English / ქართული / русский /
Alexander TvalchrelidzeKhatuna Tabagari
Commodity Sector of Iran – Impact to Economic Development

Abstract

The article deals with statistical modeling of the primary commodity production impact on Iran’s economy. Iran produces about 30 primary mineral commodities, however only few them have significant impact on the country’s GDP. Statistical modeling consisted in investigation of the quadratic regression equation, which establishes interrelation between the total (aggregated) commodity value and Iran’s GDP. Results of investigation have demonstrated that: the commodity sector annually ensures from 30 to 50% of GDP. Quadratic equation has an exponential character, and this means that further growth in commodity production will have huge impact on economic growth..

Keywords: (Commodity value, GDP, quadratic regression equation, economic development)

Introduction

Surprisingly, influence of commodities on economy is one of the worst explored problems of the modern economy and economic geology. Only by the end of the recent century a number of publications appeared where authors tried to investigate interrelation between the commodities and the economic development. First of all, it has been proven that commodity prices do not follow the basic economic rule – interrelation between supply and demand (Deaton and Laroque, 1992). On the other hand, a series of publications studied so-called “commodity currencies” (Browne and Cronin, 2007; Chen and Rogoff, 2003; Cashin, Céspedes, and Sahay, 2003, etc.) showing that commodities have a lot of common with different financial instruments, like currencies, bonds, options, etc. rather than with goods. In another series of publications influence of oil and other commodity prices on GDP was illustrated (Tanaka, 2009; McAlien and Komulainen, 2008, etc.). Mr. Rogoff (2005) has used a simple regression equation for studying interdependence between oil output and its prices and has shown a direct influence of the latter on economic indices, namely, of the stock market quotes, etc.

However, the first analysis of direct impact of primary commodity production, consumption and exports on either the country or the world GDP was performed by us. For this purpose, we have elaborated a special approach (Tvalchrelidze, 2011), slightly updated recently (Tvalchrelidze and Silagadze, 2013).

Theoretical Fundamentals and Methodology

According to the classical theory (Sachs and Larrain, 1993), the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) represents a sum of added values. However, we have proven (Tvalchrelidze, 2011) that using the classical hypothesis of commodities (Sabsford, 1994), GDP may be described in commodity terms because the basis of any good is a corresponding commodity:

 , (1)

Where GDP = Gross Domestic Product, Pi = average weighted annual market price of the ith commodity, Si = annual volume of the produced commodity, = price of the ith commodity processed up to the finished product n, Fn = volume of sold nth product, As = added value of all services (governmental, insurance, bank, education, etc.).

As far as in the equation (1) commodities are expressed in economic terms, we have introduced the notion of “Commodity Value”, which, likewise the added value, shall imply volume of annual primary commodity production multiplied by its average annual world price. In this case the “Total Commodity Value” shall imply sum of all investigated commodity values.

For the statistical modeling, first of all, interrelation between GDP and the total commodity value shall be studied using the classical equation of correlation (Freeman, 2005):

  .        (2)

If the correlation factor is significant and strong, interrelation between two variables may be analyzed by the regression method (Levine et al., 2010):

  ,      (3)

Where = residual of equation (4):

  ,   (4)

and coefficient β is determined by last squares method meaning that deviation of squares of points should be minimum. It is reached by an extremum (Levine et al., 2010):

  . (5)

In none-linear cases it is possible to compute the values of coefficients, standard errors and residue . To do so, we need to know mean values of  and , the standard deviation of x, the standard deviation of y, and the correlation between them. Such computation was realized in the SPSS computer system using ANOVA (analysis of variance) technology (Levine et al., 2010).

For statistical analysis the following international sources were used: (1) Annual yearbooks “BP Statistical Review of World Energy” (see, for instance, BP Statistical…, 2017) – for oil and gas production data; (2) Annual yearbooks on world mineral production by the British Geological Survey (see, for instance, Brown et al., 2018) – for mineral commodity production data; (3) World Development Indicators from the World Bank Group data bank (see http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators) – for GDP data by years. And (4) IMF primary commodity prices – for average monthly prices of mineral commodities (see http://www.imf.org/external/np/res/commod/index.aspx).

Iran is annually producing about 30 energy and mineral commodities (Fig. 1) but only nine of them, the aggregated commodity value of which exceed US$ 300 million (Table 1), have significant impact on economic development.

 

Figure 1: 2016 Energy and Mineral Commodity Production in Iran as a share of World Production

Table 1: Average Weighted Basic Commodity Production in Iran in 1980-2016

Primary commodity

Share in commodity value model, %

Oil

70.98

Gas

25.54

Aluminium

0.41

Iron ore

2.02

Copper

0.80

Lead

0.06

Zinc

0.15

Gold

0.02

Silver

0.02

Total

100.00

 

Modeling period was chosen 1980-2016: no statistical data in cited issues are available for the year 2017. Using the described approach we have completed a database for modeling (See annex).

Fig. 2 displays correlation between Iran’s GDP and aggregated commodity value. Extremely high figure of the correlation factor allows us to perform statistical modeling according to the methodology described above.

 

Figure 2: Interrelation between the Iran’s GDP and Total Commodity Value

Results and Discussion

Fig. 3 provides the quadratic regression equation graph, where interrelation between the aggregated commodity value and Iran’s GDP is explored. The graph has an exponential character, and this means that further growth in commodity production will have huge impact on economic growth. For comparison, the same graph of China demonstrates that the commodity sector of the country is already saturated, and no farther accelerated growth of GDP is expected (Silagadze et al., 2016).

Fig. 4 compares real and model GDP of Iran. Extremely high value of the correlation factor is observed, and accuracy of the statistical model is ±5%.

 

Figure 3: Statistical Model of Iran’s GDP

 Figure 4: Comparison of Real and Model GDP of Iran

Conclusions

  1. As in each country, which develops market relations, impact of commodity sector on economic growth of Iran is huge
  2. In the new Millennium this impact annually varies from 30 to 50% of GDP
  3. Quadratic equation, which describes interdependence between total commodity value and Iran’s GDP, has an exponential character, and this means that further growth in commodity production will have huge impact on economic growth
  4. Using the model hereto, the Iranian governmental decision maker, planning production of basic commodities, may predict rate of economic growth, and the accuracy of such assessment will be ± 5%.

Hence, share of mineral versus energy commodities in total commodity sector is inadequately low in Iran. As far as further growth in oil and gas production meets huge geopolitical and infrastructural encumbrances, the basic bets shall be placed on development of mineral commodity production, and mainly on gold and base metals. For doing this:

  1. Investments in exploration & mining shall be promoted
  2. Mining Act of Iran shall be updated taking into account the best world mining practice
  3. Routine procedures of licensing shall be simplified, and
  4. Licenses where no business activities were registered during a fiscal year, shall immediately be canceled.

Acknowledgements

Authors are sincerely grateful to Mr. Reza Bahraman from the Iran Mine House for strong support of this investigation.

 

References

BP Statistical Review of World Energy (2017). London: BP, 52 p.

Brown, T.J., Idoine, N.E., Raycraft, E.R., Shaw, R.A, Hobbs, S.F., Everett, P, Deady, E.A. and Bide, T. (2018). World mineral production, 2011-2015. Keyworth, Nottingham: British Geological Survey, 88 p.

Browne, F. and Cronin, D. (2007). Commodity prices, money, and inflation. Working Paper Series No 738.  Frankfurt am Main: European Central Bank, 35 p.

Cashin, P., Céspedes, L.-F., and Sahay, R. (2003). Commodity currencies and the real exchange rate. Santiago: Central Bank of Chile, Working Paper No 236, 39 p.

Chen, Y. and Rogoff, K. (2003). Commodity currencies. Journal of International Economics, Vol.60, p. 133-160.

Deaton, A. and Laroque, G. (1992). On the behavior of commodity prices. Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 59, p. 1-23.

Freeman, D.A., 2005. Statistical models. Theory and practice. Berkeley: University of California, 424 p.

Levine, D.M., Berenson, M.L., Krehbiel, T.C., and Stephan, D.F. (2010). Statistics for managers using Microsoft Excel. 6thEdition. London: Pearson PLC, 840 p.

McAlien, B. and Komulainen, T. (2008). Equity strategy: implication of structurally strong oil price. London: European Security Network, 150 p.

Rogoff, K. (2005). Oil and global economy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 42 p.

Sabsford, D. (ed.)  (1994). The economics of primary commodities: models, analysis, policy. Liverpool: University of Liverpool, UK and Wyn Morgan, 192 p.

Sachs, J.D. and Larrain, F.B. (1993). Macroeconomics in the global economy. New York: Simon and Schuster, 848 p.

Silagadze, A., Tvalchrelidze, A., Zubiashvili, T., and Atanelishvili T. (2016). Aspects of China’s economic development. Ecoforum, 5, Issue 1(8), p. 47-64.

Tanaka, N. (2009). Medium term oil market outlook. The Hague: Clingendael Energy Lectures, 18 p.

Tvalchrelidze, A.G. (2011). Economics of commodities and commodity markets. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 906 p.

Tvalchrelidze, A. and Silagadze, A. (2013). Macroeconomic model for oil-exporting countries. Central Asia and the Caucasus, Vol. 14, p. 118-145.

Annex. Data Base for Statistical Modelling 

Year

GDP, USD billion

Oil

Gas

Aluminium

Produc-tion, million t

Price, USD per barrel

Price, USD per t

Value, USD billion

Produc-tion, billion m3

Price, USD per 1,000 m3

Value, USD billion

Produc-tion, 1,000 t

Price, USD per t

Value, USD billion

1980

94.362

74.158

37.42

274.29

20.34

4.802

63.57

0.31

40.000

1774.91

0.07

1981

100.499

66.160

35.75

262.05

17.34

5.218

70.63

0.37

42.000

1262.73

0.05

1982

125.949

120.092

31.83

233.31

28.02

7.146

88.29

0.63

45.000

991.57

0.04

1983

156.365

122.834

29.08

213.16

26.18

8.167

84.76

0.69

39.200

1438.44

0.06

1984

162.277

102.518

28.75

210.74

21.60

9.506

84.76

0.81

42.400

1251.61

0.05

1985

180.184

110.351

26.92

197.32

21.77

10.256

88.29

0.91

43.000

1040.73

0.04

1986

209.095

102.700

14.44

105.85

10.87

9.852

63.57

0.63

40.000

1149.71

0.05

1987

134.010

116.726

17.75

130.11

15.19

12.061

67.10

0.81

37.821

1565.10

0.06

1988

123.058

117.383

14.87

109.00

12.79

13.094

88.00

1.15

28.183

2546.52

0.07

1989

120.496

143.839

18.33

134.36

19.33

16.535

89.00

1.47

44.019

1950.71

0.09

1990

124.813

162.789

23.19

169.98

27.67

26.171

104.23

2.73

94.647

1639.50

0.16

1991

85.000

174.371

20.20

148.07

25.82

30.916

117.64

3.64

70.100

1304.02

0.09

1992

60.000

175.679

19.25

141.10

24.79

32.720

93.56

3.06

90.500

1256.27

0.11

1993

63.744

184.294

16.75

122.78

22.63

17.484

98.93

1.73

111.200

1139.93

0.13

1994

71.841

184.985

15.66

114.79

21.23

27.773

89.43

2.48

120.814

1475.63

0.18

1995

96.419

185.457

16.75

122.78

22.77

33.741

94.73

3.20

114.879

1805.02

0.21

1996

120.404

186.642

20.46

149.97

27.99

39.682

119.11

4.73

77.535

1506.79

0.12

1997

113.919

186.963

18.64

136.63

25.54

41.694

105.85

4.41

90.000

1599.29

0.14

1998

110.277

190.788

11.91

87.30

16.66

47.085

84.37

3.97

110.000

1357.57

0.15

1999

113.848

178.117

16.56

121.38

21.62

56.093

88.22

4.95

137.422

1359.99

0.19

2000

109.592

191.703

27.39

200.77

38.49

59.647

154.72

9.23

141.494

1551.50

0.22

2001

126.879

189.820

23.00

168.59

32.00

66.284

148.83

9.86

148.844

1446.75

0.22

2002

128.627

179.148

22.81

167.20

29.95

78.822

124.45

9.81

169.491

1351.06

0.23

2003

153.545

202.119

27.69

202.97

41.02

82.676

166.22

13.74

182.477

1432.84

0.26

2004

183.697

208.881

37.66

276.05

57.66

96.390

185.17

17.85

212.602

1718.51

0.37

2005

219.846

207.888

50.04

366.79

76.25

102.290

259.64

26.56

218.754

1900.51

0.42

2006

258.646

210.686

58.30

427.34

90.03

111.464

273.84

30.52

205.462

2573.06

0.53

2007

337.474

213.334

64.20

470.59

100.39

124.949

280.11

35.00

215.981

2639.86

0.57

2008

397.190

215.588

91.48

670.55

144.56

130.828

399.84

52.31

241.300

2577.92

0.62

2009

398.978

207.420

53.48

392.01

81.31

143.712

241.56

34.71

281.300

1669.18

0.47

2010

467.790

211.702

71.21

521.97

110.50

152.367

261.82

39.89

282.000

2173.00

0.61

2011

592.038

212.687

87.04

638.00

135.69

159.858

358.92

57.38

329.000

2400.64

0.79

2012

587.209

180.682

86.46

633.75

114.51

166.158

391.43

65.04

337.000

2022.80

0.68

2013

511.621

169.763

91.17

668.28

113.45

166.785

383.97

64.04

355.000

1846.68

0.66

2014

425.326

174.239

85.60

627.45

109.33

185.842

378.95

70.42

355.000

1867.42

0.66

2015

393.436

181.607

41.58

304.78

55.35

189.373

247.99

46.96

355.000

1664.68

0.59

2016

418.977

216.400

34.39

252.08

54.55

202.400

134.08

27.14

360.000

1772.52

0.64

 

Year

Copper

Lead

Zinc

Produc-tion, 1,000 t

Price, USD per t

Value, USD billion

Produc-tion, 1,000 t

Price, USD per t

Value, USD billion

Produc-tion, 1,000 t

Price, USD per t

Value, USD billion

1980

1.000

2185.15

0.00

0.000

905.36

0.00

0.000

760.9614

0.00

1981

1.000

1742.75

0.00

0.000

725.87

0.00

0.000

845.8392

0.00

1982

1.000

1481.69

0.00

0.000

545.83

0.00

0.000

744.7941

0.00

1983

5.000

1592.47

0.01

5.000

425.31

0.01

0.000

764.452

0.00

1984

5.000

1376.97

0.01

7.500

441.95

0.01

0.000

921.8986

0.00

1985

12.000

1417.24

0.02

7.500

390.68

0.01

0.000

783.375

0.00

1986

12.000

1369.80

0.02

8.000

405.65

0.01

0.000

753.9801

0.00

1987

30.000

1781.15

0.05

10.000

596.35

0.01

0.000

798.0724

0.00

1988

32.600

2599.80

0.08

10.000

655.51

0.01

0.000

1240.282

0.00

1989

39.900

2847.21

0.11

9.000

672.64

0.01

0.000

1656.22

0.00

1990

43.300

2661.34

0.12

10.000

809.50

0.01

0.000

1517.917

0.00

1991

81.010

2338.50

0.19

8.000

557.80

0.01

0.000

1121.36

0.00

1992

90.000

2284.81

0.21

12.000

543.51

0.01

0.000

1241.834

0.00

1993

110.000

1914.96

0.21

25.000

407.34

0.03

0.000

963.9644

0.00

1994

133.132

2305.53

0.31

31.000

548.72

0.03

0.709

998.2232

0.00

1995

121.631

2932.04

0.36

30.000

629.29

0.03

2.437

1031.087

0.00

1996

135.340

2293.39

0.31

30.000

774.13

0.03

5.742

1024.975

0.01

1997

140.000

2275.19

0.32

30.000

623.06

0.03

15.000

1314.898

0.02

1998

160.000

1653.71

0.26

35.000

526.92

0.04

18.000

1024.285

0.02

1999

154.232

1572.53

0.24

42.000

501.76

0.04

29.734

1075.8

0.03

2000

181.238

1814.52

0.33

42.000

454.17

0.04

53.000

1127.698

0.06

2001

181.526

1580.17

0.29

44.000

476.36

0.04

73.000

886.8195

0.06

2002

171.572

1560.29

0.27

39.000

452.25

0.04

81.000

778.9019

0.06

2003

168.613

1779.36

0.30

48.000

514.21

0.05

78.428

827.9666

0.06

2004

182.814

2863.47

0.52

54.000

881.94

0.05

109.400

1048.04

0.11

2005

180.000

3676.49

0.66

71.000

974.37

0.07

140.000

1380.547

0.19

2006

201.000

6731.35

1.35

74.000

1288.42

0.07

140.000

3266.181

0.46

2007

204.300

7131.63

1.46

78.000

2579.12

0.08

125.000

3249.726

0.41

2008

210.000

6963.48

1.46

75.000

2093.32

0.08

110.000

1884.831

0.21

2009

200.000

5165.30

1.03

76.000

1719.44

0.08

115.200

1658.39

0.19

2010

219.800

7538.37

1.66

75.000

2148.19

0.08

112.000

2160.357

0.24

2011

227.200

8823.45

2.00

82.000

2400.70

0.08

138.000

2195.532

0.30

2012

213.000

7958.92

1.70

81.000

2063.56

0.08

148.000

1950.023

0.29

2013

188.000

7331.49

1.38

76.000

2139.75

0.08

140.000

1910.166

0.27

2014

189.000

6863.40

1.30

72.000

2095.46

0.07

145.000

2160.971

0.31

2015

193.000

5510.46

1.06

78.000

1787.82

0.08

138.000

1931.678

0.27

2016

200.000

4867.90

0.97

84.000

1866.65

0.16

115.000

2089.975

0.24

 

 

 

Year

 

Gold

Silver

Total value, USD billion

Produc-tion, kg

Price, USD per ounce

Price, USD per kg

Value, USD billion

Produc-tion, t

Price, USD per ounce

Price, USD per t

Value, USD billion

1980

0

612.56

19694.25

0.00

0.0

20.98

674650.76

0.00

20.73

1981

0

460.03

14790.30

0.00

0.0

10.49

337164.63

0.00

17.77

1982

0

375.67

12078.06

0.00

0.0

7.92

254698.02

0.00

28.71

1983

0

424.35

13643.16

0.00

10.0

11.43

367482.76

0.00

26.96

1984

0

360.48

11589.69

0.00

20.0

8.15

261867.64

0.01

22.49

1985

0

317.26

10200.14

0.00

20.0

6.13

197148.23

0.00

22.76

1986

0

367.66

11820.53

0.00

25.0

5.50

176828.97

0.00

11.58

1987

0

446.46

14354.01

0.00

28.0

7.02

225569.47

0.01

16.14

1988

0

436.94

14047.94

0.00

30.0

6.53

210008.52

0.01

14.14

1989

0

381.44

12263.57

0.00

41.0

5.50

176828.97

0.01

21.04

1990

0

383.51

12330.12

0.00

38.0

4.83

155352.29

0.01

30.72

1991

0

363.29

11680.04

0.00

47.5

4.06

130435.48

0.01

29.85

1992

0

344.97

11091.03

0.00

50.0

3.94

126770.30

0.01

28.32

1993

0

360.91

11603.52

0.00

50.0

4.31

138666.07

0.01

24.87

1994

723

385.41

12391.21

0.01

60.0

5.29

169916.57

0.01

24.43

1995

370

385.41

12391.21

0.00

60.0

5.20

167087.31

0.01

26.76

1996

242

385.5

12394.10

0.00

46.0

5.20

167151.61

0.01

33.40

1997

281

331.26

10650.25

0.00

50.0

4.99

160335.65

0.01

30.78

1998

360

294.09

9455.21

0.00

55.0

5.54

178243.61

0.01

21.42

1999

760

278.57

8956.23

0.01

21.4

5.22

167762.47

0.00

27.38

2000

765

279.11

8973.59

0.01

20.0

4.95

159178.23

0.00

48.69

2001

770

271.04

8714.13

0.01

20.0

4.37

140498.66

0.00

42.84

2002

650

309.68

9956.44

0.01

23.0

4.60

147861.17

0.00

40.81

2003

500

363.32

11681.00

0.01

23.0

4.58

147218.16

0.00

56.04

2004

900

409.17

13155.11

0.01

25.0

6.66

214059.51

0.01

77.27

2005

275

444.45

14289.39

0.00

25.0

7.31

235086.08

0.01

105.33

2006

250

603.77

19411.64

0.00

25.0

11.55

371308.70

0.01

124.68

2007

252

695.39

22357.29

0.01

40.0

13.38

430305.27

0.02

140.02

2008

303

871.96

28034.14

0.01

40.0

14.99

481907.18

0.02

202.32

2009

340

972.35

31261.76

0.01

40.0

14.67

471779.70

0.02

120.69

2010

350

1224.52

39369.20

0.01

40.0

20.19

649219.54

0.03

158.00

2011

915

1571.52

50525.50

0.05

40.0

35.12

1129101.23

0.05

203.00

2012

1179

1668.98

53658.91

0.06

40.0

31.15

1001495.01

0.04

190.23

2013

1656

1411.23

45372.06

0.08

35.0

23.79

764962.14

0.03

187.76

2014

1760

1266.4

40715.68

0.07

34.9

19.08

613435.79

0.02

186.03

2015

2358

1160.06

37296.77

0.09

48.4

15.70

504766.34

0.02

106.77

2016

2500

1250.74

0.00

0.10

50.0

16.98

545919.27

0.03

86.63