## _wp09128 - conclusions.

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [_wp09128 - conclusions.](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/_wp09128.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/_wp09128.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/_wp09128.pdf.json)

---

### II. Cross-Country Comparisons of Macroeconomic Performance
- Historical performance (1970s through mid-1980s)
  - HIPC completion point countries: nearly no growth in real GDP per capita; persistently high inflation; large fiscal and external deficits; gross international reserves barely covered 3 months of import bills.
  - Until late 1980s, HIPC completion point countries consistently experienced the lowest real GDP growth, highest inflation, largest fiscal deficits, and biggest external current account deficits relative to other HIPC countries and other non-HIPC low-income countries.
  - External debt stock of HIPCs increased significantly during this period.

- Improvement since late 1980s and early 2000s
  - Medium real GDP growth accelerated to above 5 percent per annum in early 2000s.
  - Annual real GDP per capita growth turned from negative to 3 percent.
  - Inflation decelerated from 15 percent in early 1990s to 7 percent by 2006.
  - Fiscal deficit narrowed and gross international reserves rose to 5 months of imports on average.
  - HIPC completion point countries improved faster than other HIPC countries on many indicators; however, external current account deficits remained larger than comparator groups, partly explained by greater aggregate net transfers.

- Resource flows and current account balances
  - Aggregate net transfers (1986-2006) defined as loan disbursements net of amortization and interest payments, FDI net of profit outflows, portfolio equity inflows, and official grants.
  - Since mid-1980s, HIPC completion point countries saw increasing resource inflows relative to other low-income countries, producing a rising share in total resource inflows to HIPC completion point countries until 2002.
  - Widening current account deficits of HIPC completion point countries can be partly attributed to increased resource flows.

- Pre- and post-completion point comparison (time=0 = year of completion point)
  - Average of six macroeconomic indicators for three years before and after completion point shows:
    - Faster real GDP per capita growth after completion point.
    - Lower inflation and fiscal deficits after completion point.
    - More adequate international reserves after completion point.
    - External current account balances deteriorated after completion point, reflecting increased resource inflows.

### III. Structural Differences Among HIPC Completion Point Countries

#### A. Export Diversification
- Measurement and classification
  - Export diversification measured by Herfindahl Index (HI): HI = sum of squared share of each particular export; HI ranges from zero to one.
  - Low HI = more diversified export base.
  - HI thresholds for degree of export diversification:
    - 0<HI<0.05: Highly diversified
    - 0.05<HI<0.1: Less diversified
    - 0.1<HI<0.4: More specialized
    - 0.4<HI<1: Highly specialized

- Findings
  - Limited improvement in export diversification in HIPC completion point countries since 1990s.
  - Majority of HIPC completion point countries still classified as “more specialized”; none classified as “highly diversified”.
  - Only three HIPC completion point countries moved up in classification since 1990s:
    - Ethiopia: moved from “highly specialized” to “more specialized” by expanding new manufactured goods beyond coffee.
    - Malawi: moved from “highly specialized” to “more specialized” due to a more even distribution of export shares.
    - Uganda: jumped from “high specialized” to “less diversified”; by 2006 telecommunication apparatus accounted for about seven percent of total exports; petroleum products became an important export source.
  - Table 4 group finding: top one commodity export often accounts for more than half of total exports across low-income countries; HIPC completion point countries have a slightly higher average HI index (implying a less diversified export base) than the other two groups.
  - Sample top-one commodity shares for HIPC completion point countries (selected):
    - Benin: Cotton 59.5
    - Bolivia: Natural Gas 40.7
    - Burkina Faso: Cotton 71.8
    - Cameroon: Petroleum 49.8
    - Ethiopia: Coffee 43.5
    - Malawi: Tobacco 61.4
    - Mozambique: Aluminium 58.9
    - Nicaragua: Coffee 28.9
    - Sao Tomé and Príncipe: Cocoa 87.6
    - Zambia: Copper 69.2
    - Average (sample): 49.6
  - Other group averages:
    - Other HIPCs Average: 45.5
    - Other PRGFs Average: 48.6

- Conclusion
  - Most HIPC completion point countries remain weak in export diversification and vulnerable to terms of trade shocks; reliance on a few agricultural products or commodities (e.g., gold, petroleum products) limits ability to cope with external shocks.
  - Diversification of exports remains a key challenge.

#### B. Fiscal Revenue Mobilization
- Indicator
  - Central government revenue-to-GDP ratio used to measure fiscal revenue mobilization.

- Group trends
  - HIPC completion point countries improved from 15¾ percent of GDP in 1992 to 20 percent in 2006.
  - By 2006, average revenue-to-GDP ratio of HIPC completion point countries was about 20 percent, only 2 percentage points higher than other HIPC countries, and far below the average of non-HIPC low-income countries.
  - Performance does not particularly stand out relative to other low-income groups.

- Country variation (2006 and sample series)
  - Revenue-to-GDP ratios ranged from a minimum of 11 percent of GDP to a maximum of 38 percent of GDP.
  - Selected country series (1992–2006, in percent):
    - Benin: 1992 12.3, 1993 13.2, 1994 12.8, 1995 14.9, 1996 15.1, 1997 14.5, 1998 15.3, 1999 16.0, 2000 16.6, 2001 16.2, 2002 16.3, 2003 17.0, 2004 16.4, 2005 16.5, 2006 16.8.
    - Bolivia: 1992 15.3, 1993 16.2, 1994 16.7, 1995 16.6, 1996 17.5, 1997 17.0, 1998 17.7, 1999 17.9, 2000 18.0, 2001 17.4, 2002 17.0, 2003 21.2, 2004 24.3, 2005 29.1, 2006 33.3.
    - Ethiopia: 1992 10.6, 1993 12.0, 1994 13.9, 1995 17.8, 1996 18.4, 1997 18.2, 1998 18.1, 1999 18.2, 2000 18.3, 2001 18.8, 2002 20.1, 2003 17.0, 2004 15.8, 2005 16.9, 2006 17.3.
    - Guyana: 1992 37.8, 1993 38.2, 1994 32.0, 1995 33.5, 1996 34.6, 1997 31.9, 1998 30.6, 1999 29.9, 2000 31.8, 2001 31.3, 2002 32.4, 2003 35.0, 2004 37.5, 2005 38.3, 2006 38.3.
    - Uganda: 1992 6.9, 1993 7.4, 1994 8.5, 1995 10.0, 1996 10.5, 1997 11.2, 1998 10.7, 1999 11.7, 2000 11.4, 2001 10.9, 2002 12.3, 2003 12.7, 2004 12.8, 2005 13.2, 2006 13.1.
  - Memo averages (across listed countries by year, in percent):
    - 1992 15.8, 1993 15.8, 1994 14.4, 1995 15.3, 1996 15.8, 1997 16.0, 1998 16.4, 1999 16.2, 2000 16.8, 2001 16.6, 2002 17.7, 2003 18.1, 2004 18.6, 2005 18.9, 2006 19.8.
  - Memo maxima and minima by year (sample, in percent):
    - Maximum by year (sample): 1992 37.8, 1993 38.2, 1994 32.0, 1995 33.5, 1996 34.6, 1997 31.9, 1998 30.6, 1999 29.9, 2000 31.8, 2001 31.3, 2002 37.2, 2003 35.0, 2004 37.5, 2005 38.3, 2006 38.3.
    - Minimum by year (sample): 1992 6.9, 1993 7.3, 1994 3.7, 1995 6.9, 1996 7.8, 1997 8.4, 1998 7.3, 1999 7.1, 2000 8.6, 2001 9.3, 2002 8.0, 2003 10.3, 2004 11.2, 2005 10.5, 2006 11.2.

- Notes
  - Improvement in revenue collection does not necessarily reduce external financing needs, which depend on expenditure policies; general government balances show deterioration in HIPC completion point countries reflecting increasing external financing needs.

#### C. Governance
- Measures used
  - World Bank’s Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA): 16 indicators across four categories, scores from one (lowest) to six (highest); average annual country ratings from 1996 to 2006 included.
  - KKM composite governance measure (Kaufmann, Kraay, and Mastruzzi 2008): six areas—voice and accountability, political stability, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, control of corruption; point estimates normally between -2.5 and 2.5, world average zero.

- Findings
  - CPIA: completion point and non-HIPC PRGF countries enjoy better policy and institutional frameworks than other HIPC countries for all years in the sample; no discernable trend and rankings remained relatively stable since 1996.
  - KKM: completion point and other non-HIPC PRGF countries have the highest median indicators, other HIPCs the lowest in all six categories from 1996 to 2006.
  - Average KKM governance indicators are zero by construction; negative governance indicators of completion point countries in all six areas point to relatively poor institutional frameworks compared to many other countries.

### IV. Concluding Remarks — Key Conclusions and Policy Implications
- Progress and remaining vulnerabilities
  - Many HIPC completion point countries have made progress since the 1970s and 1980s: lower inflation, higher growth, and significantly improved external positions.
  - Despite macroeconomic improvement and debt relief, HIPC completion point countries remain vulnerable to external shocks due to:
    - (i) narrow export bases,
    - (ii) uneven fiscal revenue mobilization, and
    - (iii) policy and institutional frameworks still below world average.

- Financing needs and sustainability
  - Completion point countries will continue to face large financing needs for development.
  - Balancing development financing needs against maintaining long-term debt sustainability requires:
    - Continued structural reforms.
    - Timely donor support.
    - Close monitoring of the mix between debt and grant financing.

*Source: _wp09128 - conclusions.*

### conclusions.

### _wp09128 - conclusions.

### II. Cross-Country Comparisons of Macroeconomic Performance
- Historical performance (1970s through mid-1980s)
  - HIPC completion point countries: nearly no growth in real GDP per capita; persistently high inflation; large fiscal and external deficits; gross international reserves barely covered 3 months of import bills.
  - Until late 1980s, HIPC completion point countries consistently experienced the lowest real GDP growth, highest inflation, largest fiscal deficits, and biggest external current account deficits relative to other HIPC countries and other non-HIPC low-income countries.
  - External debt stock of HIPCs increased significantly during this period.

- Improvement since late 1980s and early 2000s
  - Medium real GDP growth accelerated to above 5 percent per annum in early 2000s.
  - Annual real GDP per capita growth turned from negative to 3 percent.
  - Inflation decelerated from 15 percent in early 1990s to 7 percent by 2006.
  - Fiscal deficit narrowed and gross international reserves rose to 5 months of imports on average.
  - HIPC completion point countries improved faster than other HIPC countries on many indicators; however, external current account deficits remained larger than comparator groups, partly explained by greater aggregate net transfers.

- Resource flows and current account balances
  - Aggregate net transfers (1986-2006) defined as loan disbursements net of amortization and interest payments, FDI net of profit outflows, portfolio equity inflows, and official grants.
  - Since mid-1980s, HIPC completion point countries saw increasing resource inflows relative to other low-income countries, producing a rising share in total resource inflows to HIPC completion point countries until 2002.
  - Widening current account deficits of HIPC completion point countries can be partly attributed to increased resource flows.

- Pre- and post-completion point comparison (time=0 = year of completion point)
  - Average of six macroeconomic indicators for three years before and after completion point shows:
    - Faster real GDP per capita growth after completion point.
    - Lower inflation and fiscal deficits after completion point.
    - More adequate international reserves after completion point.
    - External current account balances deteriorated after completion point, reflecting increased resource inflows.

### III. Structural Differences Among HIPC Completion Point Countries

A. Export Diversification
- Measurement and classification
  - Export diversification measured by Herfindahl Index (HI): HI = sum of squared share of each particular export; HI ranges from zero to one.
  - Low HI = more diversified export base.
- Findings
  - Limited improvement in export diversification in HIPC completion point countries since 1990s.
  - Majority of HIPC completion point countries still classified as “more specialized”; none classified as “highly diversified”.
  - Three non-HIPC PRGF countries achieved a “highly diversified” export base (group-level note).
  - Only three HIPC completion point countries moved up in classification since 1990s:
    - Ethiopia: moved from “highly specialized” to “more specialized” by expanding new manufactured goods beyond coffee.
    - Malawi: moved from “highly specialized” to “more specialized” due to a more even distribution of export shares.
    - Uganda: jumped from “high specialized” to “less diversified”; by 2006 telecommunication apparatus accounted for about seven percent of total exports; petroleum products became an important export source.
  - Table 4 (group summary): top one commodity export often accounts for more than half of total exports across low-income countries; HIPC completion point countries have a slightly higher average HI index (implying a less diversified export base) than the other two groups.
- Conclusion
  - Most HIPC completion point countries remain weak in export diversification and vulnerable to terms of trade shocks; reliance on a few agricultural products or commodities (e.g., gold, petroleum products) limits ability to cope with external shocks.
  - Diversification of exports remains a key challenge.

B. Fiscal Revenue Mobilization
- Indicator
  - Central government revenue-to-GDP ratio used to measure fiscal revenue mobilization.
- Group trends
  - HIPC completion point countries improved from 15¾ percent of GDP in 1992 to 20 percent in 2006.
  - By 2006, average revenue-to-GDP ratio of HIPC completion point countries was about 20 percent, only 2 percentage points higher than other HIPC countries, and far below the average of non-HIPC low-income countries.
  - Performance does not particularly stand out relative to other low-income groups.
- Country variation (2006)
  - Revenue-to-GDP ratios ranged from a minimum of 11 percent of GDP to a maximum of 38 percent of GDP.
  - Bolivia: more-than-doubled ratio during the period, attributed to tax administration reforms and increased hydrocarbon-based revenue in the early 2000s.
  - Other notable increases: Ethiopia, Ghana, Mauritania, Sao Tomé and Príncipe, and Uganda.
  - Declines observed in The Gambia, Mozambique, and Zambia.
- Note
  - Improvement in revenue collection does not necessarily reduce external financing needs, which depend on expenditure policies; general government balances in Figure 2 show deterioration in HIPC completion point countries reflecting increasing external financing needs.

C. Governance
- Measures used
  - World Bank’s Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA): 16 indicators across four categories, scores from one (lowest) to six (highest); average annual country ratings from 1996 to 2006 included.
  - KKM composite governance measure (Kaufmann, Kraay, and Mastruzzi 2008): six areas—voice and accountability, political stability, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, control of corruption; point estimates normally between -2.5 and 2.5, world average zero.
- Findings
  - CPIA: completion point and non-HIPC PRGF countries enjoy better policy and institutional frameworks than other HIPC countries for all years in the sample; no discernable trend and rankings remained relatively stable since 1996.
  - KKM: completion point and other non-HIPC PRGF countries have the highest median indicators, other HIPCs the lowest in all six categories from 1996 to 2006.
  - Average KKM governance indicators are zero by construction; negative governance indicators of completion point countries in all six areas point to relatively poor institutional frameworks compared to many other countries.

### IV. Concluding Remarks — Key Conclusions and Policy Implications
- Progress and remaining vulnerabilities
  - Many HIPC completion point countries have made progress since the 1970s and 1980s: lower inflation, higher growth, and significantly improved external positions.
  - Despite macroeconomic improvement and debt relief, HIPC completion point countries remain vulnerable to external shocks due to:
    - (i) narrow export bases,
    - (ii) uneven fiscal revenue mobilization, and
    - (iii) policy and institutional frameworks still below world average.
- Financing needs and sustainability
  - Completion point countries will continue to face large financing needs for development.
  - Balancing development financing needs against maintaining long-term debt sustainability requires:
    - Continued structural reforms.
    - Timely donor support.
    - Close monitoring of the mix between debt and grant financing.

*Source: _wp09128 - conclusions.*

### REFERENCES

### REFERENCES

### References cited
- Abrego, Lisandro, and Doris Ross, 2001, “Debt Relief Under the HIPC Initiative: Context and Outlook for Debt Sustainability and Resource Flow,” IMF Working Paper 01/144.
- Arslanalp, Serkan, and Peter Blair Henry, 2005, “Is Debt Relief Efficient?” The Journal of Finance, Vol. LX, No. 2, pp. 1017–51.
- Arslanalp, Serkan, and Peter Blair Henry, 2006, “Policy Watch, Debt Relief,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 20, No.1, pp. 207–20.
- Beddies, Christian, Marie-Helene Le Manchec, Doerte Doemeland, and Henry Mooney, 2008, “Debt Sustainability in Low-Income Countries - Recent Experience and Challenges Ahead”, Background paper for “Debt Relief and Beyond: A World Bank Conference on Debt and Development,”.
- Brooks, Ray, Mariano Cortes, Francesca Fornasari, Benoit Ketchekmen, Ydahlia Metzgen, Robert Powell, Saqib Rizavi, Doris Ross, and Kevin Ross, 1998, “External Debt Histories of Ten Low-Income Countries: Lessons from Their Experience,” IMF Working Paper 98/72.
- Cashin, Paul, Luis Cespedes, and Ratna Sahay, 2002, “Keynes, Cocoa, and Copper: In Search of Commodity Currencies,” IMF Working Paper 02/223.
- International Monetary Fund, 1999, “Modifications to the Heavily Indebted Poor Country Initiative”.
- International Monetary Fund, 2002a, “External Debt Management in Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs)”.
- International Monetary Fund, 2002b, “The Enhanced HIPC Initiative and the Achievement of Long-Term External Debt Sustainability,” SM/02/95.
- International Monetary Fund, 2004a, “ Debt-Sustainability in Low-Income Countries― Proposal for an Operational Framework and Policy Implications,” SM/04/27 .
- International Monetary Fund, 2004b, “Initiative for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries― Statistical Update,” SM/04/109.
- International Monetary Fund, 2006a, “Initiative for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries—Issues Related to the Sunset Clause,” SM/06/288.
- International Monetary Fund, 2006b, “HIPC Initiative List of Ring-Fenced Countries that Meet the Income and Indebtedness Criteria at end-2004.”
- International Monetary Fund, 2007, “Initiative for HIPC and Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI) ― Status of Implementation,” SM/07/310.
- Kaufmann, Daniel, Kraay, Aart, and Massimo Mastruzzi (2008), “Governance Matters VII: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators, 1996-2007,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4645.
- Kraay, Aart and Vikram Nehru, 2006, “When is External Debt Sustainable?”, The World Bank Economic Review, 20(3):341-365.
- Pattillo, Catherine, Helene Poirson, and Luca Ricci, 2002, “External Debt and Growth,” IMF Working Paper 02/69.
- Powell, Robert, 2003, “Debt Relief, Additionality and Aid Allocation in Low-Income Countries,” IMF Working Paper 03/175.
- Sun, Yan, 2004, “External Debt Sustainability in HIPC Completion Point Countries,” IMF Working Paper 04/160.

### Figures (captions and metrics)
- Figure 1: Macroeconomic Stability and Growth in PRGF Countries by Country Groupings
  - Real GDP Growth (in percent): series across periods 71-75, 76-80, 81-85, 86-90, 91-95, 96-00, 01-06 for Completion HIPCs, other HIPCs, Other PRGF.
  - Real GDP per capita (annual growth): same periods and groupings.
  - Inflation (in percent): 0.0 through 20.0 scale across same periods and groupings.
  - General Government Balance (In percent of GDP, including grants): scale -9.0 through -1.0 across same periods and groupings.
  - Current Account Balance (in percent of GDP): scale -11.0 through -1.0 across same periods and groupings.
  - Gross Int'l Reserves (in months of imports): scale 0.0 through 6.0 across same periods and groupings.
  - Data source: various IMF statistics.
- Figure 2a: Aggregate Net Transfers by Country Groupings (In millions of U.S. dollars)
  - Time series points: 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 for CP countries, Other HIPCs, Other PRGF, Total.
- Figure 2b: Aggregate Net Transfers by Country Groupings (in percent) — Share of Aggregate Net Transfers (in percent)
  - 0% to 100% scale across years 1986–2004 for CP countries, Other HIPCs, Other PRGF.
  - Data source: World Bank Global Development Finance.
- Figure 3: Macroeconomic Stability and Growth in HIPC Completion Point Countries
  - Panels for Real GDP Growth (in percent), Real GDP per Capita Growth (annual growth), Inflation (in percent), Government General Balance (in percent of GDP, excluding grants), Gross International Reserves (in months of imports), Current Account Balance (in percent of GDP).
  - Time points labeled -3 -2 -1 0 (CP) 1 2 3 in charts.
  - Data source: various IMF statistics.
- Figure 4: Revenue-to-GDP Ratio by Country Groupings (in percent)
  - Revenue to GDP ratio (in percent) scale 10 through 30 across years 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 for CP countries, HIPC rest, Other PRGF.
  - Data source: various IMF statistics.
- Figure 5: Average CPIA Index for PRGF Countries
  - Average CPIA Index scale 2 through 4 across years 1997–2007 for CP HIPCs, Other HIPCs, Other PRGF.
- Figure 6: KKM Governance Indicators for PRGF Countries
  - Source: Kaufman, Kraay and Mastruzzi (2008).
  - Panels for Voice and accountability (scale -1.50 to 0.00), Political stability (scale -2.00 to 0.00), Government effectiveness (scale -1.50 to 0.00), Regulatory quality (scale -1.50 to 0.00), Rule of law (scale -1.50 to 0.00), Control of corruption (scale -1.50 to 0.00).
  - Series across years 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 for Completion point countries, Other HIPCs, Other PRGF countries.

### Tables (captions and key entries)
- Table 1: Country Groupings (Status as of end-September 2008)
  - HIPC Completion Point Countries (23): Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Sao Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia.
  - Other HIPCs (18): Afghanistan, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoro, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Eritrea, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kyrgyz Republic, Liberia, Nepal, Somalia, Sudan, Togo.
  - Non-HIPC PRGF Countries (36): Albania, Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Djibouti, Dominica, Georgia, Grenada, India, Kenya, Kiribati, Lao, P.D.R., Lesotho, Maldives, Moldova, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Tajikistan, Timor Leste, Tonga, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Republic of Yemen.
- Table 2: HI Thresholds for a Country’s Degree of Export Diversification
  - 0<HI<0.05                                     Highly                                     diversified
  - 0.05<HI<0.1                                     Less                                     diversified
  - 0.1<HI<0.4                                     More                                     specialized
  - 0.4<HI<1                                     Highly                                     specialized
- Table 3: Export Diversification by Country Groupings (Early 1990s / Mid 2000s)
  - HIPC CP countries (Total 20 / 20):
    - Highly Specialized: 8 (40) / 5 (25)
    - More Specialized: 12 (60) / 14 (70)
    - Less Diversified: - (-) / 1 (5)
    - Highly Diversified: - (-) / - (-)
  - Other HIPCs (Total 13 / 13):
    - Highly Specialized: 3 (23) / 4 (31)
    - More Specialized: 9 (69) / 7 (54)
    - Less Diversified: 1 (8) / 2 (15)
    - Highly Diversified: - (-) / - (-)
  - Other PRGFs (Total 20 / 20):
    - Highly Specialized: 3 (15) / 3 (15)
    - More Specialized: 13 (65) / 13 (65)
    - Less Diversified: 1 (5) / 1 (5)
    - Highly Diversified: 3 (15) / 3 (15)
  - Data source: UN ComTrade statistics.
- Table 4: Share of Top One Commodity Export in Total Export by Country Groupings (Top 1 Commodity Export Share in Total Export (in percent))
  - HIPC CP Countries sample entries and Top 1 Commodity Share:
    - Benin: Cotton 59.5
    - Bolivia: Natural Gas 40.7
    - Burkina Faso: Cotton 71.8
    - Cameroon: Petroleum 49.8
    - Ethiopia: Coffee 43.5
    - Ghana: Cocoa 49.9
    - Guyana: Sugar 28.6
    - Hondurus: Coffee 28.2
    - Madagascar: Clothing 25.2
    - Malawi: Tobacco 61.4
    - Mali: Cotton 73.4
    - Mozambique: Aluminium 58.9
    - Nicaragua: Coffee 28.9
    - Niger: Ores 53.8
    - Rwanda: Coffee 27.5
    - Sao Tomé and Príncipe: Cocoa 87.6
    - Senegal: Petroleum 24.9
    - Sierra Leone: Coffee 86.5
    - Uganda: Coffee 22.6
    - Zambia: Copper 69.2
    - Average: 49.6
  - Other HIPCs sample Average: 45.5
  - Other PRGFs sample entries and Average: 48.6
  - Notes:
    - Data point varies from 2000 to 2006 depending on availability.
    - Petroleum includes various products related to petroleum.
  - Data source: UN ComTrade statistics.
- Table 5: Revenue-to-GDP Ratio in HIPC Completion Point Countries, 1992-2006 (in percent)
  - Country-level annual series for 1992 through 2006 for 23 HIPC Completion Point Countries (full table entries for each country as listed; sample highlights below preserve exact values):
    - Benin: 1992 12.3, 1993 13.2, 1994 12.8, 1995 14.9, 1996 15.1, 1997 14.5, 1998 15.3, 1999 16.0, 2000 16.6, 2001 16.2, 2002 16.3, 2003 17.0, 2004 16.4, 2005 16.5, 2006 16.8.
    - Bolivia: 1992 15.3, 1993 16.2, 1994 16.7, 1995 16.6, 1996 17.5, 1997 17.0, 1998 17.7, 1999 17.9, 2000 18.0, 2001 17.4, 2002 17.0, 2003 21.2, 2004 24.3, 2005 29.1, 2006 33.3.
    - Ethiopia: 1992 10.6, 1993 12.0, 1994 13.9, 1995 17.8, 1996 18.4, 1997 18.2, 1998 18.1, 1999 18.2, 2000 18.3, 2001 18.8, 2002 20.1, 2003 17.0, 2004 15.8, 2005 16.9, 2006 17.3.
    - Guyana: 1992 37.8, 1993 38.2, 1994 32.0, 1995 33.5, 1996 34.6, 1997 31.9, 1998 30.6, 1999 29.9, 2000 31.8, 2001 31.3, 2002 32.4, 2003 35.0, 2004 37.5, 2005 38.3, 2006 38.3.
    - Uganda: 1992 6.9, 1993 7.4, 1994 8.5, 1995 10.0, 1996 10.5, 1997 11.2, 1998 10.7, 1999 11.7, 2000 11.4, 2001 10.9, 2002 12.3, 2003 12.7, 2004 12.8, 2005 13.2, 2006 13.1.
  - Memo:
    - Average (across listed countries by year): 1992 15.8, 1993 15.8, 1994 14.4, 1995 15.3, 1996 15.8, 1997 16.0, 1998 16.4, 1999 16.2, 2000 16.8, 2001 16.6, 2002 17.7, 2003 18.1, 2004 18.6, 2005 18.9, 2006 19.8.
    - Maximum by year (sample): 1992 37.8, 1993 38.2, 1994 32.0, 1995 33.5, 1996 34.6, 1997 31.9, 1998 30.6, 1999 29.9, 2000 31.8, 2001 31.3, 2002 37.2, 2003 35.0, 2004 37.5, 2005 38.3, 2006 38.3.
    - Minimum by year (sample): 1992 6.9, 1993 7.3, 1994 3.7, 1995 6.9, 1996 7.8, 1997 8.4, 1998 7.3, 1999 7.1, 2000 8.6, 2001 9.3, 2002 8.0, 2003 10.3, 2004 11.2, 2005 10.5, 2006 11.2.

*Content unit: _wp09128 - REFERENCES*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/_wp09128.pdf_