REDEFINING THE OBJECTIVES OF ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE IN GLOBAL VALUE CHAINS

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 3 , 1309 - 1334 , 30.09.2022

Ayçıl Yücer

https://doi.org/10.16953/deusosbil.1145311

https://izlik.org/JA96MT39FY

Öz

Many trade economists, even the WTO, consider The Global Value Chains (GVCs) as a "paradigm shift" in international trade. The radical change occurring in global trade patterns not only creates a need for new foreign trade policy targets but also makes the traditional methods of analysis questionable both empirically and theoretically. This study aims to furnish a holistic frame of research for the correct interpretation of GVC indicators by emphasizing the structural features of GVCs and the importance of different country roles inside in defining the new trade policy objectives.
Our study shows that the import dependency in GVCs is no more the main source of foreign dependency and targeting a decrease in the import share of exports can act in a contradictory way with countries’ objectives for economic independence. Hence, we redefine the concept of trade dependency by the bargaining power and total value-added shares of countries within the global value chains. Finally, we present in a comparative approach the calculation methods of the new GVC indicators that are available in the literature and used for the analysis of the structure of GVCs and the participation of individual countries. However other than previous work focusing on the Turkish case, we do not conduct an empirical analysis in this research paper.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Global Value Chains , Vertical Specialization Index , Trade in Value-Added , Foreign Trade Policy

KÜRESEL DEĞER ZİNCİRLERİ BAĞLAMINDA İKTİSADİ BAĞIMSIZLIK HEDEFLERİNİN YENİDEN TANIMLANMASI

https://izlik.org/JA96MT39FY

Öz

Küresel Değer Zincirlerinin (KDZ) ticarete olan etkisi Dünya Ticaret Örgütü gibi uluslararası organizasyonlar ve konunun uzmanı birçok ekonomist tarafından bir “paradigma kayması” olarak nitelenmektedir. Yaşanan köklü değişim dış ticaret politikası hedeflerinin yeniden belirlenmesi ihtiyacını doğurmanın yanı sıra, geleneksel analiz yöntemlerinin de hem ampirik hem de teorik anlamda sorgulanmasına neden olmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, politika hedeflerinin belirlenmesinde KDZ’lerin yapısal özelliklerinin ve farklı ülke rollerinin önemini vurgulayarak, KDZ göstergelerinin doğru yorumlanmasına katkı sağlayacak bütüncül ve genel bir çerçeve sunmaktır.
Çalışmada KDZ altında gelişen ithalat bağımlılığının, dışa bağımlılığın temel göstergesi olmaktan çıktığı ve ithalatın ihracat içerisindeki payının azaltılmasına yönelik politikaların ülkelerin bağımsızlık hedefleriyle ters düşebileceği görülmüştür. Bu bağlamda ülkelerin iktisadi bağımsızlıkları zincirdeki pazarlık güçleri ve katma değer paylarını önceleyen bir yaklaşım çerçevesinde yeniden tanımlanmıştır. Son olarak, KDZ literatürü bağlamında kullanımı öne çıkan ve KDZ’lerin yapısal özelliklerini ve ülkelerin katılımlarını ölçmekte kullanılan birçok yeni göstergenin hesaplanma yöntemi ve katma değer ile ilişkisi de sunulmuştur. Ancak literatürdeki Türkiye odaklı diğer çalışmalardan farklı olarak, bu araştırma makalesinde ampirik bir analiz yürütülmemiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Küresel Değer Zincirleri , Dikey Uzmanlaşma Endeksi , Katma Değer Cinsinden Ticaret , Dış Ticaret Politikası

Kaynakça

• Antràs P., & Helpman, E. (2004). Global Sourcing. Journal of Political Economy, 112(3): 552-80.
• Antràs, P. (2003). Firms, Contracts, and Trade Structure. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118 (4): 1375–1418.
• Antràs, P., Chor, D., Fally, T., & Hillberry, R. (2012). Measuring the Upstreamness of Production and Trade Flows. American Economic Review, 102: 412–16.
• Antràs, P., & Chor, D. (2013). Organizing the global value chain. Econometrica, 81: 2127-2204.
• Baldwin, R. (2006). Globalisation: The Great Unbundling (S). Secretariat of the Economic Council, Globalisation challenges for Europe (Helsinki: Finnish Prime Minister’s Office), 5–47.
• Baldwin, R. (2011). Trade and Industrialisation after Globalisation’s Second Unbundling: How Building and Joining a Supply Chain are Different and Why It Matters, NBER Working Paper 17716.
• Baldwin, R., & Venables, A. J. (2013). Spiders and Snakes: Offshoring and Agglomeration in the Global Economy, Journal of International Economics, 90: 245–54.
• BEC (2002). CLASSIFICATION BY BROAD ECONOMIC CATEGORIES, UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, ST/ESA/STAT/SER.M/53/Rev.4, New York: United Nations.
• Costinot, A., Vogel, J., & Wang, S. (2013). An Elementary Theory of Global Supply Chains. The Review of Economic Studies, 80 (1): 109-144.
• Daudin, G., Rifflart, C., & Schweisguth, D. (2011). Who Produces for Whom in the World Economy? Canadian Journal of Economics, 44(4): 1403–37.
• de Backer, K., & Miroudot, S. (2014) Mapping Global Value Chains. ECB Working Paper, No.1677.
• de Backer, K., & Yamano, N. (2007). The measurement of globalisation using international input-output tables. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 2007/8, Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Dedrick, J., Kraemer, K. L., & Linden, G. (2010). Who Profits from Innovation in Global Value Chains? A Study of the iPod and Notebook PCs. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19: 81–116.
• Dietzenbacher, E., Isidoro, R., & Bosma, N.S. (2005). Using Average Propagation Lengths to Identify Production Chains in the Andalusian Economy. Estudidos de Economı´a Aplicada, 23: 405–22.
• Dietzenbacher, E., & Romero, I. (2007). Production Chains in an Interregional Framework: Identification by Means of Average Propagation Lengths. International Regional Science Review, 30: 362–83.
• Fally, T. (2012). Production Staging: Measurement and Facts. University of California, Berkeley, mimeo.
• Feenstra, R.C., & Hanson, G.H. (1996). Globalisation, Outsourcing and Wage Inequality. American Economic Review, 86 (2): 240-45.
• Gereffi, G. (1994). The organisation of buyer driven global commodity chains: how US retailers shape overseas production networks.
• Gereffi, G. & Korzeniewicz, M. (Der.), Community Chains and Global Capitalism (95-112), Connecticut: Praeger.
• Gereffi, G. (2001). Beyond the Producer-Driven/Buyer-Driven Dichotomy: The Evolution of Global Value Chains in the Internet Era. IDS Bulletin, 32 (3): 30–40.
• Gereffi, G., & Memodovic, O. (2003). The Global Apparel Value Chain: What Prospects for Upgrading by Developing Countries? United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), Sectoral Studies Series.
• Hausmann, R., Hwang, J., & Rodrik, D. (2007). What You Export Matters. Journal of Economic Growth, 12(1): 1–25.
• Hummels, D., Ishii, J., & K.-M. Yi (2001). The Nature and Growth of Vertical Specialization in World Trade. Journal of International Economics, 54: 75-96.
• IDE-JETRO & WTO (2011). Trade Patterns and Global Value Chains in East Asia: From Trade in Goods to Trade in Tasks. Cenevre: WTO. http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Press/pdf/20110606_news.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 13.06.2022).
• IMF (2011). World Economic Outlook. Washington DC: International Monetary Fund.
• Johnson, R.C., & Noguera, G. (2012). Accounting for Intermediates: Production Sharing and Trade in Value Added. Journal of International Economics, 86: 224-236.
• Koopman, R., Powers, W., Wang, Z., & Wei, S.-J. (2010). Give Credit where Credit is Due: Tracing Value Added in Global Production Chains. NBER Working Paper 16426, Cambridge, MA.
• Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Kummritz, V. (2016). Do Global Value Chains Cause Industrial Development? CTEI Working Paper 2016-01.
• Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Kanemoto, K., & Geschke, A. (2013). Building Eora: A Global Multi Regional Input-Output Database at High Country and Sector Resolution. Economic Systems Research, 25(1): 20–49.
• Liang, G. (2016). The “Fox–Apple” partnership in the global value chain: How did foreign direct investment and contract manufacturing reshape the landscape of the electronics industry? Xing, Y. (Der.) Uncovering value added in trade: New approaches to analyzing global value chains (s. 141-166), Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.
• Linden, G., Kraemer, K. L., & Dedrick, J. (2009). Who captures value in a global innovation network? The case of Apple’s iPod, Communications of the ACM, 52(3): 140–44.
• Marin, D., & Schweisguth, D. (2011). Two examples: Germany and France. İçinde Globalization of Industrial Production Chains and Measurement of Trade in Value Added: Measuring International Trade in Value Added for a Clearer View of Globalization. WTO ve Commission des Finances du Sénat Konferans Bildiri Kitabı, Cenevre.
• Maurer, A., & Degain, C. (2010). Globalization and trade flows: what you see is not what you get! WTO Staff Working Paper N° ERSD -2010-12.
• Melitz, M. J. (2003). The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity. Econometrica, 71: 1695–1725.
• OECD (2008). Staying Competitive in the Global Economy: Compendium of Studies on Global Value Chains, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264046313-en (Erişim Tarihi: 13.06.2022)
• OECD (2018). Trade in Value Added 2018 Principal Indicators. OECD STAN Archives. https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=TIVA_2018_C1 (Erişim Tarihi: 13.06.2022)
• OECD (2021). OECD Inter-Country Input-Output Database. http://oe.cd/icio (Erişim Tarihi: 13.06.2022)
• OECD & CEFTA (2013). Trade in intermediate goods and international supply chains in CEFTA. CEFTA Issues Paper, 6.
• Pittiglio R. (2014): An essay on intra-industry trade in intermediate goods. Modern Economy, 5: 468–488.
• Rahman, J., Zhao, T., & Bakker, B.B. (2013). Export Performance in Europe, IMF Working Papers, 2013 (062). https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2013/062/article-A001-en.xml (Erişim Tarihi: 13.06.2022)
• Romero, I., Dietzenbacher, E., & Hewings, G. J. D. (2009). Fragmentation and Complexity: Analyzing Structural Change in the Chicago Economy. Revista de Economı´a Mundial, 23: 263–82.
• Van der Marel, E. (2015). Positioning on the Global Value Chain Map: Where do You Want to Be? ECIPE Occasional Paper No.1.
• WTO (2021). Information note on trade in intermediate goods: second quarter 2021. https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news21_e/stat_03nov21_e.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 13.06.2022)
• WTO & Commission des Finances du Sénat (2011). Globalization of Industrial Production Chains and Measurement of Trade in Value Added: Measuring International Trade in Value Added for a Clearer View of Globalization. Konferans Bildiri Kitabı, Cenevre.
• Xing, Y., & Detert, N. (2010). How the iPhone widens the United States trade deficit with the People’s Republic of China. ADBI Working Paper Series No. 257, Aralık.
• Yamano, N. (2014). Development Of Inter-Country Input-Output Table For OECD-WTO TiVA Indicators: Practical Solutions Using Available Data Sources. International Conference on the Measurement of Trade and Economic Globalization, Aguascalientes, 29 Eylül-1 Ekim 2014.