PART THREE

Notes and Documentation

Key to the Citations

Each source cited in the documentation in Part Three and in the appendices in Part Four is identified by a code consisting of one or more capital letters plus a number, which identify the full reference listed in the Bibliography at the end of the book. The letters indicate the source according to three classifications: Western government publications, international organizations, or country of publication.

A. Constructing the Record

Origin-Destination of Total Trade (Series I)

Standardization

Series I records the origin of total imports and destination of total exports for each of the nine East European countries (including Albania), for East Europe by country (excluding Albania), and for the rest of the world by geographical groupings, as detailed below.

Trade by East European Partner. Most countries provide data on trade with individual nations. These statistics were obtained directly in most cases from a reporting country's official publications. If, in order to obtain a “Total CPEs” subtotal it was necessary to estimate trade with one, or at most, a few East European countries, then (but only then) trade-partner statistics were utilized. The use of such mirror statistics is always identified by the same footnote code, as shown in the legend to each table. Trade with Albania as a trade partner is not shown separately but is included with “OCPEs.” This procedure was dictated in part by having to limit the number of columns per page and in part by the fact that trade with Albania tends to be negligible (because of its small size and — in more recent years — because its main trade links are with Mainland China rather than with East Europe). However, Albania's trade with East European countries for selected years is shown as obtained from Albanian sources. (Mirror statistics for Albania cannot be gained from the tables here provided.)

Trade with “Other Centrally Planned Economies”. This grouping was obtained either directly as the sum of values for these individual countries, or indirectly as a residual, by subtracting the sum of trade with individual East European countries (except Albania) from officially reported trade with “Total CPEs.” As a general procedure, both calculations were made in order to obtain a statistical check. A footnote code indicates when trade with OCPEs could be obtained only as a residual.

Trade with “Total Centrally Planned Economies.”. This subtotal was obtained in most cases by summing trade with individual East European countries and the OCPEs aggregate. If a component was not separately available, the subtotal was taken to be the officially published value given for this sum. Such “given” rather than “summed” subtotals are identified by a footnote code. Whenever possible, officially given and summed subtotals were compared as a statistical check. Cuba has been included with “Total CPEs” consistently since 1960.

Trade with “More Developed Countries,”. This group comprises what is also known as “developed countries,” or Economic Class I, according to the U.N. definition, with Yugoslavia excluded. Table 5 compares U.N. and East European classifications of countries into MDC and LDC groups.

Trade values for the MDC group were obtained by the following procedures: (1) the sum of region or country components, (2) a directly given subtotal in a country's official statistics, (3) a residual, by subtracting trade with LDCs from trade with “Total Non-CPEs,” or (4) as an interpolated estimate, provided that full information was available for a preceding and subsequent year and, further, that only the division of “Total Non-CPEs” trade between MDCs and LDCs had to be estimated. If obtained as shown in (3) or (4), a footnote code identifies the method.

Trade with “Less Developed Countries.” This group consists of what is also known as “developing countries,” or Economic Class El, according to the U.N. definition (see Table 5). Trade values were obtained according to one of the four methods just noted for MDCs.

Trade with “Total Non-Centrally Planned Economies”. The subtotal is either (1) the sum of trade with MDCs and LDCs, (2) a subtotal reported in official publications, or (3) a “residual,” derived by subtracting trade with “Total CPEs” from total trade. The latter two cases are identified by appropriate footnote codes.

Total Trade. In every case this statistic was independently given, obtained in most cases from the official publications of a reporting country and in a few instances from secondary sources.

Special Problems

Careful attention has been given in each table to internal statistical consistency. Many of the special problems encountered were in fact due to data revisions and other inconsistencies among sources. In general, the most recently published values have been utilized. Important discrepancies among sources and other special problems have been documented in notes to individual tables. Three problems are discussed next for illustration:

Hungarian Transport Charges. Between 1952 and 1956 Hungary reported trade according to “actual parity,” a concept that corresponds neither to f.o.b. nor c.i.f. in its treatment of transport and related costs. Subsequently, revised figures were published for these years according to “border parity” (exports f.o.b., imports c.i.f.) for total trade and trade by two groups of trade partners, achieving consistency with other years. Trade by countries according to border parity were not, however, given. The revised and unrevised figures (total and by combined groups) were used to calculate a set of adjustment coefficients which were applied to the unrevised data by countries for 19521956, thereby achieving at least numerical consistency between country components and revised totals (see documentation to Tables I.M.H and I.X.H below).

Table 5

Classification of Countries into MDC and LDC Groups by the United Nations and by East European Countries*

*The classification shown here for East European countries refers to the appropriate columns of tables in Series I.

¹See, for example, UN-1, pp. 2-8.

²U-3, September 1968, p. 48.

³C-3, 1969, p. 408.

⁴G-2, p. 97.

⁵Calculated on the basis of subtotal for “Total Capitalist,” trade by continents and selected country totals.

⁶P-2. 1967 (translation), p. 8.

⁷ Calculated by the author. See documentation to the statistical tables.

⁸Austria, Belgium, Denmark, England, Finland, France, Greece. Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, West Germany.

⁹ Austria, Belgium, Denmark, England, France, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, West Germany.

East Germany's “Special” vs. “General Trade.”. Until 1966 East Germany's trade statistics were on a “special trade” basis, excluding re-exports; those published since 1966 are defined as “general trade,” including re-exports. (See Part Four, pp. 349-53 for a more detailed discussion.) Statistics on total trade, trade by groups of countries and with the U.S.S.R. have been officially revised back to 1949 to correspond to the new definition, but the remaining country series were revised back only as far as 1960. To achieve at least numerical consistency in the revised series for 1949-59, the unrevised trade partner data were adjusted by assigning discrepancies (relatively small) to trade with OCPEs, as explained in the notes to the East German tables.

Statistical Revisions. A number of East European countries, e.g., Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, and Rumania, have published revised trade series in the late 1950s without disclosing the nature of the revisions. Whenever possible, only revised figures consistent over time have been included. In cases where the revised figures of a series were published for scattered earlier years only, the unrevised figures have been included for intervening years, with footnote codes identifying unrevised entries.

Commodity Composition of Total Trade and Trade by East European Trade Partner (Series II and III)

Series II presents the commodity composition of total trade by individual East European country according to the CTN, BEC, or SITC classification systems. Series III shows the commodity composition of trade by East European trade partner according to the CTN and BEC classification systems.

Standardization According to CTN

Criteria for Inclusion in the Data Bank. Although most East European countries publish information on commodity composition of both total trade and trade by major partners, details vary greatly. The number of commodity groups specified may number from four to several hundred, and in many cases the sum of the itemized components is less than the independently given total. Even though only the nine one-digit CTN categories plus the four broad division subtotals are shown here, more detailed commodity breakdown was processed for the Data Bank as useful information and also because such detail is required for conversion to SITC or BEC.

The commodity composition of total trade and intraregional bilateral trade was processed to three CTN digits provided that (1) the CTN code was either given or could be assigned; and (2) spotchecks indicated that for most years at least 80 percent of total trade would be specified according to assigned or assignable one-, two-, or three-digit CTN codes. (The 80 percent cut-off point was arbitrary.) For the U.S.S.R. and Poland, five-and seven-digit CTN details were aggregated into two- or three-digit subtotals if these figures were not published directly. No permanent record has been kept of details beyond threedigit CTN. The decision not to disaggregate below a three-digit CTN level was suggested by the availability of data in general as well as the relatively small expected payoff from additional detail wanting in completeness. Furthermore, a preliminary comparison of CTN with the SITC and BEC systems revealed that a reasonably good transformation could be made from three-digit CTN to the two Western nomenclatures if the purpose was to obtain one-digit SITC categories or BEC aggregates (by “broad-end-use” and “SNA classes”).

Special Aggregation Problems and Procedures. In processing the data according to CTN, the unusual disclosure practices of certain CEMA countries raise problems requiring special procedures. One would expect, for instance, that the higher the level of aggregation, the more complete would be the coverage of published totals. This is the case for most CEMA countries but not for the U.S.S.R. or for the Polish series on trade by partner. The U.S.S.R. does not publish an exhaustive breakdown by one-digit CTN commodity categories in its basic statistical sources. The only one-digit subtotal given is for Category 1 (Machinery and Equipment), while very few two-digit subtotals are published. Conversely, three-, five-, and seven-digit CTN details are quite numerous (though not exhaustive) and five- or seven-digit CTN breakdowns may be shown without the corresponding three-digit CTN subtotals. In many instances, therefore, the two- or three-digit subtotals needed for present purposes had to be reconstructed by collecting lower-digit components.

A similar problem was faced in processing the commodity composition of Polish trade by partner. Since the data are shown mainly in five-digit CTN detail, three-, two-, and one-digit entries had to be reconstructed from their five-digit components by successive aggregations.

Thus, each statistical entry which has a CTN code is one of three types:

(1) Original entries, for which (it is logical to assume) the value given in primary sources exhausts trade at the indicated level;

(2) Reconstructed entries, obtained when higher-digit CTN components have been summed prior to the entry's inclusion in the computerized records. These entries may not exhaust values at the indicated level. For example, CTN 308 is obtained by summing CTN 30805 and 30818, the only components that are given. Reconstructed CTN 308 would be the correct subtotal only if the nomenclature contained no more than the two components shown or, in case there were additional code components, if their trade values were zero. Since neither the complete nomenclature code nor the list of all zero-trade items are available, whether reconstructed items are exhaustive or not cannot be determined.

(3) Collected entries, representing computer aggregation of already processed original or reconstructed CTN components. Collected and reconstructed entries are thus conceptually similar in that each may be less than exhaustive, the difference being in the level of aggregation at which omissions may have occurred.

Each type of entry is identified by a special footnote code in the Data Bank but these special codes are not shown in the Compendium. For some countries, all nine CTN categories shown here represent collected entries and their sum does not exhaust total trade; for other countries the categories represent original entries whose sum equals the total, independently given. Since individual tables in most cases consist of only collected or only original categories, the special codes have been omitted. As a general rule, if the nine CTN categories exhaust total trade so that there is no column showing “unspecified,” then each category represents a value taken directly from official publications. If, however, the sum of categories is less than the total so that there is an “unspecified” column, then each category represents a collected entry, obtained through computer aggregation of original, reconstructed, and collected components.

Verification of Statistical Accuracy. Considerable attention has been given to accuracy and internal consistency. All keypunched entries have been verified and auditing programs routinely utilized. But in the cases of countries providing less than exhaustive coverage, it was impossible to check fully for inaccuracies. For example, misprints and internal inconsistencies in official publications which could be detected under an exhaustive breakdown of total trade might well remain undetected otherwise.

Inconsistent Classification to CTN. A further problem stemmed from reclassification by a CEMA country of a commodity from one CTN category or broad division to another (to be distinguished from a general revision of the CTN code, discussed in Appendix A below). Thus, Hungary, like other CEMA countries officially adopting the CEMA code in 1962, originally included spare parts in Category 1 (Machinery and Equipment). Starting in 1967, however, Hungary alone (as far as is known) classified Spare Parts with Broad Division II (Fuels, Raw Materials, Other Materials). Since Spare Parts in this case represent approximately 20 percent of machinery exports and about 30 percent of machinery imports, failure to allow for variable classification would affect the comparability of some series substantially. Spare parts have therefore been retained with machinery trade for all years.

For other CEMA countries important reclassification problems have not been noted. As far as one can tell, the commodity classification by CTN categories published by CEMA countries during the 1960s is quite similar. (Small discrepancies in classification within categories have been noted. See, for example, the notes to Appendix Table A-1.) However, for statistics published during the 1950s, when the use of CTN was reportedly voluntary, non-uniformity of classifying commodities had been noted as a problem by the United Nations (UN-3, 1957, Chapter VI, p. 34) and (more extensively) by a more recent study (W- 17). During the 1960s several CEMA countries have published revised statistics for earlier years, apparently to make them more comparable with recent series. Since it is the revised series which have generally been included here, it is possible that the non-uniformity of classification noted earlier is no longer a serious problem. A firm conclusion, however, would require a more extensive examination of this problem than was found possible within the limitations of this project.

Standardization According to SITC and BEC

Standard International Trade Classification. SITC values for three countries' total trade are presented here at the one-digit category level, while the Data Bank includes SITC details for the same three countries to two digits. For Yugoslavia and Hungary the statistics are as originally reported; for the U.S.S.R. the data have been derived by conversion from CTN (see Appendix B for details). For other East European countries, and for trade by partner, there is not enough information to attempt such conversion.

Yugoslavia has provided one- and two-digit SITC details on total trade since the early 1950s, and is the only East European country which has consistently done so. Even finer SITC disaggregation is possible for Yugoslavia's trade with partners, including those in East Europe, reported in the official Yugoslav publications only by five-digit SITC codes. Because of the volume of data that would have had to be processed to obtain one-digit subtotals on trade composition by partner (several hundred commodities annually in exports and imports by partner), only three years, 1960, 1964, and 1968, have been so processed. The resulting series have not been included in the Compendium but are available in the Data Bank.

For Hungary, one-digit SITC has been available from secondary sources since 1960. During the mid-1960s that country switched from reporting total trade in two-digit CTN to two-digit SITC.

Czechoslovakia started in 1965 to publish total trade according to one-, two-, and three-digit SITC but the series were considered too short (1965-67) to be presented here. The information is available in the Data Bank and in recent issues of UN-8.

Other East European countries do not report commodity composition by SITC.

Broad Economic Categories. All tables showing the commodity composition by BEC have been derived through conversions from originally reported CTN or SITC data. The transformation process is discussed in Appendix B.

For total trade (Series II), BEC series are presented for three countries. For the U.S.S.R. and Bulgaria, these figures have been derived by conversion from CTN data; for Yugoslavia, from SITC data. For other East European countries, insufficient CTN or SITC detail is available to render conversion to BEC.

For trade by East European partner (Series III), BEC series are presented for three countries, the U.S.S.R., Czechoslovakia, and Poland. Each series has been derived by conversion from CTN data.

The reconciliation of CTN and BEC nomenclatures is based on one-, two-, or three-digit CTN (see Appendix Table B-4). However, in some cases when it was prescribed to convert from three-digit CTN, the required detail was not available. Thus, the more aggregated twodigit CTN had to be allocated among its three-digit components, according to one of the following methods:

(1) Information from trade-partner sources was utilized. For example, in Czechoslovakia's imports from the U.S.S.R., CTN 20 (Solid Fuels) is not specified in further detail. Since U.S.S.R. data show that nearly all of reported trade in this CTN group was in CTN 200 (Hard Coal), Czechoslovak exports to the U.S.S.R. were assigned to CTN 200.

(2) In some cases the usual importance of one CTN subgroup (or subgroup span) is such that it is probable that all or a substantial part of reported trade is covered by a particular subgroup (or subgroup span). To illustrate, if no three-digit detail was given, all of trade reported for CTN 23 (Fuel Gas, Electric Power, and Steam) was assigned to CTN 231 (Electric Power), unless there was information showing that other subgroups were also traded, in which case the procedure discussed below was followed.

(3) If no other basis could be found, an estimated, usually equipro- portionate (such as “50-50”), allocation was made between two or more subgroups (or spans) corresponding to different BEC categories. For example, of CTN 34 (Fertilizers, Insecticides, and Pesticides), CTN 340 and 341 correspond to BEC 21, while CTN 342 and 343 correspond to BEC 22. Accordingly, CTN 34 was allocated “50-50” between CTN 340-341 and 342-343.

Three-digit CTN entries obtained through any of these allocation procedures are identified in the Data Bank by a special footnote code. Notes to individual tables list the individual allocations (which are the same from year to year) and show also, annually, the percent of total “specified trade” so allocated. Since these percentages are usually small, these special procedures are not believed to introduce a significant bias in the BEC series.

Commodity Composition of Trade with West Europe (Series IV)

Underlying statistics have been obtained from West European sources, as compiled by the United Nations and reported in appendices to the annual Economic Bulletin for Europe. These are the only series in Part Two deriving from non-East European sources. The number of countries included by the U.N. in the West Europe total had increased from 13 in 1950 to 18 by 1964, as shown in Table 6; Yugoslavia has been consistently excluded here from the West Europe total (since U.N. publications include Yugoslavia with West Europe only in certain years).

West Germany's trade with East Germany is not included in the West Europe total because West Germany considers it domestic trade (previously called “Interzonenhandel,” currently “Innerdeutscherhandel”) even though East Germany reports it as international trade (Aussen- handel). U.N., West German, and East German estimates of this trade differ somewhat, as is shown in Table 7.

Table 6

Coverage by Country of West Europe as a Group in Trade with East Europe, 1950-1968

a. Excludes trade with East Germany.

b. General trade.

c. General imports and special exports.

d. Excluded from the West Europe total during 1962-63; all other years, general imports and special exports.

West European countries report special trade (see Appendix D for definition), except as noted in Table 6. Transaction values are imports c.i.f., and exports f.o.b., border of the reporting country.

To improve the internal consistency of the statistics, selected adjustments were made in the original U.N. data, as explained and illustrated in Appendix B, pp. 333-36.

Tables showing the commodity composition of trade between East European countries and West Europe have been derived by conversion from original SITC series.

B. Documentation

Statistical Series I

Tables I.M.U and I.X.U

Note. For Soviet statistical definitions, including the system of trade, coverage, the treatment of transport and related costs, and the identification of trade partner, see Appendix D.

Table 7

Trade between West Germany* and East Germany, 1950-1969 (Millions of Dollars)

*Includes trade of West Berlin.

**Revised series (see documentation to Statistical Tables I.M.G and I.X.G).

Source: Columns (1) and (4), 1950-53: UN-8, 1955 (converted to dollars at the rate of DM 1 = $.238); 1954-57: UN-8, 1958; 1958-61: UN-8, 1962; 1962-65: UN-8, 1966; 1966-68: UN-8, 1968; 1969: UN-2, Vol. 22, no. 1, Appendix Table A. Columns (2) and (5), K. Pritzel, “Der Interzonen Handel — Entwicklung, Wirtschaftliche Bedeu- tung, Politische Aspekte,” Aus Politik und Zeit Geschickte: Beilage zur Wochen Zei- tung das Parlament, Bd. 48:67 (November 29, 1967), p. 9, as quoted in W-4, p. 166. (Figures were originally shown in “accounting units,” which are, for all practical purposes, the same as Deutsche Marks, converted to dollars at the rate of DM 1 = $.238 until the end of 1960 and DM 1 = $.25 since 1961.) Columns (3) and (6), 1950-55: G-1, 1955 (rubles converted to dollars at the rate of R 1 = $.25); 1956-59: W-10, pp. 65, 70 (series is consistent with East German series available to 1955 except in 1950, for which W-IO shows much higher trade: $100.6 and $96.8 in West German imports and exports, respectively; rubles converted to dollars at R 1 = $.25); 1960-69: G-1, 1970 (valuta-marks converted to dollars at the rate of VM 1 = $.238 until 1961 and VM 1 = $.25 between 1961 and 1969).

Sources. Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Rumania, Yugoslavia, MDCs, LDCs, and Total, 1946-1966: U-2; 1967-1968: U-1, 1968; 1969: U-1, 1969.

Other CPEs, 1946-1969: balancing item, i.e., total trade with “socialist countries” (as reported in U-2, and various issues of U-1) less trade with East European countries except Albania. (Note: In some issues of U-1 published in the mid-1960s, Cuba has been included among “socialist countries” for the period before 1960. In these cases appropriate adjustments have been made so that here Cuba is included with “socialist countries” only since 1960).

Tables I.M.B and I.X.B

Note. For Bulgarian statistical definitions, including the system of trade, coverage, the treatment of transport and related costs, and the identification of trade partner, see Appendix D.

Bulgarian foreign trade statistics were revised around 1958. Revised figures were published for 1950 and since 1955; the unrevised series are available for 1952-56. Thus, for 1955-56, revised and unrevised series can be compared in an attempt to throw some light on the nature of the revision.

Table 8

Bulgaria's Total Trade, Revised and Unrevised, 1955-1956
(Millions of New Levas)

Source: Revised series, B-1, 1963, p. 306; unrevised series, B-1, 1956, p. 82 (old levas converted to new levas).

For 1955, Bulgaria's revised imports (total as well as imports from every CEMA country) are larger than the unrevised figures. Revised exports for 1955 also tend to be larger but by a smaller margin (except for exports to East Germany, where the revised figures are slightly smaller). The direction of the 1956 revision is less consistent; revised imports tend to be larger but often only by a small margin; while revised exports (total and to every CEMA country) are smaller than the unrevised figures.

The only official comment available on the revision states:

The data on exports and imports for 1955 and 1956 differ from comparable data in previous publications due to adjustments made because of the clarification of certain indices and changes in the number of types of goods listed. For example, data on goods exchanged does not include figures for costs and quantities of goods given or received free of charge. Costs and quantities of goods exported and imported for processing and certain other purposes have also been adjusted. [B-6. p. 3.]

The exclusion of foreign aid from the revised series would be expected to reduce revised figures below those shown by the unrevised series. Similarly, adjustment of “improvement and repair trade” (i.e., goods “for processing”) would also be expected to lower revised figures (provided that the revision followed the recommendations of CEMA's Standing Commission for Statistics to include “value added” only). Instead, we find that revised 1955 imports are substantially larger than unrevised figures, suggesting that major revision, at least for 1955, took place for reasons in addition to those officially reported. (For an informative Western hypothesis concerning the nature of similar revisions in Rumania, see Note to Table I.M.R and I.X.R.)

Sources. U.S.S.R., Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Rumania, Yugoslavia, 1950: B-4, 1950-1967; 1952-54: B-1, 1956; 1955, 1957, 1960-62: B-1, 1963; 1956, 1963: B-1, 1965; 1958-59: B-1, 1961; 1964-67: B-2, 1968; 1968: B-2, 1969; 1969: B-2, 1970.

MDCs, LDCs, 1950: B-4, 1956-1967; 1952-54: interpolated by assuming that the rate of change of proportion relative to “Total Non- CPEs” between 1950 and 1955 was constant; 1955, 1960, 1962-65: B-4, 1950-1965; 1956: B-2, 1969; 1957-59: interpolated by assuming that the rate of change of proportion relative to “Total Non-CPEs” between 1956 and 1960 was constant; 1961: interpolated as above; 1966-69: B-3, 1970.

Total Non-CPEs, 1952-54: balancing item, i.e., total trade less total CPEs (as summed); 1957-59: B-4, 1955-1961; 1961: B-4, 19551961 (adjusted to exclude Cuba).

Total, 1950: B-4, 1950-1967; 1952-54: B-1, 1956; 1955-61: B-4, 1955-1961; 1962-65: B-4, 1950-1965; 1966-68: B-2, 1969; 1969: B-2, 1970.

Tables I.M.C and I.X.C

Note. For Czechoslovak statistical definitions, including the system of trade, coverage, the treatment of transport and related costs, and the identification of trade partner, see Appendix D.

Sources. U.S.S.R., Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Rumania, 1946: C-1, p. 149; U.S.S.R., 1952: W-13, p. 212 (based on official sources); U.S.S.R., Bulgaria, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Rumania, Yugoslavia 1948, 1953, 1958-59: C-2, 1964; 1950: C-2, 1967; 1954-57: C-3, 1958; 1960-67: C-3, 1968; 1968: C-3, 1969; 1969: C-4, June 1970.

Other CPEs (sum of components), 1950: C-2, 1967; 1953-57: C-3, 1958; 1958-59: C-2, 1964; 1960-67: C-3, 1968; 1968: C-3, 1969; 1969: C-4, June 1970.

Total CPEs, 1948: C-2, 1964; 1951-52: W-13, p. 212. (Exports of $604.0 million to “socialist countries” in 1952 is a misprint. The entry should read $629.0 million. The correction was obtained through correspondence with the author.) 1969: C-4, June 1970.

MDCs, LDCs, 1948, 1953, 1956-59: C-2, 1962; 1950, 1955: C-2, 1967; 1951-52, 1954: interpolated by assuming that rate of change of proportion relative to “Total Non-CPEs” is constant. 1960-67: C-3, 1968; 1968: C-3, 1969; 1969: C-4, June 1970.

Total Non-CPEs, 1951-52: W-13, p. 212; 1969: C-4, June 1970.

Total, 1946-52: C-1, 1953-57: C-3, 1958; 1959: C-3, 1961; 196567: C-3, 1968; 1968: C-3, 1969; 1969: C-4, June 1970.

Tables I.M.G and I.X.G

Note. For East German statistical definitions, including the system of trade, coverage, the treatment of transport and related costs, and the identification of trade partner, see Appendix D.

Sources. U.S.S.R., 1946-48: W-10, pp. 63-68. (Kohler's series have been calculated from secondary East German sources that presumably relied on official series which were subsequently revised. There is a large discrepancy between Kohler's figures and the subsequently revised official figures for 1949 — the earliest year for which the two sets of statistics can be compared. According to the official revised figures, imports from the U.S.S.R. in 1949 were approximately 47 percent higher, and exports to the U.S.S.R. about 21 percent lower, than those reported by Kohler. Discrepancies, but of a smaller magnitude, exist also for 1950-52. The official revised figures for 1949 and thereafter are used here, but for 1946-48, Kohler's reconstructed figures are still the best available. The reader should note, however, that pre- and post-1949 figures very likely are not comparable.) 194969: G-1, 1970.

Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Rumania, Yugoslavia, 1946-52: W-10, pp. 62-64, 67-69 (see note for trade with U.S.S.R.); 1953-54: G-1, 1955; 1955-58: G-1, 1958; 1959: G-1, 1960-61; 196067: G-1, 1968; 1968-69: G-1, 1970.

Other CPEs, 1946-48: W-10, pp.62-69 (sum of components); 194959: balancing item, i.e., total trade with “socialist countries” (G-1, 1970) less trade with East European countries except Albania; 196069: G-1, 1970. (Note: In 1949, sum of components of “Total CPEs” exceeds the given total because different sources were used. In imports, the revised figure for the U.S.S.R. is much higher than that reported by Kohler. This suggests that at least some of the revision may represent a reassignment of imports from East Central European countries to the U.S.S.R. In exports, however, the revised figure for the U.S.S.R. is smaller than that reported by Kohler, yet the sum of exports to all East European countries still exceeds officially reported total exports to all “socialist countries,” although only by a small amount.)

There are two methods of calculating trade with “Other CPEs”: adding the country components (“summed OCPEs”), and subtracting from the officially reported trade with “Total CPEs” the sum of trade with all East European countries except Albania (“residual OCPEs”). These alternative calculations can be made only since 1953, the first year for which trade by countries has been disclosed. Since 1960, the two methods yield identical results. Between 1953-59, however, “residual OCPEs” is consistently larger than “summed OCPEs,” and for the following reason: Trade with the U.S.S.R. and trade with “Total CPEs” are revised series defined as general trade while trade with individual East Central European countries until 1960 represents more narrowly defined special trade (see Appendix D for definition of terms and further discussion). Thus, when trade with OCPEs is calculated as a “residual,” the figure includes actual transactions plus the difference between “general” and “special” coverages in trade with East Central European countries. So, “residual OCPEs” is upward biased because it includes an amount assignable to East Central European countries on account of the revision of statistics; while “summed OCPEs” is downward biased relative to the post-1960 series because it represents special rather than general trade. The difference between the two series is relatively small, as is shown by the tabulation below in Table 9.

Table 9

East Germany's Trade with Other
Centrally Planned Economies, 1953-1959
(Millions of Current Dollars)

The reader may note that the discrepancy between the two OCPEs series corresponds to the estimated re-export trade with “Total CPEs” less that with the U.S.S.R., as is shown in Table D-1 in Appendix D.

MDCs, 1946-48: W-10, pp. 65, 70 (sum of columns 20, 21, and 22); 1949-69: G-1, 1970.

LDCs, 1946-48: W-10, pp.65, 69 (column 19); 1949-69: G-1, 1970.

Total, 1946-48: W-10, pp.61, 66; 1949-69: G-1, 1970. The reader may note that United Nations sources (UN-8, 1968, p. 290, as well as other issues of the same publication) incorrectly report total exports in 1954 as 7,103.5 million valuta-marks. The correct figure is either 5,376.4 or 5,401.7 million valuta-marks, showing special or general trade, respectively.

Tables I.M.H and I.X.H

Note. For Hungarian statistical definitions, including the system of trade, coverage, the treatment of transport and related costs, and the identification of trade partner, see Appendix D.

Sources. U.S.S.R., Czechoslovakia, 1946-48: W-15, p. 41.

Bulgaria, Poland, Rumania, Yugoslavia, 1946-47: sum of trade with these four countries calculated by applying percentage given in W-5, p. 59 to total trade (H-1, 1967, p. 219); trade with individual countries is then estimated by assuming that the percentage share of each in the four-country subtotal is the same as in 1948.

Bulgaria, Poland, Rumania, 1948: The sum of trade with these three countries was calculated by applying the percentage given in W-5, p. 59, to total trade (H-1, 1967, p. 219); trade with individual countries is then estimated by assuming that the percentage share of each in the three-country subtotal is the same as in 1949.

U.S.S.R., Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Poland, Rumania, Yugoslavia, 1949-54: H-1, 1949-1955; 1955-57: H-1, 1957; 195861: H-1, 1961; 1962-63: H-1, 1963; 1964-65: H-1, 1965; 1966-68: H-1, 1968; 1969: H-1, 1969.

Other CPEs (sum of country components except as noted), 1949-51: H-1, 1949-1955; 1952-56: H-1, 1949-1955 and H-1, 1957. Statistics reported in the latter two sources were adjusted as follows: Merchandise trade during 1952-56 was valued differently from other years by the inclusion (in exports) or exclusion (in imports) of certain transport charges (see discussion on p. 279 above). Revised figures, presenting a consistent series for all years, are available only for total trade and for two subtotals, “Total CPEs” and “Total Non-CPEs” (H-1, 1967). To be able to include these revised figures here, the unrevised country components need to be adjusted. Since the adjustment is related to “extra” transport costs (paid over f.o.b. Hungarian border in exports and received toward c.i.f. Hungarian border in imports), the small adjustment amounts are not distributed proportionately to trade but are assigned to trade with OCPEs and LDCs, the two groups of countries that are located the farthest from Hungary's borders. The revised and unrevised series, together with the corresponding adjustments, are shown in Table 10.

Table 10

Hungary: Revised and Unrevised Series
and Corresponding Adjustments, 1952-1956
(Millions of Current Dollars)

Other CPEs (continued), 1957: H-1, 1957; 1958-61: H-1, 1961; 1962-63: H-1, 1963; 1964-65: H-1, 1965; 1966-68: H-1, 1968; 1969: H-1, 1969. Note. Trade with Mainland China since 1962 is estimated as a residual, “Total Socialist” trade less trade with individual “socialist” countries, all of which are shown except Mainland China.

MDCs, calculated as a residual, “Total Capitalist” trade less trade with LDCs. “Total Capitalist” trade, 1949: H-1, 1949-1955; 1950-67: H-1, 1967 (1960-61 totals adjusted by excluding trade with Cuba); 196869: H-1, 1969.

LDCs, calculated as the sum of trade with Asia, Africa, and the Americas, less CPE and MDC countries. 1949-51: H-1, 1949-1955; 1952-56: H-1, 1949-1955 and H-1, 1957 (note special adjustment described under OCPEs, above); 1957: H-1, 1958; 1958-61: H-1, 1961; 1962-63: H-1, 1963; 1964-65: H-1, 1965; 1966-68: H-1, 1968; 1969: H-1, 1969.

Total, 1946-51,1957-67: H-1, 1967; 1952-56 unrevised: H-1, 19491955 and H-1, 1956; revised: H-1, 1967; 1968-69: H-1, 1969.

Tables I.M.P and I.X.P

Note. For Polish statistical definitions, including the system of trade, coverage, the treatment of transport and related costs, and the identification of trade-partner country, see Appendix D.

Sources. U.S.S.R., Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Rumania, 1946-49, 1951-54: P-5, June 1957 as quoted in W-9; 1950, 1955-65: P-2, 1965; 1966-68: P-2, 1968; 1969: P-4, 1970.

Yugoslavia, 1946-47: P-6, 1948; 1948 imports (balancing item): “Total CPEs” (P-2, 1965) less imports from individual CPEs. (Unusually large trade figures in 1948 are approximately matched by Yugoslav “mirror” statistics. W-9, reporting no imports, is apparently incorrect.) 1948 exports, 1949, 1951-54: P-5, June 1957, as quoted in W-9. (For 1954, W-9 reports $4.7 million in imports. However, the sum of trade with “Total CPEs” by countries exceeds subsequently reported trade with “Total CPEs” by exactly this amount. It is assumed, therefore, that trade with Yugoslavia was not resumed until 1955.) 1950, 1955-65: P-2, 1965; 1966-68: P-2, 1968; 1969: P-4, 1970.

Other CPEs (sum of country components), 1946-49, 1951-54: P-5, June 1957, as quoted in W-9; 1950, 1955-65: P-2, 1965; 1966-68: P-2, 1968; 1969: P-4, 1970.

MDCs, LDCs, 1946-49: extrapolated by distributing trade with “Total Non-CPEs” (P-2, various issues) to MDCs and LDCs in the same proportion as in 1950; 1950, 1955-68: P-2, 1968; 1951-54: interpolated by distributing trade with “Total Non-CPEs” to MDCs and LDCs by assuming that their proportions change at a constant rate between 1950 and 1955; 1969: P-4, 1970.

Total, 1946-68: P-2, 1968; 1969: P-4, 1970.

Tables I.M.R and I.X.R

Note. For Rumanian statistical definitions, including the system of trade, coverage, the treatment of transport and related costs, and the identification of trade-partner country, see Appendix D.

1960 is the first postwar year in which the Central Statistical Office of Rumania published foreign trade data in its official statistical yearbooks, showing total imports and exports since 1958, index numbers linking these data to 1950 and 1955, trade by countries since 1958, and the volume of imports and exports by major commodities since 1958. In the more recent yearbooks, imports and exports by the nine CTN categories are also shown for 1950, 1955, and since 1959.

Scattered data for the earlier period from Rumanian and trade- partner sources have been collected and analyzed by J. M. Montias (W- 14, pp. 136-47). He observed that data published prior to 1959 refer to statistical series that do not accord with those released more recently, except for the 1950 data. For 1951-54, only the old series are available; for 1955-57 both old and revised series are available but they diverge. Montias analyzed the nature of the revision (i.e., the discrepancy between the two series) by commodity groups and by countries. By comparing Rumanian and trade-partner statistics he found:

(1) Trade turnover with Rumania recorded in the official statistics of Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, and East Germany nearly coincide with the value given in Rumanian statistics corresponding to the old series for the years 1955 to 1957 and to the revised series for subsequent years. (Note, however, one exception which Montias does not discuss: Polish-Rumanian trade in 1957 shows a 54 percent divergence between the figures released by the two countries. See W-14, Table 3.4, p. 143.) Since the coincidence of figures between Rumanian and trade-partner sources goes back to at least 1955, Montias tentatively concludes that the revision did not affect the Rumanian basis for valuation in trade with these countries.

(2) From an analysis of the old and revised commodity structure in 1955, Montias found that the revision affected mainly machinery imports and raw material exports and that the discrepancy was confined almost exclusively to trade with the U.S.S.R. and with Czechoslovakia. In 1955, 1956, and 1957 there were large discrepancies between Soviet and Czechoslovak statistics of trade turnover with Rumania and Rumanian statistics of trade with these two countries. These discrepancies dwindled to insignificant amounts from 1958 on, with the exception of Czechoslovak-Rumanian trade in 1959, when an appreciable gap opened up again for no apparent reason. Montias conjectures that these discrepancies (thus, by implication, the revisions) may be explained by Rumanian compensation for machinery and equipment invested by the U.S.S.R. in “joint-stock companies” between 1945 and 1956 after these companies were turned over to Rumania between 1954 and 1956, so that Soviet investments were recorded retroactively by Rumania as imports from the U.S.S.R. to accord with U.S.S.R. treatment of these investments as exports. Also by conjecture, those Soviet investments that originated in other countries, such as Czechoslovakia, were recorded in the revised statistics as imports from these countries, Montias argues.

In the Compendium, whenever available, revised series are shown; unrevised data are included for all other years, with appropriate footnote codes. (Total exports and imports for 1956-57, consistent with the revised series, have been obtained by us from a Hungarian source.)

Sources. U.S.S.R., Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Yugoslavia, Other CPEs (sum of country components), 1958-59: R-1, 1960; 1960-68: R-1, 1969; 1969: R-1, 1970.

Total CPEs, Total Non-CPEs, 1948-57: W-7 (based on official Rumanian, official U.S.S.R., and U.S. Department of Commerce Sources). For Total CPEs, alternative estimates for 1950 and 1955 can be made by subtracting trade with MDCs and LDCs (in W-9, p. 72) from total trade (official, revised), while for Total Non-CPEs, the sum of MDCs and LDCs is an alternative estimate. Both sets of figures are shown in Table 11.

Table 11

Rumania: Alternative Estimates of Trade
with Total CPEs and Total Non-CPEs,* 1950, 1955
(Millions of Current Dollars)

* Sources of estimates are given in the column headings.

As comparisons of estimates in Table 11 indicate, the unrevised series obtained from official, secondary, or trade-partner sources can be used with reservations only.

MDCs (sum of trade with component countries), 1958-59: R-1, 1960; 1960-68: R-1, 1969; 1969: R-1, 1970. (Trade with MDCs for two earlier years are shown in W-9, p. 72, in millions of current dollars, as follows: Imports, 1950: 40.2; 1955: 62.4; exports, 1950: 11.7; 1955:

50.6. )

LDCs, 1958-69: calculated as residual by subtracting from total trade the sum of tradewith CPEs and MDCs. (Trade with LDCs for two earlier years are shown in W-9, p. 72, in millions of current dollars, as follows: Imports, 1950: 13.2; 1955: 21.7; exports, 1950: 11.3; 1955:

26.6. )

Total, 1946-47: W-14, p. 137; 1948-49, 1951-54: W-7; 1950,1955, 1960-68: R-1, 1969; 1956-57: H-3, p. 231; 1958-59: R-1, 1960; 1969: R-1, 1970. (The entries for 1950 and 1955-69 represent comparable, officially revised, figures.)

TABLES I.M.Y and I.X.Y

Note. For Yugoslav statistical definitions, including the system of trade, coverage, the treatment of transport and related costs, and the identification of trade-partner country, see Appendix D.

Sources. U.S.S.R., Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Total 1946-54: Y-3; 1955-57: Y-2, 1958; 1958-60: Y-2, 1961; 1961-63: Y-2, 1964; 1964-66: Y-2, 1967; 1967-69: Y-2, 1970.

Other CPEs (sum of components), 1946-54: Y-3 (“Other Asia” entry is used as the estimate because most of the important Asian countries, except the Asian CPEs, were specified. To the extent that “Other Asia” includes non-CPEs, the estimate is upward biased. No trade figure was found for Albania; since there was probably some trade with this country during 1946-49, the OCPEs estimate for these years is downward biased. Maximum trade with Albania is trade with “Other Europe,” i.e., the unspecified residual, which in millions of current dollars, was as follows: Imports, 1946: 0.0; 1947: 0.4; 1948: 0. 0; 1949: 0.1; exports, 1946: 0.5; 1947: 0.7; 1948: 2.3; 1949: 3.1).

Other CPEs (continued), 1955-57 (sum of Albania, Mainland China, and “Other Asia”): Y-2, 1958; 1958-59 (sum of Albania, Mainland China, and “Other Asia” in imports; sum of Albania, Mainland China, Vietnam, and “Other Asia” in exports): Y-2, 1961; 1960 (same components as in 1958-59, plus Cuba): Y-2, 1961; 1961-63 (sum of Albania, Mainland China, “Other Asia” plus Cuba in imports; sum of Albania, “Other Asia,” plus Cuba in exports): Y-2, 1964; 1964-66 (same components as in 1961-63): Y-2, 1967; 1967-69 (same components as in 1961-63): Y-2, 1970.

MDCs (sum of Europe less European CPEs, plus Japan, Canada, the United States, and Oceania), 1946-54: Y-3; 1955-57: Y-2, 1958; 1958-60: Y-2, 1961; 1961-63: Y-2, 1964; 1964-66: Y-2, 1967; 196769: Y-2, 1970.

LDCs (sum of Asia less Asian CPEs and Japan; Africa; Central America less Cuba since 1960; and South America), 1946-54: Y-3; 1955-57: Y-2, 1958; 1958-60: Y-2, 1961; 1961-63: Y-2, 1964; 196466: Y-2, 1967; 1967-69: Y-2, 1970.

Tables I.M.A and I.X.A

Note. For Albanian statistical definitions, including the system of trade, coverage, the treatment of transport and related costs, and the identification of trade-partner country, see Appendix D.

Sources. U.S.S.R., Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Rumania, Yugoslavia, other CPEs (sum of country components), MDCs (sum of country components), LDCs (sum of reported country components plus “Other”), 1950, 1955, 1960-64: A-1, 1965; 1951- 54, 1956-58: UN-3, 1960, p. VI-13.

Total, 1946-64: A-1, 1965; 1965-67: P-9, p. 113.

Tables I.M.CEMA and I.X.CEMA

Summation of Tables I.M.U through I.M.R and Tables I.X.U through X.R, respectively.

Statistical Series II

Tables II.CTN.M.U and II.CTN.X.U

Note. Every CTN category, except Category 1, represents a summation of multi-digit CTN entries in the Data Bank, which have been obtained, together with Category 1 (always given) from Soviet sources as follows: 1946-66: U-2, and various issues of U-1 up to and including U-1, 1967; 1967-69: U-1, 1967 through U-1, 1969. Each yearbook contains statistics for more than one year. Although the basic body of information for a given year, including the figure for total trade, is the same in all volumes, additional details not shown in one yearbook can often be found in subsequent editions. To obtain as complete information as possible, all volumes with overlapping information were consulted for each year.

Two troublesome features of Soviet foreign trade statistics may be noted: the problem of aggregation and the problem of incomplete coverage.

Official sources do not present systematic information by CTN categories or broad divisions, thus, even though there is a wealth of detail reported, it does not provide summary information without additional processing, involving laborious aggregation. The task of deriving CTN category and broad division aggregates was undertaken (see Section A above for a discussion of special aggregation problems and procedures).

A more serious difficulty is incomplete coverage, i.e., the sums of aggregated CTN categories or broad divisions do not add to total trade. The proportion of trade specified annually between 1946 and 1969 ranges from 89 to 98 percent in imports (average: 94 percent) and from 73 to 93 percent in exports (average: 84 percent); there is no significant trend in these proportions over time. However, by consulting various official statistical publications it is possible to derive, for selected years, unspecified residuals which are smaller than those shown in Tables II.CTN.M.U and II.CTN.X.U. Full details and calculations can be found in Appendix E.

Tables II.CTN.M.B and II.CTN.X.B

1950, 1955,1960, 1965-68: B-1, 1969; 1956-59, 1961: B-4, 19551961; 1962-64: B-4, 1950-1965; 1969: B-2, 1970.

Tables II.CTN.M.C and II.CTN.X.C

1948, 1953, 1958-60: C-2, 1964 (1960 data were revised; see C-3, 1961, for unrevised figures); 1949-52, 1954: C-3, 1957; 1955-57: C-3, 1961; 1961-67: C-3, 1968; 1968: C-3, 1969; 1969: C-4, June 1970.

Tables II.CTN.M.G and II.CTN.X.G

1950, 1955, 1960-65: CTN broad division percentage composition reported in H-3, p. 234, which is applied to total trade shown in E-1, 1968; 1967: CTN broad division export percentage composition reported in H-12, p. 319, applied to total trade in E-1, 1968; 1969 (including 1960 and 1965 percentage composition for CTN Category 2), CEMA-2, pp. 356, 358.

Tables II.CTN.M.H and II.CTN.X.H

1949-54: H-1, 1949-1955 (see Note 1 below); 1955-57: H-1, 1957 (see Note 1 below); 1958-59: H-1, 1961; 1960-65: H-1, 1965 (see Note 2 below); 1966: H-1, 1966; 1967: H-1, 1967 (see Note 3 below); 1968: H-1, 1968 (see Note 3 below); 1969: H-1, 1969 (see Note 3 below).

Note 1. Exports and imports between 1952-56 were originally reported at so-called contract parity, for all other years at border parity, i.e., imports c.i.f., exports f.o.b. (The difference between contract and border parities is transport costs incurred in foreign exchange; in exports transport costs are subtracted from contract parity, in imports they are added to arrive at border parity.) In 1957 (H-l, 1957) the commodity composition (i.e., the share of CTN categories in the total) but not total trade, was revised for 1955-56 without explanation. This revision apparently reclassified items formerly in Broad Division IV into Broad Division I, and also affected slightly subtotals of the other two broad divisions. Subsequently, total trade and trade by “socialist” and “capitalist” groups of countries (but not by commodity groups) was revised for 1952-56 to correspond to the “border parity” concept. In order to present consistent series not only for total trade (officially revised) but also by CTN categories, the latter (unrevised) series were adjusted as follows: Ratios of revised to unrevised values were calculated annually for imports and exports by socialist and capitalist country groups. These ratios were applied as adjustment coefficients to the unrevised commodity series according to CTN broad divisions. The average adjustment coefficients for 1952-56 are:

Total trade by CTN broad divisions was obtained as the sum of the corresponding socialist and capitalist series. The more detailed CTN commodity categories, available only since 1955 and only for total trade, were adjusted by applying the ratios of revised to unrevised values calculated for corresponding CTN broad divisions.

Note 2. Total imports in Category 2 in 1962 have been revised downward, those of Category 3 revised upward, in more recent issues of H-1. Table II.CTN.M.H shows revised figures.

Note 3. The commodity composition of CTN broad divisions had been revised as of 1967. The most significant change was the reclassi-fication of spare parts from CTN Broad Division I to II. Additional small changes, apparently reclassifying commodities from CTN Broad Divisions I and II into III and IV, have also been made. (Compare unrevised 1967 structure shown in UN-8, 1967, p. 367, with revised series in H-1, 1967, pp. 223-24.) Since spare parts represent more than 30 percent of Hungary's machinery imports and over 20 percent of machinery exports, this reclassification would affect greatly the consistency of the important machinery series. Therefore, official statistics were adjusted here by reclassifying spare parts from CTN Broad Division II to I.

Tables II.CTN.M.P and II.CTN.X.P

1946-55: P-2,1967; 1956-65: P-2, 1965; 1966-68: P-2, 1968; 1969: P-4, 1970.

Tables II.CTN.M.R and II.CTN.X.R

1950, 1955, 1960-66: R-1, 1967; 1959: R-1, 1964; 1967-68: R-1, 1969; 1969: R-1, 1970.

Tables II.CTN.M.A and II.CTN.X.A

1950, 1955, 1960-64: A-1, 1965.

Table II.CTN.M.CEMA

1950, 1955, 1959-69: Sum of Tables II.CTN.M.U, II.CTN.M.B, II. CTN.M.C, II.CTN.M.H, H.CTN.M.P, and II.CTN.M.R.

Table II.CTN.X.CEMA

1950, 1955, 1959-69: Sum of Tables II.CTN.X.U, II.CTN.X.B, II. CTN.X.C, II.CTN.X.H, II.CTN.X.P, and II.CTN.X.R.

Tables II.SITC.M.U and II.SITC.X.U

SITC conversion from multi-digit CTN data as recorded in the Data Bank. Sources of original data are shown in documentation to Tables II.CTN.M.U and II.CTN.X.U. The CTN/SITC conversion key shown in Table B-6 was applied. The percent of “specified trade” converted by each of the three keys is shown in Table 12.

Tables II.SITC.M.H and II.SITC.X.H

1960-63: Percentages reported in H-7, p. 315, were applied to total trade shown in H-1, 1967; 1964: UN-3, 1966, p. 351; 1965-68: H-1, 1968; 1969: H-1, 1969.

Tables II.SITC.M.Y and II.SITC.X.Y

1952- 53: Y-2, 1953; 1953-54: Y-2, 1954; 1955-57: Y-2, 1957; 1958-60: Y-2, 1960; 1961-63: Y-2, 1963; 1964-66: Y-2, 1966; 1967-69: Y-2, 1969.

Table 12

Percent of “Specified Trade” Converted from CTN to SITC by Each of the Three Conversion Keys. 1946-1969

Tables II.BEC.M.U and II.BEC.X.U

BEC conversion from multi-digit CTN data as recorded in the Data Bank. Sources of original data were shown in documentation to Tables II.CTN.M.U and II.CTN.X.U. The CTN/BEC conversion key shown in Appendix Table B-4 was applied to CTN data with the following special adjustments:

CTN 51, Fur and Pelts, was not disaggregated in the original source. Based on the composition of this commodity group in trade between the U.S.S.R. and West European countries as a group in recent years, 80 percent of imports and 20 percent of exports were allocated to BEC 22, the remaining percentages to BEC 21.

In exports only, CTN 83, Vegetables, Fruits, Berries and Related Products, was not available in further detail. This CTN group was allocated equally to BEC 112 and 122.

The proportions of imports and exports transformed to BEC through special conversions are shown in Table 13.

Table 13

Percent of U.S.S.R. Total Trade Converted to BEC by Special Allocation, 1946-1969

Tables II.BEC.M.B and II.BEC.X.B

BEC conversion from multi-digit CTN data as recorded in the Data Bank. Sources of original data are shown in documentation to Tables II.CTN.M.B and II.CTN.X.B. In addition, multi-digit CTN data required for the conversion have been obtained from B-1, 1961, 1963, 1965, 1968, 1969; B-6, 1955-57; B-7, 1958-1959; and B-8, pp. 35, 36, and 43. Inadequate CTN detail was available for 1950 and 1969 to permit meaningful conversion to BEC. The CTN/BEC conversion key shown in Appendix Table B-4 was applied.

For some years between 1955 and 1968, the CTN detail required for BEC conversion was not available for particular commodities. In most cases, however, the required details could be accurately estimated by indirect methods, such as: (1) if all but one CTN group within a CTN category was given, the unspecified residual in the given category total was estimated to represent the missing CTN group; (2) the identical procedure was used to estimate missing subgroups within groups; (3) in a few cases and for selected years only, the division of a group into component subgroups was estimated on the basis of trade in the subgroup shown in physical units. Estimated entries obtained through any of these methods are identified by a special footnote code in the Data Bank. Since each year these estimates represent less than 10 percent of total trade, and since the estimates are believed to be accurate, no significant bias is expected to result for the BEC series.

In addition to the above special procedures, the following CTN groups were converted to BEC by special allocation:

The proportions of imports and exports transformed to BEC through special conversions are shown in Table 14.

Table 14

Percent of Bulgaria's Total Trade
Converted to BEC by Special Allocation, 1955-1968

Tables II.BEC.M.Y and II.BEC.X.Y

BEC conversion from two-digit SITC data as recorded in the Data Bank. Sources of original data are shown in documentation to Tables II.SITC.M.Y and II.SITC.X.Y. The SITC/BEC conversion key shown in Appendix Table B-5 was applied.

Statistical Series III

Tables III.CTN.M.U (B through Y) and III.CTN.X.U (B through Y)

In each table, every CTN category except Category 1 (always given) represents a summation of multi-digit CTN entries in the Data Bank, whose original sources are the same as those shown in documentation to Tables II.CTN.M.U and II.CTN.X.U. The first two paragraphs of the Note to the above tables are also applicable here.

Tables III.CTN.M.U-CEMA and III.CTN.X.U-CEMA

Summation of Tables III.CTN.M.U (B through R) and Tables III.CTN.X.U (B through R), respectively.

Tables III.CTN.M.C (U through Y) and III.CTN.X.C (U through Y)

In each Table, every CTN category represents a summation of multi-digit CTN entries in the Data Bank, whose original sources are: 1958-59: C-6; 1960-65: C-2, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966; 1966: C-2, 1967 and C-3, 1967; 1967: C-3, 1967, 1968; 1968: C-3, 1968. The original sources show trade by partner according to commodity groups, without CTN numbers. On the basis of commodity designations, a two- or three-digit CTN number was assigned to each entry. (Since the sequence of commodity groups in the original sources always follows the CTN numerical sequence, this facilitated somewhat the assignment of CTN codes.) However, the proportion of trade specified is always less than 100 percent, i.e., there remains for each country in each year an undistributed residual. It is believed that in most cases the unspecified items represent unlisted CTN commodity groups or subgroups, but the possibility remains that reported trade in specified CTN groups and subgroups is less than exhaustive.

It may be noted that statistical series frequently overlap, i.e., the structure of trade for a given year may be reported in several issues of C-2 and C-3. Additional commodity detail was obtained by consulting all relevant volumes.

Tables III.CTN.M.C-CEMA and III.CTN.X.C-CEMA

Summation of Tables III.CTN.M.C (U through R) and Tables III.CTN.X.C (U through R), respectively.

Tables III.CTN.M.P (U through Y) and III.CTN.X.P. (U through Y)

In each table, every CTN category represents a summation of three-digit CTN entries in the Data Bank. Entries in the Data Bank are based on three-, five-, and seven-digit entries (with CTN code numbers given) whose original sources are: 1958: P-7, 1958; 1959: P-7, 1959; 1960: P-7, 1960; 1961: P-7, 1961; 1962: P-7, 1962; 1963: P-7, 1963; 1964-65: P-2, 1965; 1966-67: P-2, 1967; 1968: P-2, 1968.

The proportion of trade specified is somewhat less than 100 percent, i.e., there remains for each country in each year an undistributed residual.

Tables IH.CTN.M.P-CEMA and III.CTN.X.P-CEMA

Summation of Tables III.CTN.M.P (U through R) and Tables III. CTN.X.P (U through R), respectively.

Tables III.BEC.M.U (B through Y) and III.BEC.X.U (B through Y)

BEC conversion from multi-digit CTN data as recorded in the Data Bank. Sources of original data are shown in documentation to Tables II.CTN.M.U (B through Y) and II.CTN.X.U (B through Y). The CTN/BEC conversion key shown in Appendix Table B-4 was applied to CTN data.

In exports to Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany, an occasional special allocation was necessary. These allocations, as well as the proportions of exports to the respective countries transformed to BEC through special conversions, are shown in Table 15.

Table 15

U.S.S.R. Exports to Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia,
and East Germany: Percent of Total Exports
Converted to BEC by Special Allocation, 1946-1968

Tables III.BEC.M.U-CEMA and III.BEC.X.U-CEMA

Summation of Tables III.BEC.M.U (B through R) and Tables III.BEC.X.U (B through R), respectively.

Tables III.BEC.M.C (U through Y) and III.BEC.X.C (U through Y)

BEC conversion from multi-digit CTN data as recorded in the Data Bank. Sources of original data are shown in documentation to Tables III.CTN.M.C (U through Y) and III.CTN.X.C (U through Y). The CTN/BEC conversion key shown in Appendix Table B-4 was applied to CTN data, except for special allocations which, together with the proportions of trade so converted, are shown in Tables 16 and 17 for imports and exports, respectively.

Tables III.BEC.M.C-CEMA and III.BEC.X.C-CEMA

Summation of Tables III.BEC.M.C (U through R) and Tables III. BEC.X.C (U through R), respectively.

Tables III.BEC.M.P (U through Y) and III.BEC.X.P (U through Y)

BEC conversion from three-digit CTN data as recorded in the Data Bank. Sources of original data are shown in documentation to Tables III.CTN.M.P (U through Y) and III.CTN.X.P (U through Y). The CTN/BEC conversion key shown in Appendix Table B-4 was applied.

Tables III.BEC.M.P-CEMA and M.BEC.X.P-CEMA

Summation of Tables III.BEC.M.P (U through R) and Tables III.BEC.X.P (U through R), respectively.

Statistical Series IV

Tables IV.SITC.M (U through R) and IV.SITC.X (U through R)

In each table, every SITC category represents a summation of multi-digit SITC entries in the Data Bank, whose original sources are annual issues UN-2. See Part Three, Section A, above, for a discussion of data and adjustments.

Tables IV.SITC.M.CEMA and IV.SITC.X.CEMA

Summation of Tables IV.BEC.M (U through R) and IV .BEC.X (U through R), respectively.

Tables IV .BEC.M (U through R and IV .BEC.X (U through R)

BEC conversion from multi-digit SITC data as recorded in the Data Bank, applying the conversion key shown in Appendix Table B-5. Sources of original data are shown in documentation to Tables IV .SITC. (U through R) and IV .SITC. (U through R).

Tables IV .BEC.M.CEMA and IV .BEC.X.CEMA

Summation of Tables IV .BEC.M (U through R) and IV .BEC.X (U through R), respectively.

Table 16

Czechoslovakia's Imports from East European Countries: Percent of Total Imports Converted to BEC by Special Allocation, 1958-1968

1. CTN 20 to BEC 31; CTN 51 to BEC 21; CTN 52 to BEC 21; CTN 81 to BEC 112 (50%) and 122 (50%); CTN 82 to BEC 122; CTN 83 to BEC 112.

2. CTN 34 to BEC 21 (50%) and 22 (50%); CTN 51 to BEC 21; CTN 83 to BEC 112 (50%) and 122 (50%).

3. CTN 20 to BEC 31 (50%) and 32 (50%); CTN 34 to BEC 21 (50%) and 22 (50%); CTN 51 to BEC 21 (50%) and 22 (50%); CTN 81 to BEC 112.

4. CTN 20 to BEC 31 (50%) and 32 (50%); CTN 34 to BEC 21 (50%) and 22 (50%); CTN 51 to BEC 21 (20%) and 22 (80%); CTN 81 to BEC 112; CTN 82 to BEC 121 (50%) and 122 (50%); CTN 83 to BEC 112 (50%) and 122 (50%).

5. CTN 20 to BEC 31; CTN 52 to BEC 21 (50%) and 22 (50%); CTN 81 to BEC 112; CTN 83 to BEC 112 (50%) and 122 (50%).

6. CTN 51 to BEC 21; CTN 83 to BEC 112 (50%) and 122 (50%).

7. CTN 51 to BEC 21; CTN 52 to BEC 21 (50%) and 22 ( 50%); CTN 81 to BEC 112; CTN 83 to BEC 112 (50%) and 122 (50%).

Table 17

Czechoslovakia's Exports to East European Countries:
Percent of Total Exports Converted to BEC by Special Allocation, 1958-1968

1. CTN 20 to BEC 31 (50%) and 32 (50%); CTN 34 to BEC 21 (50%) and 22 (50%); CTN 51 to BEC 21 (50%) and 22(50%); CTN 53 to BEC 21.

2. CTN 20 to BEC 31 (50%) and 32 (50%); CTN 231 to BEC 31 (50%) and 32 (50%); CTN 34 to BEC 21 (50%) and 22 (50%); CTN 51 to BEC 21 (50%) and 22 (50%); CTN 83 to BEC 112 (50%) and 122 (50%).

3. CTN 20 to BEC 31 (67%) and 32 (33%); CTN 34 to BEC 21 (50%) and 22 (50%); CTN 51 to BEC 21 (50%) and 22(50%).

4. CTN 20 to BEC 31 (10%) and 32 (90%); CTN 51 to BEC 22.

5. CTN 20 to BEC 31 (50%) and 32 (50%); CTN 51 to BEC 21 (50%) and 22 (50%).

6. CTN 20 to BEC 31 (50%) and 32 (50%); CTN 51 to BEC 21 (50%) and 22 (50%).

Statistical Series V

Tables V .CTN.MX.H (1 and 2)

1949-55: H-1 (see Note 1 to Tables II.CTN.M.H and II.CTN.X.H); 1956, CPEs: H-2, January 1957; 1956, Non-CPEs: calculated by applying percentages given in H-8, February-March 1967, p. 203, to “Total Non-CPEs” (see documentation to Tables I.M.H and I.X.H); 1958, CPEs: Total trade by CTN broad divisions (see Tables II.CTN.M.H and II.CTN.X.H), less trade with “Non-CPEs”; 1958: Non-CPEs: calculated by applying percentages given in H-8, February-March 1967 to “Total Non-CPEs”; 1959-68: annual issues of H-1 (see Note 3 to Tables II.CTN.M.H and II.CTN.X.H); 1969: H-2, March 1970.

Note. The commodity composition of CTN broad divisions had been revised as of 1967, the most significant change being the reclassification of spare parts from Broad Division I to II (see Note 3 to Tables II.CTN.M.H and II.CTN.X.H). For consistency, the official statistics were adjusted here by reclassifying spare parts from CTN Broad Division II to I. Trade in spare parts for 1968 and 1969 are shown in H-1, 1968 and H-1, 1969, respectively; for 1967 it was assumed that the ratio of spare parts to machinery was the same as in 1968.

Tables V .CTN.MX.P (1 and 2)

1946-68: P-2, 1968; 1969: P-2, 1969.