Trade liberalisation and domestic brands: Evidence from China's accession to the WTO

Xing-hua, Deng; Jing, Ran; Zheng, Liang

doi:10.1111/twec.12911

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sometimes, upstreamness and downstreamness measures are used in empirical applications for which they are not intended. For example, sometimes scholars aim to provide empirical content to the smile curve using estimates of upstreamness (or downstreamness), see, for example Baldwin et al (2015); Baldwin (2016); and Degain et al (2017); Thangavelu et al (2018); Deng et al (2019). The well-known 'smile curve' of global value chains originally proposed by Stan Shih of Acer in 1992 states that fabrication activities typically have the lowest remuneration relative to other activities in the chain (Mudambi, 2008;Park et al, 2013).…”

Section: Upstreamness and Downstreamnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Firm productivity and functional specialisation

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A defining characteristic of our modern economy is the fragmentation of production across national borders (Amador & Cabral, 2017;Baldwin, 2016). This fragmentation involves the cross-border flow of physical inputs and a range of professional business functions, such as design, engineering, sourcing, marketing and after-sales services of consumer products (Feenstra, 1998;Timmer et al., 2019). As production has been unbundled, firms have specialised in activities. 1 The best-known example is the iPhone. On the back of the iPhone, it reads designed by Apple in California, but assembled by Foxconn in Guangdong. Does specialisation in activities, such as in the design or assembly, relate to levels of economic development? Or, to narrow it down since value added per worker is closely associated with wages and living standards: Does functional specialisation relate to productivity?This paper proposes a straightforward yet novel approach to measure the specialisation of firms and provides an empirical test of the relation between firm productivity and functional specialisation.We measure the functional specialisation of firms using unique data from two survey rounds in 2012 and 2017, in which Dutch firms report on the composition of their employees by function. The surveys we use were administered by Statistics Netherlands and sent to private firms with at least 50 employees. Managers who complete such surveys indicate the allocation of their employees across business functions is a natural way for them to categorise their workers (Sturgeon & Gereffi, 2009).

show abstract

Section: Upstreamness and Downstreamnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Firm productivity and functional specialisation

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…14 In this database, we observe firm ID, firm name, value and quantity of exports, export destination, product specification (both in 10-digit HS code and description), and export mode. The product specification is a long string variable that provides detailed information on the type of product, and its brand name and brand ownership, which we group into three categories: no brand, domestic brands (domestically created or purchased), and foreign brands (including original equipment manufacturers To empirically test our model's prediction in Section 5, we utilize a fifth dataset on firm-level trademarks collected by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce in China, which we merge with the AIS data using unique firm IDs provided by Deng et al (2018) to obtain the number of effective trademarks per firm-year. 15 Finally, using China's publically available official customs notices, we constructed a novel dataset on the dates when each Chinese regional customs authority adopted the pilot "paperless" processing trade program, which is discussed in more detail in Section 5.…”

Section: Data and Stylized Factsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…69 General Administration of Customs Announcement on Amending the "Regulations on the Customs Declaration of Imports and Exports of the People's Republic of China" in 2017, and became effective on January 1, 2018.15 We are grateful to Ran Jing for sharing the data. SeeDeng et al (2018) for a detailed description of the trademarks dataset.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Made and Created in China: Super Processors and Two-way Heterogeneity

Chen

Erbahar

2019

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we show that there exists a special breed of firms that are active in both ordinary and processing exports. Contrary to the existing literature that describes processing firms as inferior, these mixed firms are superior to other firms in multiple dimensions, and hence we call them "super processors." We build on Antràs et al. (2017) and Bernard et al. (2019) to develop a model in which firms are heterogeneous in multiple stages of production. Firms endogenously choose to become suppliers or final good producers, and those that excel in both manufacturing ability and blueprint quality choose to engage in both activities. We test our model's central prediction by exploiting China's pilot "paperless" processing trade supervision program that lowered the cost of processing trade but left ordinary trade costs unchanged.We find that facilitating processing exports induces productive domestic downstream firms to establish their own trademarks. Our results highlight that processing trade not only leads goods to be "Made in China," but also "Created in China." JEL codes: F1, F12, F13, F14, L11, L21 3 Fernandes and Tang (2015) find that processing firms are less diversified in products and destinations when compared to ordinary exporters, and Yu (2015) shows that their productivity does not change considerably with trade liberalization. Dai et al. (2016) find that compared to non-exporters and ordinary exporters, processing firms have lower revenue productivity, skill intensity, and profitability, and they pay lower wages and spend little on R&D. However, emphasizing that revenue-based total factor productivity (TFP) calculations are confounded by price effects, and thus do not reflect "true" productivity, Li et al. (2018) calculate TFP based on quantity data and find that processing exporters are significantly more productive than non-exporters.4 Yu (2015), Dai et al. (2016), andLi et al. (2018) do include mixed firms (referred to as "hybrid" firms) in their analysis but do not focus on them.

show abstract

“…It is important and research worthy for effectiveness of coordinated improvement to facilitate cross border trade. Avalanche of published literature is available in the area viz non-tariff barriers in Syria (Chemingui & Dessus, 2008), trade liberalization and competition in China (Deng et al, 2020), trade policy of Uruguay (Estrades & Flores, 2020), challenges of non-tariff barriers in Japanese Market (Maguire, 2001), tariff & non-tariff barriers and examine of inequality and trade policy of India (Ural Marchand, 2019), challenges of regulating water and sanitation tariff in Brazil (Sampaio & Sampaio, 2020), non-tariff barriers on chicken import in Russia (Soon & Thompson, 2020), income inequality and tariff reform in Indonesia (Vadila & Resosudarmo, 2020), China"s tariffs on U.S. hardware product (Zhang et al, 2020). From the context stated in the literature it can be learned that country level assessment of tariff related barriers is imperative to provide insights to the stake holders.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comprehensive Analysis of Tariff Barriers Worldwide: A Composite Assessment Approach

Rashid¹,

Basit²,

Qazi

et al. 2021

JAFEE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International trade has fundamental importance for all the countries and the analysis concerning international trade particularly concerning tariff barriers is high on the agenda of researchers in the field of economics, business and politics. Aim of the study is to assess the world tariff barriers of 158 countries. Overall design of the study comprises of a crisp literature review, data extraction and analysis. It is a study of one hundred fifty-eight countries that uses secondary data taken from World Development Indicators (WDI) 2020. It uses Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) as research methodology. Results of GRA show that Macao SAR, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Montenegro, Mauritius, Brunei Darussalam, Myanmar, Chile, Peru and Australia have relatively highest grey relational grades meaning thereby, low tariff trade barriers whereas Grenada, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Central African Republic, Nepal, Guinea-Bissau, Fiji, Gabon, Barbados, Djibouti, St. Kitts and Nevis have lowest grey relational grade meaning thereby, these countries have high level of tariff based barriers of international trade. Interestingly, all the member countries of European Union occupy the rank of 27 (i.e. all countries have the same rank) which can be explained in the perspective of their union of tariff. Since, they have uniformed tariff policy as against rest of the world, therefore, have same rank. It is a study based on reliable real time data set. The study has value for all stakeholders i.e. international community, local governments, society at large, policy makers, researchers and international institutions.

show abstract

Trade liberalisation and domestic brands: Evidence from China's accession to the WTO

Cited by 9 publications

References 36 publications

Firm productivity and functional specialisation

Firm productivity and functional specialisation

Made and Created in China: Super Processors and Two-way Heterogeneity

Comprehensive Analysis of Tariff Barriers Worldwide: A Composite Assessment Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About