Global production networks and the analysis of economic development

Abstract

A BS T R A C TThis article outlines a framework for the analysis of economic integration and its relation to the asymmetries of economic and social development. Consciously breaking with state-centric forms of social science, it argues for a research agenda that is more adequate to the exigencies and consequences of globalization than has traditionally been the case in 'development studies'. Drawing on earlier attempts to analyse the cross-border activities of rms, their spatial con gurations and developmental consequences, the article moves beyond these by proposing the framework of the 'global production network' (GPN). It explores the conceptual elements involved in this framework in some detail and then turns to sketch a stylized example of a GPN. The article concludes with a brief indication of the bene ts that could be delivered by research informed by GPN analysis. K E Y WO R D SGlobalization; economic development; business networks; institutions; embeddedness.The analysis of economic development has been bedevilled by a series of analytic disjunctions that have resulted in work either at macro or meso levels of abstraction or, where empirical investigations have probed micro level processes, the larger analytic picture has often been absent, merely implicit, or at best weakly developed. While there are notable exceptions to this general rule (for instance, Armstrong and McGee, 1985) behind it lies half a century and more of scholarship in development economics (irrespective of its paradigmatic stripe) and in the political economy and sociology of development. 1 What is more, from the beginnings of 'dependency' approaches to development in the 1940s through to debates over the respective roles of states and markets in the East

Global competition, institutional context and regional production networks: up- and downgrading experiences in Romania’s apparel industry

“…By studying the experience of Romania's apparel sector, the paper highlights two dimensions that have been under-represented in the chain and network literature, although mostly taken up in the GPN research strand (Coe et al 2008;Henderson et al 2002;Bair 2009). …”

“…As a result, it has neglected the role of non-firm actors, most importantly the state, and the broader multi-scalar institutional, macro and policy contexts within which production networks are embedded (Henderson et al 2002;Bair 2005;Hess/Yeung 2006;Neilson/Pritschard 2009;Neilson et al 2014;Smith et al 2014;Smith 2014;Plank/Staritz 2011). Given the prevailing bias towards the state as the key reference frame and actor, and the simultaneous neglect of firms not only in development studies but more generally in the social sciences (Fischer/Parnreiter 2007), the concentration on firms has certainly made it possible to study more thoroughly corporate strategies and organizational dynamics.…”

“…First, the importance of multi-scalar institutional, macro and policy contexts in which organizational industry dynamics and up-and downgrading experiences are embedded and evolve are stressed (Bair 2005;Henderson et al 2002;Coe et al 2008). For CEE countries this involves the specific institutional and policy context of post-Socialism, EU trade agreements and accession, and the global economic crisis.…”

Modes of Innovation and Differentiated Responses to Globalisation—A Case Study of Innovation Modes in the Agder Region, Norway

“…This is seen in the fact that the production network of a specific product or service increasingly has become a geographically extended sequence of activities adding up to the final product of service [10]. Transnational corporations (TNCs) are lead firms that orchestrate complex global production networks that span different territories [23].…”

Theorizing global business spaces

“…Geographical thought has for some time sought to question the simplistic territorial conceptions of scale (Marston et al 2005;Leitner and Miller 2007;Nicholls 2009) along with the idea that economic activity is 'contained' in places or territories (Yeung 1998;Bathelt and Glückler 2003;Dicken 2003). However, whilst recent debates about GPNs (Henderson et al 2002;Lim 2006;Pan 2009) or the 'embeddedness' of regional clusters (Hite 2003;Hess 2004) have begun to theorize the interrelationships between place, materiality, territory and the economy, ongoing economic interconnectedness requires a more radical reconfiguration of how the different dimensions to global economic space are conceptualized.…”