesian Palm Oil Industry". Journal of Economic Development 26, no. 2 (2001): 77-90. Helpman, Elhanan and Paul R. Krugman. Trade Policy and Market Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. 1989. International Monetary Fund (IMF). International Financial Statistics (IFS) CD-ROM. Jin, Hyun J. and Won W. Koo. "Analysis of U.S. Wheat Market Shares in East Asia". Agribusiness & Applied Economics Report No. 524. Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics, North Dakota State University, Fargo, 2003. Larson, Donald F. "Indonesia's Palm Oil Subsector". Policy Research Working Paper No. 1654. World Bank, Washington, D.C., 1996. Malaysia Palm Oil Board (MPOB). Available from <http://www.mpob.eov.my/mpobene.html>. Accessed May 2008. Marks, Stephen V., Donald F. Larson, and Jacqueline Pomeroy. "Economic Effects of Taxes on Exports of Palm Oil Products". Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 42, no. 3 (1998): 7-58. Mohammad, H.A., Mohd Fauzi M.J., and Ramli A. "Interactions between Malaysian and Indonesian Palm Oil Industries: Simulating The Impact of Liberalization of Imports of CPO from Indonesia". Journal of Oil Palm Research 11, no. 2 (1999): 46-56. Pahan, Iyung. Kelapa Sawit: Manajemen Agribisnis dari Hulu hingga Hilir [Palm Tree: Agribusiness Management from Upstream to Downstream]. Jakarta: Penerbit Swadaya, 2008. Putri, Eka Intan K., Sri Hartoyo, Heny K. Daryanto, Amzul Rifin, and Widyastutik. Kebijakan Pungutan Ekspor Crude Palm Oil [Crude Palm Oil Export Tax Policy]. Research Report, Collaboration between Bogor Agricultural University and Ministry of Finance, Indonesia, 2006. Soetrisno, Lukman and Retno Winahyu. Kelapa Sawit: Kajian Sosial Ekonomi [Palm Tree: A Social Economic Analysis]. Yogyakarta: Aditya Media, 1991. Susila, Wayan R. "Impacts of CPO-Export Tax on Several Aspects of Indonesian CPO Industry". Oil Palm Industry Economic Journal 4, no. 2 (2004): 1-13. Teoh, Cheng Hai. The Palm Oil Industry in Malaysia: From Seed to Frying Pan. Switzerland: World Wildlife Fund, 2002. United Nations. Commodity Trade Statistics Database (COMTRADE). Available from <http://unstats.un.org/unsd/ comtrade>. Accessed July 2008. United States Department of Agriculture. "Commodities and Product". Available from <http://www.fas.usda.gov/ commodities.aspx Accessed July 2008. Xing, Yuqing and Guanghua Wan. "Exchange Rates and Competition for FDI in Asia". World Economy 29, no. 4 (2006): 419-34. Amzul Rifin is Graduate Student at the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Graduate School of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Tokyo; and Lecturer at the Department of Agriculture, Faculty of Economics and Management, Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia. ASEAN Economic Bulletin 184 Vol. 27, No. 2, August 2010 This content downloaded from 203.130.231.12 on Sat, 7 Jun 2014 06:51:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions