Search results

The chapter analyses the international economic specialization of the Republic of Belarus based on the balance of payments and national statistics data by type of economic activity. It also demonstrates application of the customized Trade in Value Added methodology for analysis of the international economic specialization of Belarus. The methodology has been developed for the calculation of selected key figures for 2011–2016. Using of “Input–Output” tables to measure intersectoral relationships enabled assessment of the international trade not only in terms of prices of goods and services, but in terms of value added of each product. The analysis shows that the most important industries of the international economic specialization of Belarus are oil products, chemical products, food stuffs, equipment and vehicles, transport services, computer services. Domestic value added share of exports is about 60%, which corresponds to the level of such countries of Central and Eastern Europe as the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, Poland. Consequently, import intensity of exports accounts for about 40%. The results of the study have allowed to assess the interrelation between production, exports, and economic growth and to provide recommendations ensuring a deficit-free balance of payments.

This paper aims to examine the relationship between global value chains (GVCs) and domestic value-added content (DVA) in a panel of 58 countries for the period 2005–2015.

First, the authors quantify the refined measures of GVC linkages by using the Borin and Mancini (2019) decomposition technique. Second, the authors apply the feasible generalised least squares method to test the relationship between GVCs and DVA empirically.

First, the authors find that GVC links are crucial to the enhancement of DVA. Second, a study at the sectoral level reveals that GVC links in the primary sector raise DVA whilst reducing DVA in the services sector. Third, the authors find that only upstream activities enhance value-added content. Fourth, the authors note the augmenting role played by national policies in mediating the gains associated with GVCs. Finally, the authors note that the outcomes associated with GVCs are consistent when the sample of countries is divided into groups based on income.

The results lead us to urge policymakers to promote greater integration of business activities into GVCs to reap their benefits.

This paper contributes to the research on the impact of GVCs on DVA by emphasising the significance of the types of GVC activities and policies that improve DVA.

The main goal of this paper is to examine the evolution of Latin American productive integration in terms of the regional value added incorporated in intra-regional exports of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru. In addition, the study traces the trade and productive integration trajectories for each of these countries from 1995 to 2015.

Based on the use of OECD’s global ICIO input-output tables, this paper applies the methodological framework by Wang et al. (2018) for the analysis of trade flows at the bilateral level, which allows breaking down the value of gross exports of each sector-country, depending on the origin of the value added contained in exports, as well as their use.

The estimates show very low shares of value added from regional partners in the intra-regional exports of the countries studied. Conversely, the weight of the value added incorporated in these exports by countries outside the region has increased in tandem with China’s expanding involvement in Latin America. This development, along with the downward trend in domestic value added incorporated in exports, indicates a lack of a regional integration process of any depth.

This article addresses an economic problem of conventional importance from a global value chain perspective using a novel methodology based on the use of global input–output tables.

The purpose of this paper is to examine various aspects of regional and global production networks, with a special focus on China.

The author studies four different approaches to measure production networks and discuss their strengths and weaknesses. The author presents some of the results associated with some of these measurements.

The author finds that using trade data alone is simple but incomplete. Bringing in input–output tables is useful but much more data would be needed. In addition, for the case of China, electronic goods and telecommunication goods tend to have a higher foreign value added.

Data with good quality can be a problem. The authors also have difficulty getting input–output tables for many years.

The results can guide policymakers as to which industries can create more domestic value added. The results can also lead to betting of an understanding of trade balances measured in the value added.

The results can generate further understanding among citizens of many different countries, including China, about the importance of different sectors in generating the value added.

The value of this paper is to focus on alternative ways to measure the value added in exports from China. The paper is the first to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches and present some of these results.

The concept of the “global production network” (GPN) has emerged as a framework for analyzing the intricate connections between a dominant or pivotal firm and its suppliers across various countries. ¹ The expansion of GPNs signifies that trade encompasses not only the final products but also the parts and components (P&C) involved in their production. The reduction of tariff barriers and advancements in transportation and communication technology have facilitated the fragmentation of production processes across different countries. This has led to a significant transformation in the nature and structure of global trade. This chapter aims to synthesize and present this literature. By identifying the key drivers, determinants, and consequences of fragmentation trade through a literature-based approach, this study aids in assessing the opportunities and challenges those lagging countries, like India, encounter in terms of increased participation in GPNs.

The purpose of this paper is to answer for questions regarding vertical specialization in the Korea’s key exporting industries, such as the changing pattern toward VS or VS1 and the changing trend in the location of slicing up the value chain in these industries.

The framework of Koopman et al. (2014) is adopted to calculate the industry-level vertical specialization indices, VS and VS1.

VS1 is a dominant type of vertical specialization in the key exporting industries of Korea. The increasing net vertical trades (VS1−VS) verifies the upward trends in the locations of slicing up the value chain in the industries empirically.

The net vertical trade (VS1−VS) of each industry is an important indicator of the location of slicing up the value chain in the environment of the international production network.

The industry-level calculations of VS and VS1 are necessary in order to remedy the aggregation bias from the country-level calculation of VS and VS1 functioning in the opposite direction.

Many multinational firms attempt to cope with trade policy uncertainties by developing the option of manufacturing their goods in multiple production facilities in different countries. In this chapter, we explore how such “production switching” options affect the vulnerability of a country’s exports to foreign protectionism. We present a theoretical model of such behavior and show that production switching increases the elasticity of a country’s export with respect to tariffs. The magnitude of the elasticity depends on a country’s position in the value chain. We use the model’s predictions to provide new insights into the vulnerability of China’s exports during the current Sino–US trade war.

The focus is on determining the long-term relationship in explaining how technological capabilities interact with trade and global value chain (GVC) participation to aid in the upgradation process using a panel auto-regressive distributed lag (ARDL) model. The results suggest that export of both low-skill and medium-skill technology-intensive manufactures and patents by residents positively and significantly impact GVC participation.

This paper examines the dynamic linkages between GVC participation and technological capability of major Asian countries in a comparative (1995–2018) perspective.

This implies that certain sectors enable greater integration into GVCs in the long-run, supported by critical learning variables. Further, with the help of the panel causality test, a bi-directional flow between GVC participation and export of high-technology manufactures and import of labour-intensive technology manufactures is witnessed. Even a one-way flow from research and development (R&D) intensity to GVC participation is seen.

The technological capabilities are found to be characterising the initial structure of local enterprises in trade and GVCs, as well as the extent to which emerging-market firms may harness knowledge flows and migrate into high-tech industries.

This paper applies the decomposition method proposed by Wang et al. (2013), together with the multi-national input-output tables from World Input-Output Database (WIOD) to estimate the value-chain transition in East Asian production network. Specifically, we calculate and examine the domestic value-added absorbed abroad, foreign value-added embodied in country’s gross exports, and vertical specialization measures to explore the relative positions of major East Asian countries in the global production chain over the period of 1995-2011. The analyses are at country-aggregate, country-sector, bilateral-aggregate and bilateral-sector levels. Based on our results, we answer the important question of whether Taiwan and South Korea have used China’s production chains as an intermediary to re-export their products to other countries in the world. Furthermore, we answer the question that over the 1995-2011 periods, have Taiwan and South Korea exploited cheap labor from China to add value to their products before re-exported them to the rest of the world?