Wassily Leontief and Input Output Analysis in Economics

Wassily Leontief and Input Output Analysis in Economics

 

 

Wassily Leontief: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

From the time he was a young man growing up in Saint Petersburg, Wassily Leontief devoted his studies to input-output analysis. When he left Russia at the age of nineteen to begin the Ph.D. program at the University of Berlin, he had already shown how leon walras’s abstract equilibrium theory could be quantified. But it was not until many years later, in 1941, while a professor at Harvard, that Leontief calculated an input-output table for the American economy. It was this work, and later refinements of it, that earned Leontief the Nobel Prize in 1973.

Input-output analysis shows the extensive process by which inputs in one industry produce outputs for consumption or for input into another industry. The matrix devised by Leontief is often used to show the effect of a change in production of a final good on the demand for inputs. Take, for example, a 10 percent increase in the production of shoes. With the input-output table, one can estimate how much additional leather, labor, machinery, and other inputs will be required to increase shoe production.

Most economists are cautious in using the table because it assumes, to use the shoe example, that shoe production requires the inputs in the proportion they were used during the time period used to estimate the table. There’s the rub. Although the table is useful as a rough approximation of the inputs required, economists know from mountains of evidence that proportions are not fixed. Specifically, when the cost of one input rises, producers reduce their use of this input and substitute other inputs whose prices have not risen. If wage rates rise, for example, producers can substitute capital for labor and, by accepting more wasted materials, can even substitute raw materials for labor. That the input-output table is inflexible means that, if used literally to make predictions, it will necessarily give wrong answers.

At the time of Leontief’s first work with input-output analysis, all the required matrix algebra was done using hand-held calculators and sheer tenacity. Since then, computers have greatly simplified the process, and input-output analysis, now called “interindustry analysis,” is widely used. Leontief’s tables are commonly used by the World Bank, the United Nations, and the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Early on, input-output analysis was used to estimate the economy-wide impact of converting from war production to civilian production after World War II. It has also been used to understand the flow of trade between countries. Indeed, a 1954 article by Leontief shows, using input-output analysis, that U.S. exports were relatively labor intensive compared with U.S. imports. This was the opposite of what economists expected at the time, given the high level of U.S. wages and the relatively high amount of capital per worker in the United States. Leontief’s finding was termed the Leontief paradox. Since then, the paradox has been resolved. Economists have shown that in a country that produces more than two goods, the abundance of capital relative to labor does not imply that the capital intensity of its exports should exceed that of its imports.

Throughout his life Leontief campaigned against “theoretical assumptions and nonobserved facts” (the title of a speech he delivered while president of the American Economic Association, 1970–1971). According to Leontief too many economists were reluctant to “get their hands dirty” by working with raw empirical facts. To that end Wassily Leontief did much to make quantitative data more accessible, and more indispensable, to the study of economics.


Selected Works

1941. The Structure of American Economy, 1919–1929. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

1966. Essays in Economics: Theories and Theorizing. New York: Oxford University Press.

 

From NY Times

Wassily Leontief, Economist Who Won a Nobel, Dies at 93

 

Wassily Leontief, who won the Nobel prize in economics in 1973 for his analyses of America’s production machinery, showing how changes in one sector of the economy can exact changes all along the line, affecting everything from the price of oil to the price of peanut butter, died Friday night at the New York University Medical Center. He was 93.

His analytic methods, as the Nobel committee observed, were adopted and became a permanent part of production planning and forecasting in scores of industrialized nations and in private corporations all over the world.

Following the model of his so-called input-output analysis, General Electric, for example, was able to load data from 184 sectors of the economy — such as energy, home construction and transportation — into a mammoth computer to help it predict how the energy crisis brought on by the Arab oil boycott in 1973 would affect public demand for its products and services, from light bulbs to turbines.

A well-known academic figure, Mr. Leontief was the director of the Institute for Economic Analysis of New York University from 1975 until 1991; even after his retirement he still taught at the university into his 90’s. Before coming to N.Y.U. he taught economics at Harvard for 44 years and directed large research projects there as well.

Mr. Leontief was a thinker who often complained that too many of his academic colleagues spent too much time staring out their office windows instead of being out in the field, as any good economist ought to be, counting things. ”Facts,” he said. ”You have to have facts. Theories aren’t good unless you have facts to back them.”

When asked how he developed the input-output analysis recognized by his Nobel memorial prize, he would invariably begin, ”Oh, it’s really very simple — what I wanted to do was collect facts.” The facts he sought were those that explained how segments of production were interconnected.

He showed that if you carefully studied changes in the cost and components of one type of product, you could determine the resulting changes in cost and components of others along the production chain.

Suppose you have a sudden rise the price of oil or steel? Mr. Leontief taught government officials and corporate executives to track how this influenced the costs of production in other segments of a local or national economy, both within an industry or more broadly across many industries and many nations.

Wassily Leontief was born Aug. 5, 1905, in St. Petersburg, the son of Wassily W. Leontief, an economist, and the former Eugenia Bekker. A brilliant student, he was allowed to enroll when he was only 15 at the newly renamed University of Leningrad. But he got in trouble by expressing vehement opposition to the lack of intellectual and personal freedom under the country’s Communist regime, which had taken power three years earlier. He was arrested as he was nailing up anti-Communist posters on the wall of a military barracks and placed in solitary confinement. Released after several days, he promptly resumed his anti-Communist activities and was arrested several more times.

Finally, in 1925, he was allowed to leave the country, a turn of fate he attributed to a growth on his neck. He said the authorities believed that the growth was cancerous and that he would die and be of no use to the state. He left Russia to resume his studies in economics at the University of Berlin, and his parents soon followed. The growth was benign and he completed his doctorate in 1929. He spent a year as an economist advising the Government of China, particularly on the planning of a new railroad network.

Then he came to the United States and worked briefly in New York at the National Bureau of Economic Research, where his published work quickly attracted attention, and Harvard invited him to join its economics faculty. He agreed, provided the university help him develop his ideas about production. Harvard gave him a research assistant and a $2,000 grant to develop the system of input-output analysis that the world was to adopt. He and his assistant began constructing a table covering 42 American industries, taking months to compile figures and perform calculations that computers would latter handle in fractions of seconds.

During the war, he helped the United States Government with planning for industrial production, worked as a consultant to the Office of Strategic Services and supervised compilation of a 92-economic-sector table for the Department of Labor. In 1948, Mr. Leontief set up the Harvard Research Project on the Structure of the American Economy with the aid of large grants from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations and the Air Force to expand and refine his input-output models. Soon he had a staff of 20 — and a 650-punch-card computer from I.B.M., then the state-of-the art.

He did not, however, keep the Air Force grant long once the Eisenhower Administration came to power; some of its officials were critical of his input-output theory as smacking too much of a planned economy. That was precisely what he thought it should smack of.

One of his goals in studying the nature of changes in industrial production was to enable nations to plan in ways that would be economically beneficial and help them avoid periods of economic hardship. But to some economists the idea of national economic planning was ill advised: not only would it not work, they said, but it might make matters worse and also might open the door to excessive Government control. They maintained it would be better to let the private sector and the free market determine the course of future economic events.

To Mr. Leontief, it seemed short-sighted for nations to devote little or no thought to the analysis of the future of the overall economy, especially after what he regarded as the effective work of modern economists in devising projections that are mathematically and statistically sound. He spoke out often on the subject in the 1970’s and 80’s.

He and Leonard Woodcock, then president of the United Auto Workers, proposed that the Federal Government establish an Office of National Economic Planning to help coordinate economic projects and make recommendations on policies they said could avert unnecessary unemployment, inflation, failures in health care, shortages in affordable housing, energy, public transportation and other requirements of a civilized society.

The idea never materialized. If anything, the generation of younger economists who followed him, many of whom he taught, developed less respect for the abilities of national Governments to plan for the long term. It bothered him greatly that toward the end of the century many Americans seemed to have lost broad faith in their Government’s ability to improve the lot of its citizens, particularly through economic programs.

In an Op-Ed article in The New York Times in 1992, he said there was little doubt that the United States Government had played an important role in a generally prosperous economy for more than half the century, from ending the Great Depression in the 30’s to guiding the nation through most of the rest of the century in generally sounder economic health than most of the rest of the world.

Mr. Leontief was always fearful that employment problems would accompany widespread use of the high-speed computers that he himself relied on almost from the moment they first became applicable for nonmilitary purposes after World War II. He warned that computers would be for many workers what the tractor was to the horse — great for the farmer but not great for the horse.

In an interview in 1996, when he was 90, Mr. Leontief, noting the trend toward corporate downsizing, said: ”Individual entrepreneurs will continue to do better and better and better, but significant segments of the work force will do worse and worse. Ultimately, Governments will have to play a role in arbitrating and correcting this.”

Mr. Leontief seemed to grow more liberal with age. During the student protests on the Harvard campus in 1969, he split with most senior faculty members and joined with a younger group more sympathetic to the protesting students. In 1975, he resigned from Harvard, where he was the Henry Lee Professor of Economics and chairman of the university’s Society of Fellows, its most distinguished group of scholars. He left a year ahead of schedule, complaining that too often teachers at the graduate level did not teach and researchers did not do research.

Shortly before he resigned, he joined an internal report criticizing Harvard’s economics department, which had long been regarded as among the world’s best. The report said that the department had failed to adequately recruit minority faculty members, that it took an overly narrow approach in scholarship and that a ”deterioration in attitudes and relationships” had occurred.

At N.Y.U., he continued to expand his work on input-output analysis and helped foreign nations adopt it. China was among the last to do so, as it intensified its industrialization in the late 1980’s.

Wassily Leontief, a balletomane and connoisseur of fine wines, said he also thought of himself as a squire of Willoughby Brook in northern Vermont, where he and his family had a summer home. It was all very well to be an internationally regarded scholar, but landing a beautiful brook trout, he would say with his sly smile, was his passion.

He is survived by his wife, Estelle Helena Marks, a writer, whom he married in 1932, his daughter, Svetlana Alpers, the art historian, author, and professor of fine arts at the University of California at Berkeley, and two grandsons.

 

 

Please see my related posts

Classical roots of Interdependence in Economics

George Dantzig and History of Linear Programming

 

 

 

Key Sources of Research:

 

 

STRUCTURE OF THE WORLD ECONOMY

Outline of a Simple Input-Output Formulation*

Nobel Memorial Lecture, December 11, 1973
WASSILY LEONTIEF

 

Click to access b541e3fec34aa38c09c9eec41a46981e8fb9.pdf

https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1973/leontief-lecture.html

 

 

 

 

How is the global economy interconnected?

https://www.ubs.com/microsites/together/en/nobel-perspectives/laureates/wassily-leontief.html

 

 

 

 

Wassily Leontief

Concise Encyclopedia of Economics

Wassily Leontief

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Leontief.html

 

 

 

 

Wassily Leontief and the discovery of the input output approach,

Bjerkholt, Olav

(2016) :

Memorandum, Department of Economics, University of Oslo, No. 18/2016

Click to access 877412162.pdf

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2884686

 

 

 

Wassily Leontief and Léon Walras: The Production as a Circular Flow

 

Amanar AKHABBAR*
Jérôme LALLEMENT

2011

Click to access Wassily-Leontief-and-Leon-Walras-the-Production-as-a-Circular-Flow.pdf

Click to access MPRA_paper_30207.pdf

 

 

 

Wassily Leontief, the Input-Output model, the Soviet National Economic Balance
and the General Equilibrium Theory

Fidel Aroche

 

Click to access Ponencia_Aroche_Fidel_1.pdf

 

 

 

 

Wassily Leontief: In appreciation

William J. Baumol and Thijs ten Raa

Euro. J. History of Economic Thought 16:3 511–522

September 2009

 

Click to access leontief%20ejhet.pdf

Click to access Thijs.pdf

 

 

 

 

Social Technology and Political Economy:  The debate about the Soviet origins of Input Output Analysis

Amanar Akhabbar

2006

Click to access 2006-12-21_Akhabbar.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

The National Accounts as a Tool for Analysis and Policy; History, Economic
Theory and Data Compilation Issues

Frits Bos
2009

Click to access MPRA_paper_23582.pdf

Click to access The-National-Accounts-as-a-Tool-for-Analysis-and-Policy-History-Economic-Theory-and-Compilation-Issues.pdf

 

 

 

 

The national accounts as a tool for analysis and policy; past, present and
future

Frits Bos

CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis
2006

Click to access MPRA_paper_1235.pdf

 

 

 

 

Three centuries of macro-economic statistics

Frits Bos

December 2011

Click to access MPRA_paper_35391.pdf

 

 

 

 

Wassily Leontief and His Contributions to Economic Accounting

BEA

1999

Click to access 0399leon.pdf

 

 

 

 

A Review of Input-Output Analysis

CARL F. CHRiST

Volume Title: Input-Output Analysis: An Appraisal
Volume ISBN: 0-870-14173-2

Click to access c2866.pdf

 

 

STRUCTURE OF THE WORLD ECONOMY
Outline of a Simple Input-Output Formulation

Nobel Memorial Lecture, December 11, 1973
by
WA S S I L Y LE O N T I E F

Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Click to access b541e3fec34aa38c09c9eec41a46981e8fb9.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

THE INPUT-OUTPUT MODELING APPROACH TO THE NATIONAL
ECONOMY

Viorel GAFTEA

Click to access rjef2_2013p211-222.pdf

 

 

 

 

“Input-Output Analysis in an Increasingly Globalised World:
Applications of OECD’s Harmonised International Tables”,

 

Wixted, B., N. Yamano and C. Webb

(2006),

OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers,
2006/07, OECD Publishing

Click to access input-output-analysis.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

System Dynamics and Input Output Analysis

Charles Braden

Click to access brade166.pdf

 

 

 

 

ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE AND INPUT-OUTPUT THEORY

Ángel Luis Ruiz
Inter American University of Puerto Rico
Pedro F. Pellet
Nova Southeastern University

 

Click to access archivo5_vol5_no2.pdf

 

 

 

Leontief and the Future of the World Economy

Emilio Fontela

Catedrático Emérito

Universidad de Ginebra

2002

Click to access FIIRS006.PDF

 

 

 

Classical’ Roots of Input-Output Analysis: A Short Account of its Long Prehistory

By Heinz D. Kurz and Neri Salvadori

 

Click to access Kurz&Salvarodi_IOsClassicalRoots.pdf

 

 

 

 

EDITORIAL: CARBON FOOTPRINT AND INPUT–OUTPUT ANALYSIS – AN INTRODUCTION,

Thomas Wiedmann

(2009)

Economic Systems Research, 21:3, 175-186

Click to access Wiedman2009_Carbon_footprint_MRIO_introduction_ESR.pdf

 

 

 

Introduction: the History of Input–Output Analysis, Leontief’s Path and
Alternative Tracks

OLAV BJERKHOLT & HEINZ D. KURZ

Economic Systems Research
Vol. 18, No. 4, 331–333, December 2006

Click to access 2006_The_History_of_Input_Output_Analysis__Leonthiefs_Path_and_Alternative_Tracks__in_Economic_Systems_Research_.pdf

 

 

 

 

Sraffa, Leontief, Lange: The political economy of input–output economics

 

2017

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1517758016301035

 

 

 

 

 

Network Economics of Block Chain and Distributed Ledger Technology

Network Economics of Block Chain and Distributed Ledger Technology

 

Quadruple Accounting System

Morris Copeland, and Hyman Minsky emphasized quadruple entry accounting system envisioning interrelated interlocking balance sheets of economic agents.  Interlocking balance sheets create a network of economic agents.

I attach a slide from a presentation by Marc Lavoie given at Minsky Summer school in 2010 at the Levy Institute of Economics (Bard College).

 

Minsky

 

There are several FINTECH innovations which are bringing about dramatic changes in the financial services business.

  • Block Chain and Distributed Ledgers
  • Payment Banks
  • Retail P2P Payment services
  • Mobile Payments
  • Secured Wallets
  • Domestic Real Time Payments and Transfers
  • Cross Border Near Real time Money Transfers

 

Block Chain and Distributed Ledgers, in my opinion, are/can be implementation of quadruple accounting principles envisioned by Morris Copeland and Hyman Minsky.  Two economic agents engage in financial transactions which are recorded in distributed ledgers.

Some of the key components of distributed ledger technology are:

  • Peer-To-Peer Networking
  • Cryptography
  • Distributed Data Storage

In contrast with centralized ledgers, distributed ledgers store data at each node in the P2P network.  So there is no need for an intermediating institution.  From a payment system perspective, each node in the P2P network can be thought of as a bank.   Each node will have its own ledger and balance sheet which will record assets and liabilities.

Ripple is a Cross Border money transfer solution which is based on block chain technology.

 

Recent rise of retail P2P payment services such as

  • Xoom
  • M-Paisa
  • PayTM

indicates a trend toward real time payments/money transfers domestic and international.  This trend also indicates decoupling of these services from traditional deposit/lending banks. XOOM is a service provided by PAYPAL for international Money Transfers.  Money transfers are within a few minutes.

In USA, there are new P2P services offered to facilitate faster near real time payments/money transfers through mobile and online interfaces.

  • Venmo (Paypal)
  • Zelle (clearXchange Network)
  • Square Cash
  • Braintree (Paypal)

There are also social media payments available now through which consumers can quickly send money using social media applications such as

  • Facebook (through Messanger app)
  • Snapcash (through SnapChat)
  • Apple PayCash (through imessages app)
  • TenCent via WeChat

 

Rise of payment banks such as PayTM is one such example.  Reserve Bank of India has granted PayTM a payment bank status.  But transfers are still between bank accounts of transacting consumers where deposits are kept. Payment Bank acts as a technology provider and acts as an intermediary.

As per the RBI guidelines, payments banks cannot lend they can only take deposits or accept payments.

There are four payment banks in India now.

  • PayTM Payment Bank
  • Airtel Payment Bank
  • India Post Payment Bank
  • FINO Payment Bank

 

Mobile payments using secured wallets is another such example.

  • Consumer to Business payments and transfers
  • Consumer to Consumer payments and transfers
  • Google Wallet
  • Apple Pay
  • Android Pay
  • Alipay

 

Cross Border Payment Solutions:

  • XOOM
  • Earthport
  • TransferWise
  • RIPPLE
  • Remitly
  • WorldRemit

 

 

Please see my other related posts:

Next Generation of B2C Retail Payment Systems

Cross Border/Offshore Payment and Settlement Systems

 

 

Key sources of Research:

 

Minsky and Godley and financial Keynesianism

Marc Lavoie
University of Ottawa

2010

Click to access Lavoie.pdf

 

Block Chain:  A Primer

2016

Click to access MPRA_paper_76562.pdf

 

Distributed Ledger Technologies/Blockchain: Challenges, opportunities and the prospects for standards

Advait Deshpande, Katherine Stewart, Louise Lepetit, Salil Gunashekar

2017

www2.caict.ac.cn/zscp/qqzkgz/qqzkgz_zdzsq/201708/P020170818579005375876.pdf

 

Banking on Distributed Ledger Technology: Can It Help Banks Address Financial Inclusion?

By Jesse Leigh Maniff and W. Blake Marsh

2017

Click to access 3q17maniffmarsh.pdf

 

 

Distributed ledger technology in payments, clearing, and settlement

Mills, David, Kathy Wang, Brendan Malone, Anjana Ravi, Jeff Marquardt, Clinton
Chen, Anton Badev, Timothy Brezinski, Linda Fahy, Kimberley Liao, Vanessa Kargenian,
Max Ellithorpe, Wendy Ng, and Maria Baird (2016).

Finance and Economics Discussion
Series 2016-095. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,

2016

Click to access 2016095pap.pdf

 

 

Distributed Ledger Technology: beyond block chain

A report by the UK Government Chief Scientific Adviser

Click to access gs-16-1-distributed-ledger-technology.pdf

 

Bitcoin, Blockchain & distributed ledgers: Caught between promise and reality

Deloitte

Click to access au-deloitte-technology-bitcoin-blockchain-distributed-ledgers-180416.pdf

 

 

Distributed ledger technology in payment, clearing and settlement
An analytical framework

BIS

2017

Click to access d157.pdf

 

 

The Truth About Blockchain

HBR
January–February 2017 Issue

 

https://hbr.org/2017/01/the-truth-about-blockchain

 

THE USE OF BLOCKCHAIN IN CLEARING AND SETTLEMENT

MARECHAL Baptiste

 

 

Peer-to-peer payments: Surveying a rapidly changing landscape

By Jennifer Windh

August 15, 2011

 

Click to access 110815wp.pdf

Relational Turn in Economic Geography

Relational Turn in Economic Geography

This is an important topic.  Uneven development using orthodox economic and development theories has led researcher to look for alternative explanations.

  • How to properly integrate Global – Regional – National – Local perspectives?
  • How valuable is relational (network) perspective?
  • What is the role of power relations among Actors?
  • How does Institutional, Cultural, and Social embeddedness of Actors impact development and economy?
  • How does actions and interactions of Actors affect local economic environment?

 

From Toward a relational economic geography

During the 1990s, a controversial debate has emerged in economic geography and other social sciences, such as economics and sociology, focusing on the question of what research program, key focus and methodology a novel economic geography should embody (Perrons, 2001). This was, partially, a reaction to the work of Krugman (1991), Fujita et al. (2001), and others who claimed to have developed a new economic geography. This self-proclaimed new economic geography offers an interesting economic perspective on the conventional problems of spatial distribution and equilibrium, based on an analysis of increasing returns, transportation costs, and other traded interdependencies (Martin and Sunley, 1996; Bathelt, 2001). Yet it fails to develop a comprehensive research program as a basis for economic geography because ‘. . . the new economic geography ignores almost as much of the reality they study as old trade theory did’ (Krugman, 2000, p. 50).1 In following Martin and Sunley’s (1996) suggestion, this approach is better classified as geographical economics. While this literature brings economic geography closer to the core ideas of neoclassical economics, Amin and Thrift (2000) have recently suggested another fundamentally different direction for economic geography, capitalizing on concepts and theories from other social sciences. Amin and Thrift (2000, p. 4) provocatively claim that economic geography is no longer able to ‘fire the imagination’ of researchers. Therefore, they ask for a critical reflection and renewal of this field’s basic goals, concepts, and methods. The reactions to their contribution have stimulated a debate, parts of which have been published in a special issue of Antipode in 2001. This debate has unfortunately been dominated by discipline-political arguments, opinions, and claims. In essence, it focuses on the question of whether economic geography should be closely associated with economics or lean towards the social, political, and cultural sciences. In particular, Thrift (2000) has identified a growing interest in the cultural dimension of economic relations, as well as in economic issues of cultural studies. While Amin and Thrift (2000) propose a cultural turn away from neoclassical economics, their critics emphasize existing linkages with and the importance of economic theories as a foundation of economic geography (Martin and Sunley, 2001; Rodriguez- Pose, 2001). We agree with Martin and Sunley (2001) that this debate is partly based on false dualisms, such as economics vs. sociology and quantitative vs. qualitative methodology. In our view, this discussion is unclear because it mixes normative accounts of the discipline’s policy implications with epistemological and methodological arguments. The debate is also somewhat misdirected for it tries to separate those economic and social aspects that are inseparable. The decisive question cannot be whether economic geography should be economized or culturalized. Rather, the economic and the social are fundamentally intertwined. They are dimensions of the same empirical reality which should be studied in a dialogue of perspectives rather than in mutual exclusion and reductionist prioritization (Stark, 2000).

The second transition is characterized by a reformulation of the core concepts of economic geography. In the following sections, discontinuities between relational economic geography and regional science will be identified according to five dimensions of the research design. These dimensions include the conception of space, object of knowledge, conception of action, epistemological perspective, and research goal. From this, we develop a relational framework for analysis which systematically focuses on economic actors and their action and interaction. The basic propositions of this framework will be developed in the remainder of this section (Table 1).

4.1. Conception of space

A relational view of economic geography is based on a relationship between space and economy which is contrary to that of regional science.10 Specifically, regional science views space as a container which confines and determines economic action. It treats space as a separate entity which can be described and theorized independently from economic action. In contrast, a relational approach assumes that economic action transforms the localized material and institutional conditions of future economic action. Similar to Storper and Walker (1989), this approach emphasizes that the economic actors themselves produce their own regional environments. The way in which spatial categories and regional artifacts have an impact on economic action can only be understood if the particular economic and social context of that action is analysed (Bahrenberg, 1987). Spatial structures and processes have, however, been socially and economically underconceptualized in regional science. We contend that space can neither be used as an explanatory factor for economic action nor be treated as a separate research object in isolation from economic and social structures and relations. Consequently, as space is not an object of causal power to explain social or economic action it cannot be theorized (Sayer, 1985; Saunders, 1989; Hard, 1993).11 Of course, economic processes also have material outcomes (e.g. infrastructure) which are localized in certain places and territories and exist over longer time periods. Such structures clearly have an impact on economic action and interaction in these localities. Nonetheless, economic actors and their action and interaction should be at the core of a theoretical framework of economic geography and not space and spatial categories. Spatial scientists, such as Bunge (1973), treat spatiality as the object of knowledge in economic geography. They aim to detect those spatial laws which govern human action without looking at the actors themselves. Instead of treating space as a container, we suggest a conception of space as perspective (Glu¨ ckler, 1999). In other words, we use space as a basis for asking particular questions about economic phenomena but space is not our primary object of knowledge. It is this conception that we refer to as the geographical lens. As part of this, economic exchange becomes the focus of analysis and not space. Similarly, we do not seek to identify spatial laws but, instead, look for explanations of localized economic processes and their consequences.12 It is particularly through the application of a distinct perspective to the study of an object of knowledge that discipline-specific research problems can be formulated. The spatial perspective or geographical lens leads economic geographers to pose research questions about an economic phenomenon, different from those typically asked by economists or sociologists. We also suggest that the perspective applied helps mobilize a particular terminology and, over time, a set of tacit knowledge which entails an understanding of what it is that is being analysed and how this subject matter can be described and evaluated adequately.

relational2

 

From Rethinking relational economic geography

Since the mid-1990s, the softening of sub-disciplinary boundaries within human geography and the more general call for a ‘relational thinking’ in human geography (Massey et al . 1999; see also Allen et al. 1997; Sack 1997; Lee and Wills 1997) have stimulated the consolidation of what might be termed a ‘relational economic geography’. 1 In this ‘relational turn’, economic geographers tend to place their analytical focus on the complex nexus of relations among actors and structures that effect dynamic changes in the spatial organization of economic activities (see Amin 1998; Dicken and Malmberg 2001; Ettlinger 2001; Bathelt and Glückler 2003; Boggs and Rantisi 2003). This relational economic geography is concerned primarily with the ways in which socio-spatial relations of actors are intertwined with broader structures and processes of economic change at various geographical scales. Despite the claims of novelty among most economic geographers who have taken on such a relational thinking in their geographical analysis, it remains unclear whether this ‘relational turn’ represents merely a modest reworking of earlier work in economic geography that might not be explicitly relational in its conceptualization and analysis. After all, heated debates on the spatial divisions of labour, locality studies and flexible specialization dominated the heyday of economic geography during much of the 1980s and the early 1990s (Scott 2000). With hindsight, these debates have legitimized the analytical concern of economic geography with the social relations of production and the relations between the spatial and the social (Harvey 1982; Thrift 1983; Massey 1984; Smith 1984; Gregory and Urry 1985; Lee 1989). By sidestepping the pitfalls of an earlier brand of quantitative economic geography concerned with spatial geometries and locational analysis, the substantive foci on regions, localities and production processes in these debates have no doubt foregrounded the recent ‘relational turn’ in economic geography. While many recent geographic writings have addressed aspects tangential to the core theoretical categories deployed in a relational economic geography (e.g. Barnett 1998; Thrift 2000; Barnes 2001; Storper 2001), there is surprisingly a lack of systematic evaluation and integration of our knowledge of this growing field. In view of limited space, this paper develops a sympathetic critique and rethinking of the ‘relational turn’ in order to clarify the distinctive contributions of a relational economic geography and to rework some of its conceptual tools. In the next section, I critically examine the nature and emergence of the ‘relational turn’ in economic geography, by revisiting relational thought that existed as an undercurrent before the 1990s and situating the recent ‘relational turn’ in this earlier work in economic geography. Whilst the recent ‘relational turn’ has some of its intellectual antecedents in the earlier debates of the 1980s (particularly the social relations of production framework), its substantive content has been broadened to include social actors and their network relations at different spatial scales. Focusing on recent economicgeographical writings on regional development, embedded networks and geographical scales, I note that much of this large body of recent work is relational only in the thematic sense that relations among actors and structures are an important theme in contemporary economic-geographical enquiry. In particular, the causal nature of relationality and power relations are under-theorized and underspecified. If relational thinking in economic geography is to have a greater impact, we need to rework and deepen its theoretical constructs to go beyond simply a ‘thematic turn’ (Jessop 2001, 1214). The paper moves on to rework some of the most important theoretical insights in the ‘relational turn’ – relationality, power and actors. Dynamic and heterogeneous relations among actors and structures are conceptualized as causal mechanisms of socio-spatial change in economic landscapes. Here, I explore the notion of ‘relational geometries’ constituted through relationality and power . The concept of relational geometries refers to the spatial configurations of heterogeneous relations among actors and structures through which power and identities are played out and become efficacious. These relational geometries are neither actors (e.g. individuals and firms) nor structures (e.g. class, patriarchy and the state), but configurations of relations between and among them – connecting actors and structures through horizontal and vertical power relations. Relational geometries are also not networks per se because the latter refer mainly to horizontal and, mostly, static ties among actors only. Actors in these relational geometries are not static ‘things’ fixed in time and space. They are dynamic and evolving in such relational ways that their differential practices unleash multiple forms of emergent power in relational geometries. Building on the concept of different and emergent forms of causal power as positions in relational geometries and as practice through social action, this relational perspective allows us to avoid the two polarized frameworks in contemporary economic geography – actor networks and institutional structures. This effort to rework relational economic geography thus parallels the recently reinvigorated ‘relational sociology’ that ‘sees relations between terms or units as preeminently dynamic in nature, as unfolding, ongoing processes rather than as static ties among inert substances’ (Emirbayer 1997, 289). To substantiate the relevance of this reworking of conceptual categories, I show how relationality and multiple forms of power can offer vital insights into regional development that go beyond existing relational frameworks in economic geography.

related4relationality5

 

From Geographies of circulation and exchange: Constructions of markets

In the preceding sections we have discussed three heterodox alternatives to the orthodox free market logic.

For socioeconomists, markets are embedded in social structures and are a far cry from the virtual market model celebrated by orthodox economists. It is social relations that underwrite real markets, guaranteeing their functioning in the face of uncertainties. Work un- dertaken in this spirit puts emphasis on social relations and institutions, and analyses how non-economic institutions either enable or constrain efficient market exchange.

Political economists insist that, neoliberal claims to the contrary notwithstanding, capitalism cannot exist without “market imperfections”. In these accounts, the market model is nothing else than a fictitious ideological device to hide from view the underlying dynamics of capitalism. Accordingly, political economic scholars regard it as their task to remove the veil and to lay open the contradictory reality of concrete markets under capitalism.

Cultural economists apply the cultural theoretical concept of performativity towards the market. Rather than reproducing the classical distinction between the abstract market model and real-life markets, protagonists point to the role that the practice of economists widely understood plays in the self-realization of economic thought. It is argued that the model of the perfect market realizes itself in the world in the assembly of far-reaching socio-technical arrangements. Here, markets take on ambivalent form as relational effects of socio-technical networks engaging in the twin processes of framing and overflowing. The latter process includes the proliferation of new social relations, groups and communities which may articulate economic and non-economic alternatives.

In the discipline of economic geography heterodox approaches have managed to break the hegemony of the neoclassical orthodoxy. Unfortunately, the arguments in heterodox debates on the market and on alternative economic geographies more generally are very often taken from entrenched positions, authors apparently finding it very difficult to understand the train of thought followed by the “opposing” camp. While this is true for all positions introduced in this progress report, cultural economy has arguably had a particularly difficult time. With our representation of the performativity approach we hope to have been able to clarify some of the misunderstandings. The strength of the heterodox project lies precisely in the co-existence of competing positions, each challenging the still omnipresent logic of the perfect market in different ways. This is what a vibrant heterodox project should aspire to: A healthy competition of plurivalent and opposing ideas, a competition, however, which at the same time does not prevent conversation across different approaches and is pluralistic enough to gain from the application of different perspectives (see Barnes 2006).

 

 

From  Advancing evolutionary economic geography by engaged pluralism

relational

 

Please see my related post on Relational Sociology.

Boundaries and Relational Sociology

 

 

Key People:

  • Harrison White
  • Henry Wai-chung Yeung
  • H. Bathelt
  • J. Gluckler
  • Jeffrey S. Boggs
  • Norma M. Rantisi
  • Christian Berndt
  • Marc Boeckler
  • Robert Hassink
  • Claudia Klaerding

 

Related Schools of Thoughts:

  • Social Economics
  • Political Economy
  • Cultural Economy
  • Manchester School of Global Production Networks
  • German School of Relational approach

 

Key Terms:

  • Relational Geometries
  • Actor-Networks
  • Relationality
  • Actor-Structure
  • Global – Regional – National – Local
  • Social Embeddedness
  • Economic-Social-Political-Spatial
  • Cultural Economics
  • Critical Realism
  • Causal Relations
  • Boundaries
  • Institutional Economics
  • Political Economics
  • Spatial relations
  • Scale Structure
  • Regionalism
  • Power Relations

 

 

Key Sources of Research:

 

Geographies of circulation and exchange: Constructions of markets

Christian Berndt

Marc Boeckler

 

Click to access 3-BerndtBoeckler2009.pdf

 

 

Whither Global Production Networks in Economic Geography? Past, Present and Future

Martin Hess

Henry Wai-chung Yeung

 

Click to access 2006%20EPA_Hess_Yeung.pdf

 

 

Rethinking relational economic geography

Henry Wai-chung Yeung

2005

 

Click to access 2005_TIBG.pdf

 

 

Towards a Relational Economic Geography: Old Wine in New Bottles?

 

 

Toward a relational economic geography

Harald Bathelt and Johannes Glueckler

 

Journal of Economic Geography 3 (2003) pp. 117–144

Click to access 0c96052832bce3e2bf000000.pdf

 

 

Relational and evolutionary economic geography: competing or complementary paradigms?

Robert Hassink and Claudia Klaerding

2009

 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.493.3838&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

 

Towards an integrated Evolutionary and Relational Economic Geography approach

for analysing the evolution of destinations

 

Cinta Sanz‐Ibáñez,

Salvador Anton‐Clavé

 

Click to access SanzIbanez_AntonClave2014.pdf

Click to access 557194bb08ae7467f72ca317.pdf

 

 

Chains and networks, territories and scales: towards a relational framework for analysing the global economy

PETER DICKEN, PHILIP F. KELLY, KRIS OLDS and HENRY WAI-CHUNG YEUNG

 

Click to access DKOY_2001.pdf

 

 

What Really Goes on in Silicon Valley? Spatial Clustering and Dispersal in Modular Production Networks

Timothy J. Sturgeon

2003

 

Click to access 03-001.pdf

 

 

Theoretical advancement in economic geography by engaged pluralism

Robert Hassink, Claudia Klaerding

 

https://www.wigeo.uni-kiel.de/en/archiv/12peeg

 

 

EMBEDDEDNESS, ACTOR-NETWORKS AND THE ‘RELATIONAL TURN’ IN GEOGRAPHY

 

http://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/bitstream/handle/10635/14512/chapter_3.PDF?sequence=5

 

 

The ‘relational turn’ in economic geography

Jeffrey S. Boggs  and Norma M. Rantisi

Click to access The-Relational-Turn-in-Economic-Geography.pdf

 

 

Manifesto for a Relational Sociology

Mustafa Emirbayer

 

Click to access Emirbayer%20Manifesto%20for%20a%20Relational%20Sociology.pdf

 

 

Relational Economic Geography: A Partial Understanding
or a New Paradigm?

Peter Sunley

 

Click to access 552fb80c0cf2f2a588a8f6c7.pdf

 

 

The Relational Economy : Geographies of Knowing and Learning

Harald Bathelt and Johannes Gluckler

2011

Oxford

 

 

Can we learn anything from economic geography proper?

Yes, we can!

Robert Hassink, Huiwen Gong, Fabian Faller

Click to access peeg1622.pdf

 

 

GEOGRAPHIES OF FINANCE: CENTERS, FLOWS, AND RELATIONS

BONGMAN SEO

Accepted March 2011

 

 

Geographies of Production I:
Relationality revisited and the ‘practice shift’ in economic geography

 

Andrew Jones

2013

Click to access SR%20PiHG%20Geographies%20of%20Production%20Report%201%2024%20Jul13%20FINAL.pdf

 

 

Advancing evolutionary economic geography by engaged pluralism

 

Robert Hassink, Claudia Klaerding, Pedro Marque

2014

Click to access 54200ea90cf241a65a1afcd4.pdf

 

 

Geographies of Production: Growth Regimes in Spatial Perspective 3 – Toward a Relational View of Economic Action and Policy

Harald Bathelt

2006

Click to access 43_Bathelt%202006_PIHG.pdf

 

Understanding Global Value Chains – G20/OECD/WB Initiative

Understanding Global Value Chains – G20/OECD/WB Initiative

 

There is lot of opacity in understanding of GVCs.  Efforts are underway since last few years to get better analytical and statistical tools to understand International Trade and Global Value Chains.

Globalization in Trade and Finance encouraged by International organizations such as IMF/WB/OECD/WTO/UNCTAD/UNIDO and others has changed the landscape of Trade.

There is still a long way to go to make better sense of issues and concerns for policy makers.

OECD/WB/WTO along with G20 Trade Ministers have initiated efforts since 2012.

 

From Global Value Chains 

Introduction to GVCs

International production, trade and investments are increasingly organised within so-called global value chains (GVCs) where the different stages of the production process are located across different countries. Globalisation motivates companies to restructure their operations internationally through outsourcing and offshoring of activities.

Firms try to optimise their production processes by locating the various stages across different sites. The past decades have witnessed a strong trend towards the international dispersion of value chain activities such as design, production, marketing, distribution, etc.

This emergence of GVCs challenges conventional wisdom on how we look at economic globalisation and in particular, the policies that we develop around it.

 

Trade in Value Added

The goods and services we buy are composed of inputs from various countries around the world. However, the flows of goods and services within these global production chains are not always reflected in conventional measures of international trade. The joint OECD – WTO Trade in Value-Added (TiVA) initiative addresses this issue by considering the value added by each country in the production of goods and services that are consumed worldwide. TiVA indicators are designed to better inform policy makers by providing new insights into the commercial relations between nations.

 

GVCs and Trade Policy

Global value chains (GVCs) have become a dominant feature of world trade, encompassing developing, emerging, and developed economies. The whole process of producing goods, from raw materials to finished products, is increasingly carried out wherever the necessary skills and materials are available at competitive cost and quality. Similarly, trade in services is essential for the efficient functioning of GVCs, not only because services link activities across countries but also because they help companies to increase the value of their products. This fragmentation highlights the importance of an ambitious complementary policy agenda to leverage engagement in GVCs into more inclusive growth and employment and the OECD is currently undertaking comprehensive statistical and analytical work that aims to shed light on the scale, nature and consequences of international production sharing.

 

From Global Value Chains/Global Production Networks: Organizing the Global Economy

The key organizational feature of the global economy?

  • “Global Value Chains are defined by fragmented supply chains, with internationally dispersed tasks and activities coordinated by a lead firm (a TNC)” (UNCTAD, 2013, p.125; original italics).
  • Data gathering exercises:UNCTAD,OECD,WTO,JETRO…
  • Now firmly on the agenda among leading international economic organizations
  • The international division of labour:imperial/colonialsystems and exchanges of raw materials and finished goods
  • The new international division of labour(NIDL):establishment of overseas production bases of core country TNCs
  • The global division of labour:much more complex global networks lying behind the production of different goods and services

The phenomenon

  • About 60% of global trade, which today amounts to more than $20 trillion, consists of trade in intermediate goods and services that are incorporated at various stages in the production process of goods and services for final consumption” (UNCTAD, 2013, p. 122)
  • Not new, but since 2000 trade and FDI have increased exponentially, and ahead of GDP growth, highlighting a growth in TNC coordinated global value chains
  • Double counting – approx. 25-30% of value of world trade, e.g. the iPhone example. Not just trade from China to US, but incorporates high value components from Japan, South Korea etc.
  • Beyond national economies and basic trade data, and beyond TNCs and FDI, to more complex organizational structures involving intra-firm trade, arm’s length trade and non-equity modes e.g. subcontracting

 

 

From GLOBAL VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS: A PRIMER

gvc5

 

From Global Capitalism and Commodity Chains: Looking Back, Going Forward

gvc4

 

From Global Value Chains/Global Production Networks: Organizing the Global Economy

gvc1gvc-2gvc3

 

Key Terms

  • Global Commodities Chains (GCCs)
  • Global Production Networks (GPNs)
  • Global Value Chains (GVCs)
  • Strategic Coupling
  • Economic Deepening
  • Trans National Corporation (TNC)
  • Multi National Corporation (MNC)
  • Multi National Enterprises (MNE)
  • SMILE curve
  • Economic Clusters
  • UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization)
  • OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development)
  • WTO (World Trade Organization)
  • WB (World Bank)
  • UNESCAP (Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific)
  • UNCTAD ( United Nations Commission for Trade and Development)
  • ILO ( International Labor Organization)
  • G20 ( Group of 20 Nations)
  • TIVA ( Trade in Value Added)
  • On shoring
  • Off shoring
  • Outsourcing

 

 

Key People

  • Gary Gereffi
  • Neil M Coe
  • Jennifer Bair
  • Henry Wai-chung Yeung
  • Timothy Sturgeon

 

 

Key Sources of Research:

 

Measuring Trade in Value Added: An OECD-WTO joint initiative

https://www.oecd.org/tad/measuringtradeinvalue-addedanoecd-wtojointinitiative.htm

 

 

Global Value Chains

https://www.oecd.org/about/g20-oecd-global-value-chains.htm

https://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/global-value-chains.htm

 

 

OECD Stocktaking Seminar on Global Value Chains 2014

https://www.oecd.org/g20/topics/trade-and-investment/g20-oecd-global-value-chains-2014.htm

 

 

IMPLICATIONS OF GLOBAL VALUE CHAINS
FOR TRADE, INVESTMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND JOBS

OECD, WTO, UNCTAD 6 August 2013

Prepared for the
G-20 Leaders Summit
Saint Petersburg (Russian Federation) September 2013

 

Click to access G20-Global-Value-Chains-2013.pdf

 

 

Inclusive Global Value Chains

Policy options in trade and complementary areas for GVC Integration by small and medium enterprises and low-income developing countries

OECD and World Bank Group

Report prepared for submission to G20 Trade Ministers Meeting Istanbul, Turkey, 6 October 2015

 

Click to access Participation-Developing-Countries-GVCs-Summary-Paper-April-2015.pdf

 

 

GLOBAL VALUE CHAINS: CHALLENGES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY

OECD, WTO and World Bank Group

Report prepared for submission to the G20 Trade Ministers Meeting Sydney, Australia, 19 July 2014

 

Click to access gvc_report_g20_july_2014.pdf

 

 

Making Global Value Chains (GVCs) Accessible to All

Progress Report
Meeting of the Council at Ministerial Level

6-7 May 2014

 

Click to access MCM-GVC-Progress-Report-May-2014.pdf

 

 

Inclusive Global Value Chains

Policy Options for Small and Medium Enterprises and Low-Income Countries

Ana Paula Cusolito, Raed Safadi, and Daria Taglioni

2016

Click to access 9781464808425.pdf

 

 

Global value chains in a changing world

Edited by Deborah K. Elms and Patrick Low

2013

 

Click to access aid4tradeglobalvalue13_e.pdf

 

 

The rise of global value chains

WORLD TRADE REPORT 2014

 

Click to access wtr14-2c_e.pdf

 

 

Who Captures the Value in the Global Value Chain? High Level Implications for the World Trade Organization

Peter Draper and Andreas Freytag

July 2014

 

Click to access E15-Global-Value-Chains-DraperFreytag-FINAL.pdf

 

 

Joining, Upgrading and Being Competitive in Global Value Chains: 

A Strategic Framework

 

O. Cattaneo G. Gereffi S. Miroudot D. Taglioni

 

Click to access 2013-04_WorldBank_wps6406_Cattaneo_Gereffi_Miroudot_Taglioni_Competitiveness_GVCs.pdf

 

 

Global value chains, development and emerging economies

Gary Gereffi

2015

Click to access WP_18.pdf

 

 

GLOBAL VALUE CHAINS IN A POSTCRISIS WORLD A DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE

Olivier Cattaneo, Gary Gereffi, and Cornelia Staritz

2010

Click to access Gereffi_GVCs_in_the_Postcrisis_World_Book.pdf

 

 

 

Global value chains and global production networks in the changing international political economy: An introduction

Jeffrey Neilson1, Bill Pritchard1 and Henry Wai-chung Yeung

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09692290.2013.873369

 

 

Combining the Global Value Chain and global I-O approaches

 

 

 

Global value chains and world trade : Prospects and challenges for Latin America

René A. Hernández
Jorge Mario Martínez-Piva Nanno Mulder

 

http://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/37176/S2014061_en.pdf?sequence=1

 

 

 

Global value chains in a post-Washington Consensus world

Gary Gereffi

2014

 

https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/10696/2014%20Feb_RIPE_Gereffi,%20Gary_GVCs%20in%20a%20post-Washington%20Consensus%20world.pdf?sequence=1

 

 

GLOBAL VALUE CHAINS AND DEVELOPMENT: Governance, Upgrading & Emerging Economies

Gary Gereffi

Director, Duke CGGC Duke University

2016

Click to access 697_10587.pdf

 

 

 

MaPPing gLoBaL VaLUe CHainS

Koen De Backer and Sébastien Miroudot

2014

Click to access ecbwp1677.pdf

 

 

 

Global Value Chains/Global Production Networks: Organizing the Global Economy

Neil M. Coe

2013

Click to access DrCoe.pdf

 

 

 

GLOBAL VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS: A PRIMER

Gary Gereffi
Karina Fernandez-Stark

July 2016

 

http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/12488/2016-07-28_GVC%20Primer%202016_2nd%20edition.pdf?sequence=1

 

 

 

WHY THE WORLD SUDDENLY CARES ABOUT GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAINS

GARY GEREFFI AND JOONKOO LEE

Duke University

http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/10699/2012-07_JSCM_Gereffi%20&%20Lee_Why%20the%20world%20suddenly%20cares%20about%20global%20supply%20chains.pdf?sequence=1

 

 

 

The Economic Crisis: A Global Value Chain Perspective

 

Gary Gereffi

 

Click to access a-global-value-chain-perspective.pdf

 

 

The governance of global value chains

Gary Gereffi John Humphrey Timothy Sturgeon

2005

 

Click to access sturgeon2005.pdf

 

 

Global production networks and the analysis of economic development

Jeffrey Henderson, Peter Dicken, Martin Hess, Neil Coe and Henry Wai-Chung Yeung

2002

Click to access 2002_RIPE.pdf

 

 

GLOBAL VALUE CHAINS: INVESTMENT AND TRADE FOR DEVELOPMENT

UNCTAD 2013

Click to access wir2013_en.pdf

 

 

Asia and Global Production Networks

Implications for Trade, Incomes and Economic Vulnerability

Benno Ferrarini David Hummels

2014

Click to access asia-and-global-production-networks.pdf

 

 

 

Global Production Networks: Theorizing Economic Development in an Interconnected World

By Neil M. Coe, Henry Wai-Chung Yeung

2015

 

 

Toward a Dynamic Theory of Global Production Networks

Henry Wai-chung Yeung

Neil M. Coe

 

Click to access 2015_GPN_theory_paper_EG%20Vol91(1)_29-58.pdf

 

 

Global Value Chains and deVelopment

unido’s support towards inclusive and sustainable industrial development

2015

Click to access GVC_REPORT_FINAL.PDF

 

 

Global Value Chains: The New Reality of International Trade

Sherry Stephenson

December 2013

Click to access E15_GVCs_BP_Stephenson_FINAL.pdf

 

 

GLOBAL VALUE CHAINS SURVEYING DRIVERS AND MEASURES

João Amador and Sónia Cabral

2014

Click to access ecbwp1739.en.pdf

 

 

GLOBAL VALUE CHAINS AND INTERCONNECTEDNESS OF ASIA-PACIFIC ECONOMIES

Asia Pacific Trade and Investment Report

2015

 

Click to access Chapter%207%20-%20GVCs%20in%20the%20Asia-Pacific.pdf

Click to access Full%20Report%20%20-%20APTIR%202015.pdf

 

 

Global Capitalism and Commodity Chains: Looking Back, Going Forward

JENNIFER BAIR

2005

COMPETITION & CHANGE, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2005 153–180

 

 

Global Value Chains: Development Challenges and Policy Options

Proposals and Analysis

December 2013

Click to access E15-Global-Value-Chains-Compliation-Report-FINAL.pdf

 

 

Globalizing’ regional development: a global production networks perspective

Neil M Coe, Martin Hess, Henry Wai-chung Yeung, Peter Dicken and Jeffrey Henderson

Click to access 2004_TIBG.pdf

 

 

Multilateral approaches to Global Supply Chains

 

International Labour Office

2014

 

Click to access wcms_485351.pdf