scholarly journals Participating to Compete: Do Small Firms in Developing Countries Benefit from Global Value Chains?

Economies ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 12
Author(s):  
Mauro Boffa ◽  
Marion Jansen ◽  
Olga Solleder

Standard trade theory suggests that the profile of exporting firms is characterized by large firms which dominate domestic productivity distribution. Large manufacturing multinationals have increased their productivity by participating, creating and shaping global production networks. In recent decades, trade flows have become increasingly dominated by trade-in-tasks within global production networks. Given the importance of pro-competitive effects in establishing the gains from trade following trade liberalizations, it is important to look at the link between participation in global value chains and a firm’s competitiveness. The paper does so by using the International Trade Centre’s competitiveness index, for small, medium-sized and large firms, coupled with global value chain participation measures extracted from multi-regional input-output tables, and together forming a panel dataset at country and firm category level. The main finding establishes that the gains from integration into value chains are greater for small firms than for large firms. In particular, at the sample median, an increase of participation by 2.5% reduces the competitiveness gap between small and large firms by 1.25%. In addition, the analysis suggests that it is the use of foreign inputs that drives the result. In contrast, the domestic value in intermediate goods matters only in cases where value chains respond to domestic demand needs. The identification strategy relies on a fractional probit model allowing for unobserved effects, and a causal framework using the depth of trade agreements as instrument, in order to mitigate potential reverse causality.

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 602-627
Author(s):  
Jaakko Salminen ◽  
Mikko Rajavuori

Several corporate disclosure and due diligence laws related to the social and environmental impacts of globalized production have been enacted across the world over the last decade. While the emergence, operation and impact of such ‘transnational sustainability laws’ have already been extensively analysed, their legal operability remains poorly understood. This a significant omission because transnational sustainability laws form a novel and increasingly important attempt to conceptualize and govern the new logic of global production networks—global value chains—and their regulatory infrastructure. Against this backdrop, this article deploys a comparison of eleven recent transnational sustainability laws and develops an analytical framework to probe legally-operative conceptualizations of global value chains. By analysing how transnational sustainability laws conceptualize the value chain, the lead firm and adequate value chain governance, we argue, these instruments emerge as proxies for a legally-operative framework that better delineates the emerging law of global value chains. Thus, our analysis contributes to growing literature on the potential and limits of transnational sustainability laws as well as to the development of nascent ‘global value chain law’.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-117
Author(s):  
Anna Beckers

AbstractReviewing the burgeoning legal scholarship on global value chains to delineate the legal image of the global value chain and then comparing this legal image with images on global production in neighbouring social sciences research, in particular the Global Commodity Chain/Global Value Chain and the Global Production Network approach, this article reveals that legal research strongly aligns with the value chain image, but takes less account of the production-centric network image. The article then outlines a research agenda for legal research that departs from a network perspective on global production. To that end, it proposes that re-imagining the law in a world of global production networks requires a focus in legal research on the legal construction of global production and its infrastructure and a stronger contextualization of governance obligations and liability rules in the light of the issue-specific legal rules that apply to said infrastructure.


2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 255-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Alexander

Research considering globalized production as taking place within global production networks and global value chains has potential to provide insights into the challenges of sustainable production. However, studies employing these approaches to look at manufactured products have often concentrated on connections between lead buyers and upper tier suppliers and given insufficient attention to exploring interactions across all stages of production. In this article, the concept of extended supplier networks is introduced to address this gap by explicitly looking at how all stages of production are connected. The extended supplier network model that is presented provides an analytical framework that enables multiple scales of analysis in the study of sustainability challenges.


2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 803-828 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janina Grabs ◽  
Stefano Ponte

Abstract The configurations of global value chains and production networks are constantly changing, leading to new trajectories and geographical distributions of value creation and capture. In this article, we offer a 40-year evolutionary perspective on power and governance in the global coffee value chain and production network. We identify three distinct phases that are characterised by different power dynamics, governance setups and distributional configurations. We find that the kinds of power exercised along the coffee chain have changed, but also that the underlying power inequities between Northern buyers and Southern producers have remained fundamentally unaltered.


2021 ◽  
pp. 102452942199535
Author(s):  
Benjamin Selwyn ◽  
Dara Leyden

The World Development Report 2020 (WDR2020) asserts that global value chains raise productivity and incomes, create better jobs and reduce poverty, and proposes state policies to facilitate global value chain-based development. We deploy an immanent critique of WDR2020 to interrogate its claims regarding wages and working conditions. Using the Report’s own evidence, we identify contradictions in its claims, which stem from its use of comparative advantage trade theory to reconceptualize global value chain relations. This perspective predicts mutual gains between trading partners, but its core assumptions are incompatible with the realities of global value chains, in which (mostly Northern) oligopolistic lead firms capture value from (mostly Southern) suppliers and workers. We show how WDR2020 conceals these contradictions by misconstruing, inverting and ignoring evidence (particularly of labour’s agency), whilst failing to recommend redistributive measures for the unequal outcomes that it recognizes. By redeploying heterodox conceptions of monopoly capital and by using a class-relational approach, we scrutinize WDR2020's overly positive portrayal of lead firms. We provide alternative theoretical foundations to better explain the evidence within the Report, which shows that global value chains concentrate wealth, exacerbate inequalities and constrain social upgrading – with negative consequences for supplier firm workers in developing countries.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (117) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hang Banh ◽  
Philippe Wingender ◽  
Cheikh Gueye

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented collapse in global economic activity and trade. The crisis has also highlighted the role played by global value chains (GVC), with countries facing shortages of components vital to everything from health systems to everyday household goods. Despite the vulnerabilities associated with increased interconnectedness, GVCs have also contributed to increasing productivity and long-term growth. We explore empirically the impact of GVC participation on productivity in Estonia using firm-level data from 2000 to 2016. We find that higher GVC participation at the industry level significantly boosts productivity at both the industry and the firm level. Frontier firms, large firms, and exporting firms also benefit more from GVC participation than non-frontier firms, small firms, and non-exporting firms. We also find that GVC participation of downstream industries has a negative correlation with productivity. Frontier firms and large firms benefit more from GVC participation of upstream industries, while non-frontier firms and small firms benefit more from GVC participation of downstream industries. Our results suggest that policies designed to promote participation in GVCs are important to raise aggregate productivity and potential growth in Estonia.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document