Beyond Product Cycles and Flying Geese: Regionalization, Hierarchy, and the Industrialization of East Asia

Abstract

Product cycle theory as expressed in the analogy of flying geese has become a widely accepted way of conceptualizing industrial diffusion across East Asia. As the product cycle is repeated for increasingly sophisticated products, so, it is argued, the development trajectory of Japan will be replicated in a succession of sectors and countries. This approach fails, however, to capture the complexities of the contemporary regionalization of industrial production. East Asian industrial production should not be seen as a tightly coupled process in which the rise of national economies parallels successive product cycles. Rather than Japan's development trajectory being replicated in country after country, industrial diffusion has been characterized by shifting hierarchical networks of production and partial diffusion into diverse politicoeconomic contexts at differing historical junctures. It has also resulted in a triangulation of the region's trade patterns that has generated large imbalances in trade both within the region and between the region and the United States.

Tales from the ‘global’ economy: Cross-national production networks and the reorganization of the European economy

“…This lack of historical manufacturing experience renders Southeast Asian countries more dependent on MNCs for their industrial development. (30) They believe that the best national production strategy is insertion into a cross-national division of labor. Japanese, U.S., Taiwanese, Hong Kong, Korean, European and other overseas Chinese multinational corporations establish multiple, partially overlapping or competing cross-border networks.…”

Dependency or Institutions? Economic Geography, Causal Mechanisms, and Logic in the Understanding of Development

“…The system-level mechanisms elaborated above suggest peripheral production is generally wage sensitive, with low barriers to entry and easy substitutability (Bernard and Ravenhill 1995;HartLandsberg and Burkett 1998). As a result, peripheral firms in general will not have hold-up power because core firms in a given chain will be able to find timely substitutes easily.…”

Greater China and the political economy of regionalisation

“…They utilise domestic energy, land and labour, but very little else. Just as Bernard and Ravenhill suggested that export processing zones in Malaysia were "more integrated with Singapore's free-trade industrial sector than with the 'local' industry" 37 , so China's FIEs are physically located in China, but economically perhaps form part of an economic space that is not territorially bound.…”