ANALISIS DAYA SAING EKSPOR UDANG BEKU INDONESIA DI PASAR AMERIKA SERIKAT

Authors

  • Revan Wahyu Dimantara Universitas Islam Riau
  • Septina Elida Universitas Islam Riau

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25299/dp.2020.vol36(1).5373

Keywords:

Competitiveness, Export, Frozen Shrimp, United States, HI, CR4, RCA, CMSA

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The United States is the main market for Indonesia's frozen shrimp exports, after Japan and the European Union. This study aims to analyze: (1) the export performance; (2) the export competitiveness; and (3) the factors affecting export of Indonesian frozen shrimp in the US market. This study uses library research methods, data analysis used in this study are: growth rate, concentration ratio (CR4) & Herfindahl Index (HI); Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) & Constant Market Share Analysis (CMSA); and linear regression with OLS estimation method. The results of the analysis show: (1) The growth of the export value of Indonesian frozen shrimp is 15.54%, while the value of CR4 & HI is 63,69% & 1.471, which are indicate that concentration and competition of the market is at moderate level, where Indonesia's market share is 15,21% (third highest after India and Thailand), (2) Indonesia's average RCA index is 20,11, the CMSA analysis show that the change in actual market share (0,77 x 10-4) is largely influenced by the competitiveness effect (98,74%), and the rest is influenced by the commodity composition effect (2,56%) and market distribution effect (-1,30%), (3) Factors that affect the export of Indonesian frozen shrimp in the US market significantly are domestic production, frozen shrimp export prices, processed shrimp export prices, and real exchange rates.

Keyword:        Competitiveness, Export, Frozen Shrimp, United States, HI, CR4, RCA, CMSA

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2020-07-29

How to Cite

Revan Wahyu Dimantara, & Septina Elida. (2020). ANALISIS DAYA SAING EKSPOR UDANG BEKU INDONESIA DI PASAR AMERIKA SERIKAT. DINAMIKA PERTANIAN, 36(1), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.25299/dp.2020.vol36(1).5373