Trade agreements have to cope with the new reality of business

Global value chains are changing the patterns and structure of international trade. Multilateral and regional trade agreements will need to reflect the fact that goods and services are now from “everywhere,” rather than, as they are defined today, from “somewhere.”

With the emergence of GVCs, the mercantilist approach that views exports as good and imports as bad, and that views market access as a concession to be granted in exchange for access to a partner’s market, is even more clearly counterproductive. Domestic firms depend on reliable access to imports of world class goods and services inputs in order to improve their productivity and their competitiveness. Responses to this reality can be undertaken unilaterally, and have indeed led to unilateral liberalisation in recent years. “First movers” in liberalisation can also be the first to gain from specialisation and improve their position on international markets in downstream industries.

The gains are even greater when more countries participate and markets are opened on a multilateral basis. GVCs strengthen the economic case for advancing negotiations at the multilateral level, as barriers between third countries upstream or downstream matter as much as barriers put in place by direct trade partners and are best addressed together. A good illustration of this approach is the 1997 Information Technology Agreement (ITA), whose success lies in covering as many products and as many countries involved in the IT value chain as possible (Figure 14). The ITA also highlights the benefits of applying the Most Favoured Nation principle even in plurilaterally negotiated agreements, which eliminates “red tape” related to rules of origin and their potential distorting impact on trade.

Sound economics is one thing; political feasibility is another. While multilateral agreements are widely accepted as the best way forward, most of the liberalisation outside of purely unilateral opening has occurred at the regional level in the past two decades. To promote the expansion of GVCs, regional trade agreements (RTAs) are more effective when their membership is consistent with regional production networks. They also have a role to play in deepening integration provisions: the convergence of standards or the recognition of qualifications can start bilaterally or regionally. But the RTAs of the future should be careful to avoid the pitfalls of distorting firms’ choices and losing the connection with the rest of the value chain. For example, looking at rules of origin from the perspective of what would make RTAs more GVC-friendly and increase their impact on firms’ productivity would seem to be a sensible option to explore. Regional value chains could be of particular relevance for achievement of food security and other development goals in areas such as Africa and in particular LDC. In the longer term, consolidating and multilateralising RTAs would help turn the “spaghetti bowl” of preferential agreements into a clearer and more efficient trading regime for all actors in GVCs.

With the deadlock in multilateral trade negotiations, there is a risk that countries will slow the process of trade liberalisation. Unilateral reforms have been successful in the past decade when trade negotiations did not provide companies other opportunities to enter GVCs. There is no reason to abandon such strategies, as they can complement efforts to reach mutually supportive outcomes. However, there are areas, such as the recognition of qualifications or the harmonisation of standards, which require international co-operation.

Figure 14. ITA membership and participation in IT GVCs (participation index in % of gross exports)

The ITA removed tariffs on key technology and telecoms products for 75 countries covering 97% of trade in IT products. Over a decade later, ITA members are more involved in GVCs in the sector than non-signatories. The GVC participation index accounts for the import content of exports and for exports of domestic intermediate inputs used in third countries’ exports. Before the agreement entered into force, it was under 6% of gross exports on average for all countries. It then increased significantly for signatories, up to over 9% in 2005 before declining slightly during the crisis, while non-members remain at the sidelines of IT value chains.

Source: OECD (2013).

In a world of GVCs, fostering the building of a complete value chain is a huge task. However, even where this is not optimal or even possible, governments can nevertheless encourage firms to join an existing global value chain, which may have low entry barriers and enable firms to realise export success relatively quickly and at low cost. Indeed, this can provide increased opportunities: rather than being obliged to develop vertically integrated industries (producing both intermediates and final products), firms can become export-competitive by specialising in specific activities and tasks. For example, China specialised in the assembly of final products in the electronics industry and has become the largest exporter of ICT products; other countries specialised in the assembly of intermediates (e.g. sub-systems for motor vehicles in Mexico), the production of parts and components, or ICT services, e.g. India.

The experience of a number of emerging economies demonstrates that this engagement in GVCs can offer a fast track to development and industrialisation. The value added that some emerging economies have gained from participation in manufacturing GVCs has increased steadily over time (Figure 15). Motivated by the success of these economies, other developing and emerging economies are also aiming to increase participation in international production networks. Specialization in specific tasks such as automobile parts has allowed engagement in value chains in ways which would not have been possible just a decade ago. Developing countries wanting to participate in GVCs will need to consider how they can open to foreign trade and investment, strengthen trade facilitating measures and reform the business environment as core components of any strategy to participate in GVCs.

But this is clearly only part of the story. The particular situation and development objectives of any economy need to be taken account of as an integral part of any strategy. What is needed is a tailored approach for particular situations and much would need to be done for those developing countries which are currently experiencing the greatest difficulty in getting engaged in value chains. Recognizing that, it is also clear that there are some broad areas that require particular attention in many cases. Skills and infrastructure are very important elements in any strategy to participate in value chains and these are often areas where developing countries, particularly LDCs, face considerable challenges including in terms of mobilizing foreign and domestic financial resources. In addition,, improving public governance, the tax system and corporate governance framework may also often be important. Aid for trade initiatives and trade facilitation can have an important role to play in supporting the efforts of less developed countries. But beyond this, what is needed are country-specific strategies and future work needs to give more emphasis to this aspect.

Figure 15. Income derived from GVCs in manufacturing, selected economies, 1995 and 2009

Source: OECD (2013).

Another important dimension for emerging and developing countries relates to their involvement not just as passive ‘recipients’ of GVCs but as active creators of GVCs. This can be seen in the rapidly growing shares of international investment originating from emerging economies. An interesting feature of international investment from emerging economies is that it has involved significant investment from state-owned enterprises (SOEs). As a greater share of international investment comes to be controlled by SOEs, these firms might become more prevalent in GVCs. Concerns have been expressed over the effects of this investment on competition and markets, and, within GVCs, how SOE concentration in upstream markets might eventually have implications on firms further downstream.

A final point relates to the social implications of GVCs. GVCs are more than just an efficient way of producing goods and services. They are also an international channel for ideas. These ideas can take the form of new knowledge and innovations, as embodied in intermediate goods and services and production methods. They can also convey social expectations of responsible business conduct. Governments are recognising this and are seeking to leverage this dimension of GVCs, which is increasingly aligned with firms' interest in reputation and branding as a way of ensuring their future in global value chains. In order for developing countries to reap the full benefits of participating in global value chains, it is essential that business be conducted in a manner respectful of human rights and dignity as prescribed by the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, ILO and UN recognized standards.

Не нашли, что искали? Воспользуйтесь поиском: