The Hungarian Automotive Sector: A Comparative CEE Perspective with Special Emphasis on Structural Change

Abstract

Based on the example of the automotive sector the paper investigates some quantity and quality aspects of FDI-driven upgrading and analyzes in a comparative perspective -with the help of industry level data -selected aspects of competitiveness in Central and Eastern Europe. The first group of the surveyed quality indicators includes the evolution of value added over output, and changes in the product mix: we examine whether these two indicators are suitable proxies to assess the extent of quality upgrading with. We conclude that the second group of our surveyed indicators: the import intensity of local production; labor productivity; and the skill content of local activities are more relevant to evaluate qualitytype upgrading. Since the broadening of local business functions is a good proxy for quality upgrading, we also tackle this issue in our regional comparisons. The countries covered are Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and in some cases also Romania, Bulgaria and Slovenia. Analyzing selected aspects of upgrading, we compare CEE data with the ones of a benchmark country: Germany. We conclude that in spite of several subsequent foreign direct investment deals, which has produced non-negligible expansion and structural upgrading, and irrespective of the fact that local actors have all stepped on the path of slow quality upgrading, CEE automotive actors have been stuck in cost-based competition. The Czech Republic is a partial exception in this respect. We develop predictions about the industry's regional perspectives following the global financial crisis.

Neither core nor periphery: The search for competitive advantage in the automotive semi‐periphery

“…Indeed, the dynamic nature of automotive production networks, along with uneven competitive advantages in costs, quality, and government incentives, creates an environment where the competitive advantages of places shift over time, leading to frequent industry reorganization (Lampón, Lago‐Peñas, & Cabanelas, ; Mordue & Sweeney, ; Pavlínek, ). While some suggest that automotive‐producing nations can obviate the effect of diminished competitiveness by acquiring more design and product development mandates (see Ozataga, ), the process has been uneven across nations (Domanski & Gwosdz, ; Szalavetz, ) and industry segments (Fortwengel, ).…”

Developing a local supply chain network: The case of Magyar Suzuki in Hungary

“…Csíki et al (2019) documented that labour market efficiency, infrastructural development and regional innovation capabilities were important factors for the selection of locations in the industry. Szalavetz (2012) asserted that the automotive industry in the CEE countries has been stuck in cost-based competition and local firms have been slow to develop dynamic capabilities due to the absence of state intervention and a large domestic market. The automotive industry has been the focus of policy-making for a long time, and various industry actors have been benefitting from a broad range of policy measures such as cluster policies, research, development and innovation (RDI) support, enhancement of university-industry partnerships, supply chain development, etc.…”