ODA were imputed with a zero value (Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, the Russian Federation, Hong Kong, China and Israel). The missing values of the remaining indicators were imputed using the method of multiple multivariate imputation of missing values (ice commnad in Stata) and all ten indicators. Results - Mapping vulnerability These two measures – of exposure and capacity to cope – can be combined in scatter charts that place countries according to national vulnerability. The vertical axis registers the potential level of exposure of a country to the economic crisis, while the horizontal axis registers its capacity to cope. Countries in the upper-left quadrant of these charts are those more exposed to the crisis and have less capacity to cope – so are more vulnerable. Countries that are placed in the lower right quadrant, on the other hand, are less exposed and in any case are better able to cope, so are less vulnerable. Figure A 1 shows the overall effects on selected countries by global regions and by country groups. This indicates, for example, that the Asia-Pacific region has similar coping capacity to Latin America and the Caribbean but it is less exposed to the crisis. Comparing with Africa, Asia and the Pacific is more exposed to the crisis but it is in a much stronger position in terms of coping capacity. Among the country groups, the Pacific islands are the most exposed and have lower coping capacity. LDCs in Asia and the Pacific also have a lower capacity to cope with the crisis but are less exposed than the regional average. The LLDCs in Asia-Pacific are as exposed as LDCs but have greater coping capacity.6 South Asia and South-East Asia have similar exposures but the latter has greater coping capacity.
Figure A-1 – Crisis vulnerability by regions and country groups 0.85
Pacific Islands (excl. PNG) Pacific Islands
0.80
Exposure
Latin America & Caribbean
0.75
Asia Pacific (excl. China &India) Asia Pacific North-Central Asia (excl. Russia) LLDCs Asia Pacific
LDCs Asia Pacific 0.70
South Asia (excl. India) South Asia
South-East Asia
0.65 Africa
0.60
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
Coping Capacity 6
In some Asia-Pacific LLDCs the impact of the crisis was greater than predicted here owing to factors not considered in the analysis. In Armenia, for example, this included the collapse of the construction sector, and in Mongolia a fall in the prices of mineral exports. These countries requested assistance from the IMF to cope with the crisis. (IMF 2009c, 2009d).
105
2009/10
ACHIEVING THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS IN AN ERA OF GLOBAL UNCERTAINTY : ASIA-PACIFIC REGIONAL REPORT