Exports of U.S.-made construction equipment grew 24 percent and totaled $13.7 billion for the first half of 2012 compared to January-June 2011, according to the Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM). The off-road equipment manufacturing trade group consolidates U.S. Commerce Dept. data with other sources into member global trend reports. “Construction machinery manufacturers still look to international markets for business growth, even with increased uncertainty in some regions. With domestic construction still subpar, continued export growth has been critical for U.S. equipment manufacturers to keep their factories operating and American workers employed,” stated Al Cervero, AEM vice president and construction sector leader. U.S. Exports to World Regions and Top 10 Countries South America took delivery of $2.2 billion worth of American-made construction equipment during the first half of 2012 compared to midyear 2011 for a 6-percent gain, and Central America increased its purchases 16 percent to total $1.1 billion. Construction equipment export volume to Asia grew 4 percent and totaled $1.6 billion. Exports to Europe increased 26 percent for $1.7 billion in construction equipment purchases. Exports to Africa grew 28 percent and totaled $813 million; exports to Australia/Oceania increased 89 percent, representing $2.0 billion worth of construction machinery; and Canada took delivery of $4.3 billion worth of U.S.-made construction equipment, an increase of 26 percent. The top 10 buyers of U.S.-made construction equipment at midyear 2012 were: (1) Canada – $4.3 billion, up 26 percent; (2) Australia – $1.9 billion, up 91 percent; (3) Mexico – $870 million, up 17 percent; (4) Chile – $762 million, up 25 percent; (5) South Africa – $496 million, up 52 percent; (6) Brazil – $440 million, down 8 percent; (7) Russia – $405 million, up 27 percent; (8) Belgium – $402 million, up 55 percent; (9) China – $390 million, down 19 percent; (10) Peru – $363 million, up 25 percent. Source: Associated Equipment Manufacturers
Source:
http://www.aednet.org/aednews/index_full_story.cfm?id=10928747