Manufacturing matters…but it’s the jobs that count

Felipe, Jesús; Mehta, Aashish; Rhee, Changyong

doi:10.1093/cje/bex086

Cited by 82 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite concerns about 'premature deindustrialisation' (Felipe et al 2016;Rodrik 2016), the results above show (as in Haraguchi et al 2016) that for developing countries as a whole manufacturing's share of employment rose, as did its share of output at constant prices. But the rises were mainly in land-scarce developing regions, while land-abundant regions deindustrialized (as found also by McMillan et al 2014 andRodrik 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 71%

Variation in Structural Change Around the World, 198552015: Patterns, Causes and Implications

Wood

2017

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. The United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research provides economic analysis and policy advice with the aim of promoting sustainable and equitable development. The Institute began operations in 1985 in Helsinki, Finland, as the first research and training centre of the United Nations University. Today it is a unique blend of think tank, research institute, and UN agency-providing a range of services from policy advice to governments as well as freely available original research. Terms of use: Documents inThe Institute is funded through income from an endowment fund with additional contributions to its work programme from Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Katajanokanlaituri 6 B, 00160 Helsinki, FinlandThe views expressed in this paper are those of the author(s), and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Institute or the United Nations University, nor the programme/project donors. During 1985During -2015, globalization intensified the factor-endowment-related pattern of sectoral specialization. In skill-abundant developed countries, manufacturing became more skillintensive. In land-scarce developing East Asia, labour-intensive manufacturing expanded, especially in China. In land-abundant developing regions, however, manufacturing stagnated or declined, while in land-scarce South Asia manufacturing was held back by low literacy and weak infrastructure. The shares of service sectors in output and employment increased in most countries, but mainly for reasons unrelated to globalization. Changes in sectoral structure in the decades ahead are subject to much uncertainty, but will continue to be shaped by differences among countries in land abundance and skill supplies. Abstract:

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 71%

Variation in Structural Change Around the World, 198552015: Patterns, Causes and Implications

Wood

2017

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The determinants of structural transformation in developing countries — commodity prices, exchange rate differentials, interest rate differentials, access to global value chains (GVCs), and the activist state — all remain globally determined/influenced to a greater or lesser extent, leaving developing countries to do what they can to pursue economic development in a context where they have little control over global factors . One could argue that the situation is worsening, given the fragmentation of global production into GVCs since the Cold War, or the emergence of a ‘GVC world’ (see Felipe et al., ; Fischer, ; Phillips, ). This is not to say that developing countries cannot achieve structural transformation.…”

Section: What Has and What Has Not Changed Outside China Since The Comentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, many middle‐income developing countries are now experiencing the opposite of industrialization, in a deindustrialization or tertiarization process, having built a manufacturing base which has stalled in expansion as trade has been liberalized and new competitors have entered GVCs. The changes in supply chains and the shift to lower productivity economies have spread manufacturing jobs more thinly, making it harder for individual countries to sustain high levels of manufacturing employment; moreover, this is happening at lower levels of GDP per capita than previously, leading to the label ‘premature’ deindustrialization (for a range of discussion, see Felipe et al., ; Palma, , ; Rodrik, ). This points to some big questions ahead related to how to make industrialization more viable or whether service sector‐led growth can generate sufficient and well‐paid employment and value added in developing countries.…”

Section: What Has and What Has Not Changed Outside China Since The Comentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Poverty and Inequality: Change and Continuity in Late Development

Sumner¹

2019

Development and Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This contribution assesses the ‘converging divergence’ thesis that global inequality is falling and national inequality is rising. The article argues that falling global inequality is primarily due to China's development and that national inequality has risen in some developing countries and fallen in others. In light of the dominance of China's development in the global picture, questions arise as to what has changed and what has not changed outside of China. A set of changes and continuities is presented. It is then argued that these changes and continuities provide for the contemporary relevance an older conceptual lens — that of ‘late development’.

show abstract

“…But again, Indonesia is still way down in the export complexity ranking. And moreover, with the exception of Malaysia, the share of employment in manufacturing was much lower than in the advanced countries (Felipe et al 2018). As we documented in Table 5 of Felipe (2018), Malaysia ranks 38th, Thailand 59th, and Indonesia 76th out of 124 economies, in the complexity ranking.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%