Where is the value added? Trade liberalization and production networks

Abstract

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. Where is the Value Added? Trade Liberalization and Production Networks Abstract Fragmentation of the global value chain makes it difficult to assess the effects of trade liberalization on the global pattern of production. Gross bilateral trade ows no longer reveal a country's or a sector's value added contribution. Yet, it is value added that matters for employment and welfare. We derive a structural equation for value added trade ows and theorybased measures for production networks from a multi-sector gravity model with inter-sectoral linkages to analyze the effects of trade liberalization in the presence of globally fragmented value chains. We estimate the model's key parameters, calibrate it to the year 2000 using the World Input-Output Database, and perform a counterfactual analysis of China's WTO accession. We find that China's WTO entry accounts for about 45% of the decrease in China's value added exports to exports ratio and for about 7% of the decline in this figure on the world level as observed between 2000 and 2007. Furthermore, our results imply that China's WTO accession was the driving force behind the strengthening of production networks with its neighbors and led to significant welfare gains for China, Australia, and the proximate Asian economies. Terms of use: Documents inJEL-Codes: F130, F140, F170.

Global value chains: A review of the multi-disciplinary literature

“…The economic sociology view of GVC remains concerned mainly with the social consequences of economic exchange, and with mapping the governance structures/developing typologies of GVCs and their consequences for local upgrading (Gereffi, 2018;Gereffi et al, 2005;Humphrey & Schmitz, 2002). The study of GVCs within the international economics literature focuses on efficiency of contractual organization and economic exchanges in GVCs, and on mapping the geography of international trade flows and value creation (Aichele & Heiland, 2018;Antràs & Chor, 2013;Grossman & Rossi-Hansberg, 2008;Johnson & Noguera, 2012;Lee & Yi, 2018). IB researchers are interested mainly in how firms can profitably strengthen and exploit their unique firmspecific advantages, and create value by forging business relationships across national borders through MNE activity in GVCs (Buckley, 2009a;Kano, 2018;Laplume, Petersen, & Pearce, 2016;Mudambi, 2008).…”

Pandemic risk: doesn’t it really matter? Foreign direct investment after COVID-19

“…This is reflected by an extensive subject literature, for example in the field of international economics (e.g. Aichele & Heiland, 2018;Antrás & Chor, 2013;Grossman & Rossi-Hansberg, 2008;Johnson & Noguera, 2012;Lee & Yi, 2018) or international business (e.g. Buckley, 2009;Kano, 2018;Laplume et al, 2016;Mudambi, 2008).…”

Why the new orange juice consumption model favors global trade and growth in orange production

“…In the second phase of this study, we have referred to the social network analysis (SNA). This is a reason for resistance, a commercial system is not only strictly contractual but is based on loyalty and a good reputation shared between partner countries (Aichele and Heiland, 2018) aimed at minimizing potential exposures to economic, cultural and social activities of individual countries. Due to the fact that producers and traders interactions favor superior quality products 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 1956 BFJ 121,9 (Frostling-Henningsson et al, 2014) and exchanges between partnering countries allow technological innovation and knowledge transfer (Ahmedi et al, 2017;Aller et al, 2015), this system is patterned in a network where countries (already emerged or emerging producers) by nodes and exchange flows by links (Bhattacharya et al, 2008;Pappalardo, Allegra and Pecorino, 2014).…”