|
|
The 2006-2011 World Outlook for Spice and Extract ManufacturingPublished by: Icon Group International, Inc. Published: Apr. 5, 2005 - 187 Pages Table of Contents1 INTRODUCTION 10 1.1 Overview 10 1.2 What is Latent Demand and the P.I.E.? 10 1.3 The Methodology 11 1.3.1 Step 1. Product Definition and Data Collection 12 1.3.2 Step 2. Filtering and Smoothing 15 1.3.3 Step 3. Filling in Missing Values 16 1.3.4 Step 4. Varying Parameter, Non-linear Estimation 16 1.3.5 Step 5. Fixed-Parameter Linear Estimation 16 1.3.6 Step 6. Aggregation and Benchmarking 17 1.3.7 Step 7. Latent Demand Density: Allocating Across Cities 17 2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 18 2.1 The Worldwide Market Potential 18 3 AFRICA 20 3.1 Executive Summary 20 3.2 Algeria 21 3.3 Angola 22 3.4 Benin 23 3.5 Botswana 23 3.6 Burkina Faso 24 3.7 Burundi 25 3.8 Cameroon 25 3.9 Cape Verde 26 3.10 Central African Republic 27 3.11 Chad 27 3.12 Comoros 28 3.13 Congo (formerly Zaire) 29 3.14 Cote d'Ivoire 30 3.15 Djibouti 30 3.16 Egypt 31 3.17 Equatorial Guinea 32 3.18 Ethiopia 32 3.19 Gabon 33 3.20 Ghana 34 3.21 Guinea 34 3.22 Guinea-Bissau 35 3.23 Kenya 36 3.24 Lesotho 37 3.25 Liberia 37 3.26 Libya 38 3.27 Madagascar 39 3.28 Malawi 39 3.29 Mali 40 3.30 Mauritania 41 3.31 Mauritius 41 3.32 Morocco 42 3.33 Mozambique 43 3.34 Namibia 43 3.35 Niger 44 3.36 Nigeria 45 3.37 Republic of Congo 46 3.38 Reunion 46 3.39 Rwanda 47 3.40 Sao Tome E Principe 48 3.41 Senegal 48 3.42 Sierra Leone 49 3.43 Somalia 50 3.44 South Africa 50 3.45 Sudan 51 3.46 Swaziland 52 3.47 Tanzania 52 3.48 The Gambia 53 3.49 Togo 54 3.50 Tunisia 54 3.51 Uganda 55 3.52 Western Sahara 56 3.53 Zambia 56 3.54 Zimbabwe 57 4 ASIA & THE MIDDLE EAST 59 4.1 Executive Summary 59 4.2 Afghanistan 60 4.3 Armenia 61 4.4 Azerbaijan 62 4.5 Bahrain 62 4.6 Bangladesh 63 4.7 Bhutan 64 4.8 Brunei 64 4.9 Burma 65 4.10 Cambodia 66 4.11 China 66 4.12 Hong Kong 67 4.13 India 68 4.14 Indonesia 69 4.15 Iran 70 4.16 Iraq 71 4.17 Israel 72 4.18 Japan 72 4.19 Jordan 73 4.20 Kuwait 74 4.21 Kyrgyzstan 75 4.22 Laos 75 4.23 Lebanon 76 4.24 Macau 77 4.25 Malaysia 77 4.26 Maldives 78 4.27 Mongolia 79 4.28 Nepal 79 4.29 North Korea 80 4.30 Oman 81 4.31 Pakistan 81 4.32 Palestine 82 4.33 Papua New Guinea 83 4.34 Philippines 83 4.35 Qatar 84 4.36 Saudi Arabia 85 4.37 Seychelles 86 4.38 Singapore 86 4.39 South Korea 87 4.40 Sri Lanka 88 4.41 Syrian Arab Republic 88 4.42 Taiwan 89 4.43 Tajikistan 90 4.44 Thailand 91 4.45 Turkey 92 4.46 Turkmenistan 93 4.47 United Arab Emirates 93 4.48 Uzbekistan 94 4.49 Vietnam 95 4.50 Yemen 95 5 EUROPE 97 5.1 Executive Summary 97 5.2 Albania 98 5.3 Andorra 99 5.4 Austria 99 5.5 Belarus 100 5.6 Belgium 101 5.7 Bosnia and Herzegovina 102 5.8 Bulgaria 103 5.9 Croatia 104 5.10 Cyprus 104 5.11 Czech Republic 105 5.12 Denmark 106 5.13 Estonia 107 5.14 Finland 107 5.15 France 108 5.16 Georgia 109 5.17 Germany 110 5.18 Greece 111 5.19 Hungary 111 5.20 Iceland 112 5.21 Ireland 113 5.22 Italy 113 5.23 Kazakhstan 114 5.24 Latvia 115 5.25 Liechtenstein 116 5.26 Lithuania 117 5.27 Luxembourg 117 5.28 Malta 118 5.29 Moldova 119 5.30 Monaco 119 5.31 Netherlands 120 5.32 Norway 121 5.33 Poland 121 5.34 Portugal 122 5.35 Romania 123 5.36 Russia 124 5.37 San Marino 125 5.38 Slovakia 125 5.39 Slovenia 126 5.40 Spain 127 5.41 Sweden 128 5.42 Switzerland 129 5.43 Ukraine 130 5.44 United Kingdom 131 6 LATIN AMERICA 132 6.1 Executive Summary 132 6.2 Argentina 133 6.3 Belize 134 6.4 Bolivia 135 6.5 Brazil 135 6.6 Chile 136 6.7 Colombia 137 6.8 Costa Rica 138 6.9 Ecuador 139 6.10 El Salvador 140 6.11 Falkland Islands 140 6.12 French Guiana 141 6.13 Guatemala 142 6.14 Guyana 142 6.15 Honduras 143 6.16 Mexico 144 6.17 Nicaragua 145 6.18 Panama 145 6.19 Paraguay 146 6.20 Peru 147 6.21 Suriname 148 6.22 Uruguay 148 6.23 Venezuela 149 7 NORTH AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN 151 7.1 Executive Summary 151 7.2 Antigua and Barbuda 152 7.3 Aruba 153 7.4 Bahamas 153 7.5 Barbados 154 7.6 Bermuda 155 7.7 British Virgin Islands 155 7.8 Canada 156 7.9 Cayman Islands 157 7.10 Cuba 157 7.11 Dominica 158 7.12 Dominican Republic 159 7.13 Greenland 159 7.14 Grenada 160 7.15 Guadeloupe 161 7.16 Haiti 161 7.17 Jamaica 162 7.18 Martinique 163 7.19 Netherlands Antilles 163 7.20 Puerto Rico 164 7.21 St. Kitts and Nevis 165 7.22 St. Lucia 165 7.23 St. Vincent and the Grenadines 166 7.24 Trinidad and Tobago 167 7.25 United States 167 7.26 Virgin Islands, US 168 8 OCEANA 170 8.1 Executive Summary 170 8.2 American Samoa 171 8.3 Australia 172 8.4 Christmas Island 173 8.5 Cook Islands 173 8.6 Fiji 174 8.7 French Polynesia 174 8.8 Guam 175 8.9 Kiribati 176 8.10 Marshall Islands 176 8.11 Micronesia Federation 177 8.12 Nauru 177 8.13 New Caledonia 178 8.14 New Zealand 178 8.15 Niue 179 8.16 Norfolk Island 180 8.17 Northern Mariana Island 180 8.18 Palau 181 8.19 Solomon Islands 181 8.20 Tokelau 182 8.21 Tonga 182 8.22 Tuvalu 183 8.23 Vanuatu 183 8.24 Wallis and Futuna 184 8.25 Western Samoa 184 9 DISCLAIMERS, WARRANTEES, AND USER AGREEMENT PROVISIONS 186 9.1 Disclaimers & Safe Harbor 186 9.2 ICON Group International, Inc. User Agreement Provisions 187 AbstractWHAT IS LATENT DEMAND AND THE P.I.E.?The concept of latent demand is rather subtle. The term latent typically refers to something that is dormant, not observable, or not yet realized. Demand is the notion of an economic quantity that a target population or market requires under different assumptions of price, quality, and distribution, among other factors. Latent demand, therefore, is commonly defined by economists as the industry earnings of a market when that market becomes accessible and attractive to serve by competing firms. It is a measure, therefore, of potential industry earnings (P.I.E.) or total revenues (not profit) if a market is served in an efficient manner. It is typically expressed as the total revenues potentially extracted by firms. The “market” is defined at a given level in the value chain. There can be latent demand at the retail level, at the wholesale level, the manufacturing level, and the raw materials level (the P.I.E. of higher levels of the value chain being always smaller than the P.I.E. of levels at lower levels of the same value chain, assuming all levels maintain minimum profitability). The latent demand for spice and extract manufacturing is not actual or historic sales. Nor is latent demand future sales. In fact, latent demand can be lower either lower or higher than actual sales if a market is inefficient (i.e., not representative of relatively competitive levels). Inefficiencies arise from a number of factors, including the lack of international openness, cultural barriers to consumption, regulations, and cartel-like behavior on the part of firms. In general, however, latent demand is typically larger than actual sales in a country market. For reasons discussed later, this report does not consider the notion of “unit quantities”, only total latent revenues (i.e., a calculation of price times quantity is never made, though one is implied). The units used in this report are U.S. dollars not adjusted for inflation (i.e., the figures incorporate inflationary trends) and not adjusted for future dynamics in exchange rates (i.e., the figures reflect average exchange rates over recent history). If inflation rates or exchange rates vary in a substantial way compared to recent experience, actually sales can also exceed latent demand (when expressed in U.S. dollars, not adjusted for inflation). On the other hand, latent demand can be typically higher than actual sales as there are often distribution inefficiencies that reduce actual sales below the level of latent demand. As mentioned in the introduction, this study is strategic in nature, taking an aggregate and long-run view, irrespective of the players or products involved. If fact, all the current products or services on the market can cease to exist in their present form (i.e., at a brand-, R&D specification, or corporate-image level) and all the players can be replaced by other firms (i.e., via exits, entries, mergers, bankruptcies, etc.), and there will still be an international latent demand for spice and extract manufacturing at the aggregate level. Product and service offering details, and the actual identity of the players involved, while important for certain issues, are relatively unimportant for estimates of latent demand. THE METHODOLOGY In order to estimate the latent demand for spice and extract manufacturing on a worldwide basis, I used a multi-stage approach. Before applying the approach, one needs a basic theory from which such estimates are created. In this case, I heavily rely on the use of certain basic economic assumptions. In particular, there is an assumption governing the shape and type of aggregate latent demand functions. Latent demand functions relate the income of a country, city, state, household, or individual to realized consumption. Latent demand (often realized as consumption when an industry is efficient), at any level of the value chain, takes place if an equilibrium in realized. For firms to serve a market, they must perceive a latent demand and be able to serve that demand at a minimal return. The single most important variable determining consumption, assuming latent demand exists, is income (or other financial resources at higher levels of the value chain). Other factors that can pivot or shape demand curves include external or exogenous shocks (i.e., business cycles), and or changes in utility for the product in question. Ignoring, for the moment, exogenous shocks and variations in utility across countries, the aggregate relation between income and consumption has been a central theme in economics. The figure below concisely summarizes one aspect of problem. In the 1930s, John Meynard Keynes conjectured that as incomes rise, the average propensity to consume would fall. The average propensity to consume is the level of consumption divided by the level of income, or the slope of the line from the origin to the consumption function. He estimated this relationship empirically and found it to be true in the short-run (mostly based on cross-sectional data). The higher the income, the lower the average propensity to consume. This type of consumption function is labeled "A" in the figure below (note the rather flat slope of the curve). In the 1940s, another macroeconomist, Simon Kuznets, estimated long-run consumption functions which indicated that the marginal propensity to consume was rather constant (using time series data across countries). This type of consumption function is show as "B" in the figure below (note the higher slope and zero-zero intercept). The average propensity to consume is constant. Is it declining or is it constant? A number of other economists, notably Franco Modigliani and Milton Friedman, in the 1950s (and Irving Fisher earlier), explained why the two functions were different using various assumptions on intertemporal budget constraints, savings, and wealth. The shorter the time horizon, the more consumption can depend on wealth (earned in previous years) and business cycles. In the long-run, however, the propensity to consume is more constant. Similarly, in the long run, households, industries or countries with no income eventually have no consumption (wealth is depleted). While the debate surrounding beliefs about how income and consumption are related and interesting, in this study a very particular school of thought is adopted. In particular, we are considering the latent demand for spice and extract manufacturing across some 230 countries. The smallest have fewer than 10,000 inhabitants. I assume that all of these counties fall along a "long-run" aggregate consumption function. This long-run function applies despite some of these countries having wealth, current income dominates the latent demand for spice and extract manufacturing. So, latent demand in the long-run has a zero intercept. However, I allow firms to have different propensities to consume (including being on consumption functions with differing slopes, which can account for differences in industrial organization, and end-user preferences). Given this overriding philosophy, I will now describe the methodology used to create the latent demand estimates for spice and extract manufacturing. Since ICON Group has asked me to apply this methodology to a large number of categories, the rather academic discussion below is general and can be applied to a wide variety of categories, not just spice and extract manufacturing. Step 1. Product Definition and Data Collection Any study of latent demand across countries requires that some standard be established to define “efficiently served”. Having implemented various alternatives and matched these with market outcomes, I have found that the optimal approach is to assume that certain key countries are more likely to be at or near efficiency than others. These countries are given greater weight than others in the estimation of latent demand compared to other countries for which no known data are available. Of the many alternatives, I have found the assumption that the world’s highest aggregate income and highest income-per-capita markets reflect the best standards for “efficiency”. High aggregate income alone is not sufficient (i.e., China has high aggregate income, but low income per capita and can not assumed to be efficient). Aggregate income can be operationalized in a number of ways, including gross domestic product (for industrial categories), or total disposable income (for household categories; population times average income per capita, or number of households times average household income per capita). Brunei, Nauru, Kuwait, and Lichtenstein are examples of countries with high income per capita, but not assumed to be efficient, given low aggregate level of income (or gross domestic product); these countries have, however, high incomes per capita but may not benefit from the efficiencies derived from economies of scale associated with large economies. Only countries with high income per capita and large aggregate income are assumed efficient. This greatly restricts the pool of countries to those in the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), like the United States, or the United Kingdom (which were earlier than other large OECD economies to liberalize their markets). The selection of countries is further reduced by the fact that not all countries in the OECD report industry revenues at the category level. Countries that typically have ample data at the aggregate level that meet the efficiency criteria include the United States, the United Kingdom and in some cases France and Germany. Latent demand is therefore estimated using data collected for relatively efficient markets from independent data sources (e.g. Euromonitor, Mintel, Thomson Financial Services, the U.S. Industrial Outlook, the World Resources Institute, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, various agencies from the United Nations, industry trade associations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank). Depending on original data sources used, the definition of “spice and extract manufacturing” is established. In the case of this report, the data were reported at the aggregate level, with no further breakdown or definition. In other words, any potential product or service that might be incorporated within spice and extract manufacturing falls under this category. Public sources rarely report data at the disaggregated level in order to protect private information from individual firms that might dominate a specific product-market. These sources will therefore aggregate across components of a category and report only the aggregate to the public. While private data are certainly available, this report only relies on public data at the aggregate level without reliance on the summation of various category components. In other words, this report does not aggregate a number of components to arrive at the “whole”. Rather, it starts with the “whole”, and estimates the whole for all countries and the world at large (without needing to know the specific parts that went into the whole in the first place). Given this caveat, this study covers “spice and extract manufacturing” as defined by the North American Industrial Classification system or NAICS (pronounced “nakes”). For a complete definition of spice and extract manufacturing, please refer to the Web site at http://www.icongrouponline.com/codes/NAICS.html. The NAICS code for spice and extract manufacturing is 311942. It is for this definition of spice and extract manufacturing that the aggregate latent demand estimates are derived. “Spice and extract manufacturing” is specifically defined as follows: 311942 This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in (1) manufacturing spices, table salt, seasonings, flavoring extracts (except coffee and meat), and natural food colorings and/or (2) manufacturing dry mix food preparations, such as salad dressing mixes, gravy and sauce mixes, frosting mixes, and other dry mix preparations. 3119421 table salt, pepper, and other spices 31194211 evaporated table salt and white and black pepper 3119421111 table salt 3119421121 white and black pepper in consumer sizes less than 1 pound 3119421131 white and black pepper in commercial sizes of at least 1 pound 31194212 spices in consumer sizes less than 1 pound 3119421241 spices in consumer sizes less than 1 pound 31194213 spices in commercial sizes of at least 1 pound 3119421351 spices in commercial sizes of at least 1 pound 3119424 Flavoring extracts, emulsions, and other liquid flavors 31194241 Flavoring extracts, emulsions, and other liquid flavors 3119424111 Natural or true flavoring extracts, emulsions, and other liquid flavors, in containers 8 oz or less 3119424121 Natural or true flavoring extracts, emulsions, and other liquid flavors, in containers more than 8 oz 3119424131 Imitation flavoring extracts, emulsions, and other liquid flavors 3119424141 Coffee, extracts 3119425 flavoring extracts, emulsions, and other liquid flavors and food colorings excluding synthetic types 31194251 flavoring extracts, emulsions, and other liquid flavors and food colorings excluding synthetic types 3119425111 natural and true flavoring extracts, emulsions, and other liquid flavors in containers of maximum 8 ounces 3119425121 natural and true flavoring extracts, emulsions, and other liquid flavors in containers of more than 8 ounces 3119425131 imitation flavoring extracts, emulsions, and other liquid flavors 3119425151 food colorings excluding synthetic types 3119427 dip, salad dressing, seasoning mixes, and other dry mix food preparations 31194271 dry dip, salad dressing, and seasoning mixes 3119427111 dry dip mixes 3119427121 dry salad dressing mixes 3119427131 dry seasoning mixes 31194272 dry gravy and sauce mixes and frosting mixes 3119427241 dry gravy and sauce mixes 3119427251 dry frosting mixes 311942M Miscellaneous receipts 311942P Primary products 311942S Secondary products 311942SM Secondary products and miscellaneous receipts Furthermore, the definition of NAICS code 311942 includes the following: Chili pepper or powder manufacturing Extracts, food (except coffee, meat), manufacturing Extracts, malt, manufacturing Flavor extracts (except coffee) manufacturing Food coloring, natural, manufacturing Food extracts (except coffee, meat) manufacturing Fruit extracts manufacturing Gravy mixes, dry, manufacturing Grinding spices Hop extract manufacturing Malt extract and syrups manufacturing Pectin manufacturing Pepper (i.e., spice) manufacturing Salad dressing mixes, dry, manufacturing Salt substitute manufacturing Salt, table, manufacturing Sauce mixes, dry, manufacturing Seasoning salt manufacturing Spice grinding and blending Spice mixtures manufacturing Spices and spice mix manufacturing Table salt manufacturing. Step 2. Filtering and Smoothing Based on the aggregate view of spice and extract manufacturing as defined above, data were then collected for as many similar countries as possible for that same definition, at the same level of the value chain. This generates a convenience sample of countries from which comparable figures are available. If the series in question do not reflect the same accounting period, then adjustments are made. In order to eliminate short-term effects of business cycles, the series are smoothed using an 2 year moving average weighting scheme (longer weighting schemes do not substantially change the results). If data are available for a country, but these reflect short-run aberrations due to exogenous shocks (such as would be the case of beef sales in a country stricken with foot and mouth disease), these observations were dropped or "filtered" from the analysis. Step 3. Filling in Missing Values In some cases, data are available for countries on a sporadic basis. In other cases, data from a country may be available for only one year. From a Bayesian perspective, these observations should be given greatest weight in estimating missing years. Assuming that other factors are held constant, the missing years are extrapolated using changes and growth in aggregate national income. Based on the overriding philosophy of a long-run consumption function (defined earlier), countries which have missing data for any given year, are estimated based on historical dynamics of aggregate income for that country. Step 4. Varying Parameter, Non-linear Estimation Given the data available from the first three steps, the latent demand in additional countries is estimated using a “varying-parameter cross-sectionally pooled time series model”. Simply stated, the effect of income on latent demand is assumed to be constant across countries unless there is empirical evidence to suggest that this effect varies (i.e., . the slope of the income effect is not necessarily same for all countries). This assumption applies across countries along the aggregate consumption function, but also over time (i.e., not all countries are perceived to have the same income growth prospects over time and this effect can vary from country to country as well). Another way of looking at this is to say that latent demand for spice and extract manufacturing is more likely to be similar across countries that have similar characteristics in terms of economic development (i.e., African countries will have similar latent demand structures controlling for the income variation across the pool of African countries). This approach is useful across countries for which some notion of non-linearity exists in the aggregate cross-country consumption function. For some categories, however, the reader must realize that the numbers will reflect a country’s contribution to global latent demand and may never be realized in the form of local sales. For certain country-category combinations this will result in what at first glance will be odd results. For example, the latent demand for the category “space vehicles” will exist for “Togo” even though they have no space program. The assumption is that if the economies in these countries did not exist, the world aggregate for these categories would be lower. The share attributed to these countries is based on a proportion of their income (however small) being used to consume the category in question (i.e., perhaps via resellers). Step 5. Fixed-Parameter Linear Estimation Nonlinearities are assumed in cases where filtered data exist along the aggregate consumption function. Because the world consists of more than 200 countries, there will always be those countries, especially toward the bottom of the consumption function, where non-linear estimation is simply not possible. For these countries, equilibrium latent demand is assumed to be perfectly parametric and not a function of wealth (i.e., a country’s stock of income), but a function of current income (a country’s flow of income). In the long run, if a country has no current income, the latent demand for spice and extract manufacturing is assumed to approach zero. The assumption is that wealth stocks fall rapidly to zero if flow income falls to zero (i.e., countries which earn low levels of income will not use their savings, in the long run, to demand spice and extract manufacturing). In a graphical sense, for low income countries, latent demand approaches zero in a parametric linear fashion with a zero-zero intercept. In this stage of the estimation procedure, low-income countries are assumed to have a latent demand proportional to their income, based on the country closest to it on the aggregate consumption function. Step 6. Aggregation and Benchmarking Based on the models described above, latent demand figures are estimated for all countries of the world, including for the smallest economies. These are then aggregated to get world totals and regional totals. To make the numbers more meaningful, regional and global demand averages are presented. Figures are rounded, so minor inconsistencies may exist across tables. Step 7. Latent Demand Density: Allocating Across Cities With the advent of a “borderless world”, cities become a more important criteria in prioritizing markets, as opposed to regions, continents, or countries. This report also covers the world’s top 2000 cities. The purpose is to understand the density of demand within a country and the extent to which a city might be used as a point of distribution within its region. From an economic perspective, however, a city does not represent a population within rigid geographical boundaries. To an economist or strategic planner, a city represents an area of dominant influence over markets in adjacent areas. This influence varies from one industry to another, but also from one period of time to another. Similar to country-level data, the reader needs to realize that latent demand allocated to a city may or may not represent real sales. For many items, latent demand is clearly observable in sales, as in the case for food or housing items. Consider, again, the category “satellite launch vehicles.” Clearly, there are no launch pads in most cities of the world. However, the core benefit of the vehicles (e.g. telecommunications, etc.) is "consumed" by residents or industries within the world's cities. Without certain cities, in other words, the world market for satellite launch vehicles would be lower for the world in general. One needs to allocate, therefore, a portion of the worldwide economic demand for launch vehicles to regions, countries and cities. This report takes the broader definition and considers, therefore, a city as a part of the global market. I allocate latent demand across areas of dominant influence based on the relative economic importance of cities within its home country, within its region and across the world total. Not all cities are estimated within each country as demand may be allocated to adjacent areas of influence. Since some cities have higher economic wealth than others within the same country, a city’s population is not generally used to allocate latent demand. Rather, the level of economic activity of the city vis-à-vis others. Get Full Details About This Report >> |
|
|||
|
About MarketResearch.com
|
||||