- Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S.
- Employment & Trade
- Export Trading Company Act
- Global Competitiveness
- Industry Regulation
- Reference Information
- Trade Agreements & Negotiations
- Trade Disputes & Enforcement
- Trade Statistics
- U.S. Trade Laws
• This report may be made available later in PDF format. Let us know if you would find this useful.
- Return to the list of OTII trade agreement reports.
The United States exported $4.9 billion in merchandise to Peru in 2009, up from $2.3 billion in 2005. That was a 113 percent increase during that period, well above the 17 percent increase in U.S. exports to the world. Peru was the 36th largest market for U.S goods in 2009, out of a total of 232 markets
Twenty-five states exported more than $20 million in goods to Peru in 2009. Seventeen of these states exported goods worth more than $50 million, and eight exported merchandise worth more than $100 million.
Texas and Florida were the top state exporters to Peru in 2009. Texas recorded merchandise exports of $1.4 billion to Peru, while Florida recorded shipments of $1.2 billion. Together, these two states accounted for 52 percent of total U.S. goods exported to Peru in 2009.
Other states that posted significant export totals to Peru in 2009 were Louisiana ($393 million) , Illinois ($225 million), California ($194 million), Wisconsin ($163 million), Georgia ($111 million), New York ($110 million), South Carolina ($77 million), and Oregon ($76 million).
Forty-five of the states increased their merchandise exports to Peru from 2005 to 2009. Texas recorded the largest dollar increase, boosting shipments to Peru from $647 million in 2005 to $1.4 billion in 2009, an increase of $767 million. Other states with noteworthy increases in export value to Peru over the 2005–09 period were Florida (up $631 million), Louisiana (up $275 million), Wisconsin (up $135 million), and Illinois (up $115 million).
Manufactured goods (on a NAICS basis) made up 90 percent of U.S. merchandise exports to Peru in 2009. Agricultural and construction machinery made up the largest manufactured export category, with $499 million, or 10 percent of total U.S. shipments of merchandise. Other significant manufactured export categories were petroleum and coal products ($496 million); computer equipment ($433 million); resin, synthetic rubber, artificial and synthetic fibers and filaments ($317 million); and basic chemicals ($260 million).
In dollar terms, the leading growth category among manufactured exports to Peru was petroleum and coal products. Export shipments of these products surged during the 2005-09 period, going from $229 million to $496 billion (up $267 million). Other manufactured export categories that registered large dollar growth during this period were agricultural and construction machinery (up $246 million), computer equipment (up $242 million), resin, synthetic rubber, and synthetic fibers and filaments (up $171 million), and other general purpose machinery (up $144 million).
In percentage terms, the fastest-growing categories among U.S. manufactured exports to Peru were foundries; hardware; crowns, closures, seals and other packing accessories; electrical equipment; and grain and oilseed milling products. All of these rose by more than 480 percent.
A total of 7,963 U.S. companies exported merchandise to Peru in 2007 (the latest year for which data are available). Of those, 6,639 (83 percent) were small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), with fewer than 500 employees.
In 2007, U.S. SMEs exported $1.3 billion in merchandise to Peru. This represented 37 percent of total U.S. exports to Peru—well above the 30 percent SME share of U.S. exports to the world.
Charts and Tables
Source: Origin of Movement State Export Series and Exporter Database, U.S. Census Bureau.
Caution: The Origin of Movement series allocates exports to states based on transportation origin, i.e., the state from which goods began their journey to the port (or other point of exit) from the United States. The transportation origin of exports is not always the same as the location where the goods were produced. Consequently, conclusions about "export production" in a state should not be made solely on the basis of the Origin of Movement state export figures.