Comment on “Deconstructing Deglobalization: The Future of Trade is in Intermediate Services”

IF 4.5 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS Asian Economic Policy Review Pub Date : 2023-09-17 DOI:10.1111/aepr.12446
Ayako Obashi
{"title":"Comment on “Deconstructing Deglobalization: The Future of Trade is in Intermediate Services”","authors":"Ayako Obashi","doi":"10.1111/aepr.12446","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The degree of globalization is often assessed using a conventional measure of global trade openness, namely the ratio of world trade in goods to world gross domestic product (GDP). This conventional measure of globalization peaked in 2008 at the onset of the Great Trade Collapse, which is treated by some commenters as a sign that the world has entered an era of delocalization. However, looking only at trade in goods might overlook an important fact that the nature of globalized economic activities is evolving. Baldwin <i>et al</i>. (<span>2024</span>) highlight the contrasting trend that world trade in goods has peaked, or at least plateaued, in 2008 whereas world trade in services has continued to grow rapidly from 1990 to 2019.</p><p>The history of globalization is inextricably linked to technological advances, and so will its future. Advances in information and communications technologies (ICT) enable the digitalization of services, leading to increased trade in digitally deliverable services. Also, new data networks, digital tools and platforms enable suppliers to expand their customer base beyond the national boundary and give consumers better access to a wider variety of good quality services at competitive prices. More importantly, ICT facilitates offshoring of intermediate services, which are purchased and used as inputs throughout the economy, including the production of manufactured goods. Interested in such a rising role of services trade, Baldwin <i>et al</i>. (<span>2024</span>) examine trade data on Other Commercial Services (OCS) and the cross-border flows of intermediate services. Based on simple statistics and economic logic, Baldwin <i>et al</i>. develop compelling arguments that services trade will continue to grow faster than goods trade and the future of world trade will lie in services, especially in intermediate services.</p><p>Although left aside in the data analysis and discussions of Baldwin <i>et al</i>. (<span>2024</span>), I have some comments regarding the data used in Baldwin <i>et al</i>. and the enabling condition for the expected growth of services trade, both of which should ideally be addressed in future research. First, for the purpose of comparison with goods trade, Baldwin <i>et al</i>. focus on examining services trade of the traditional made-here-and-sold-there type, which falls under Mode 1 of the World Trade Organization (WTO) services trade nomenclature. However, finance, engineering, and other business services supplied through foreign affiliates, which correspond to Mode 3, appear to be increasingly important. According to US Bureau of Economic Analysis,<sup>1</sup> for instance, about 70% of services supplied by US-based firms to foreign persons in 2019 are accounted for by those through the majority-owned foreign affiliates of US multinationals, that is, Mode 3. To better assess the rising role of services in globalized economic activities in general, it would be called for to analyze services trade across ownership-based as well as residence-based national boundaries.</p><p>In addition, intermediate services of interest are not only transacted in markets but also within the boundaries of the firm. More sophisticated services, such as research and development, design, and marketing that dictate the firm's competitive advantages, are more likely to be kept as in-house inputs rather than relying on outsourcing (see, e.g. Miroudot &amp; Cadestin, <span>2017</span>). Intra-firm services inputs, such as those supplied by parent multinationals to their foreign affiliates, are hardly captured by ordinary services trade statistics nor international input–output tables. When reading the data on trade in intermediate services, we should pay due attention to the unobservable trend of declining or increasing proportion of outsourcing relative to in-house services inputs.</p><p>Next, even though there is ample room for future expansion of services trade as argued in Baldwin <i>et al</i>. (<span>2024</span>), digital technologies as a lever for accelerating services trade would not unconditionally be diffused uniformly across nations. Moreover, the spread of technology itself would not necessarily mean facilitating the autonomy of technology-adopting nations and the divergence of economic activities among those nations. Rather, the uneven nature of digital transformation may lead to the concentration of wealth in a handful nations and a handful firms. To think more deeply about the future prospects of the services trade, it appears to be necessary to clarify what conditions make “technology for all” to maximize the potential benefits from new waves of globalization with increased services trade.</p><p>At least, on top of highlighting the opportunities arising from digital transformation for geographically dispersed suppliers and buyers of services, it would be called for to sort out challenges facing less developed nations and the firms not on the technological frontier. The challenges to be overcome range from underdeveloped digital infrastructure to weak regulatory framework and from limited digital competencies to inadequate financial supports (see, e.g. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, <span>2022</span>). The future pattern of the services trade will be determined by policy efforts of governments and strategic responses of firms, faced with both opportunities and challenges.</p>","PeriodicalId":45430,"journal":{"name":"Asian Economic Policy Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aepr.12446","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Economic Policy Review","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aepr.12446","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The degree of globalization is often assessed using a conventional measure of global trade openness, namely the ratio of world trade in goods to world gross domestic product (GDP). This conventional measure of globalization peaked in 2008 at the onset of the Great Trade Collapse, which is treated by some commenters as a sign that the world has entered an era of delocalization. However, looking only at trade in goods might overlook an important fact that the nature of globalized economic activities is evolving. Baldwin et al. (2024) highlight the contrasting trend that world trade in goods has peaked, or at least plateaued, in 2008 whereas world trade in services has continued to grow rapidly from 1990 to 2019.

The history of globalization is inextricably linked to technological advances, and so will its future. Advances in information and communications technologies (ICT) enable the digitalization of services, leading to increased trade in digitally deliverable services. Also, new data networks, digital tools and platforms enable suppliers to expand their customer base beyond the national boundary and give consumers better access to a wider variety of good quality services at competitive prices. More importantly, ICT facilitates offshoring of intermediate services, which are purchased and used as inputs throughout the economy, including the production of manufactured goods. Interested in such a rising role of services trade, Baldwin et al. (2024) examine trade data on Other Commercial Services (OCS) and the cross-border flows of intermediate services. Based on simple statistics and economic logic, Baldwin et al. develop compelling arguments that services trade will continue to grow faster than goods trade and the future of world trade will lie in services, especially in intermediate services.

Although left aside in the data analysis and discussions of Baldwin et al. (2024), I have some comments regarding the data used in Baldwin et al. and the enabling condition for the expected growth of services trade, both of which should ideally be addressed in future research. First, for the purpose of comparison with goods trade, Baldwin et al. focus on examining services trade of the traditional made-here-and-sold-there type, which falls under Mode 1 of the World Trade Organization (WTO) services trade nomenclature. However, finance, engineering, and other business services supplied through foreign affiliates, which correspond to Mode 3, appear to be increasingly important. According to US Bureau of Economic Analysis,1 for instance, about 70% of services supplied by US-based firms to foreign persons in 2019 are accounted for by those through the majority-owned foreign affiliates of US multinationals, that is, Mode 3. To better assess the rising role of services in globalized economic activities in general, it would be called for to analyze services trade across ownership-based as well as residence-based national boundaries.

In addition, intermediate services of interest are not only transacted in markets but also within the boundaries of the firm. More sophisticated services, such as research and development, design, and marketing that dictate the firm's competitive advantages, are more likely to be kept as in-house inputs rather than relying on outsourcing (see, e.g. Miroudot & Cadestin, 2017). Intra-firm services inputs, such as those supplied by parent multinationals to their foreign affiliates, are hardly captured by ordinary services trade statistics nor international input–output tables. When reading the data on trade in intermediate services, we should pay due attention to the unobservable trend of declining or increasing proportion of outsourcing relative to in-house services inputs.

Next, even though there is ample room for future expansion of services trade as argued in Baldwin et al. (2024), digital technologies as a lever for accelerating services trade would not unconditionally be diffused uniformly across nations. Moreover, the spread of technology itself would not necessarily mean facilitating the autonomy of technology-adopting nations and the divergence of economic activities among those nations. Rather, the uneven nature of digital transformation may lead to the concentration of wealth in a handful nations and a handful firms. To think more deeply about the future prospects of the services trade, it appears to be necessary to clarify what conditions make “technology for all” to maximize the potential benefits from new waves of globalization with increased services trade.

At least, on top of highlighting the opportunities arising from digital transformation for geographically dispersed suppliers and buyers of services, it would be called for to sort out challenges facing less developed nations and the firms not on the technological frontier. The challenges to be overcome range from underdeveloped digital infrastructure to weak regulatory framework and from limited digital competencies to inadequate financial supports (see, e.g. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2022). The future pattern of the services trade will be determined by policy efforts of governments and strategic responses of firms, faced with both opportunities and challenges.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评论 "解构去全球化:贸易的未来在于中间服务" 评论
全球化程度通常是用传统的全球贸易开放衡量标准来评估的,即世界货物贸易与世界国内生产总值(GDP)的比率。这种传统的全球化衡量标准在2008年贸易大崩溃开始时达到顶峰,一些评论人士认为,这标志着世界已经进入了一个去本地化的时代。然而,只看货物贸易可能会忽视一个重要的事实,即全球化经济活动的性质正在演变。Baldwin等人(2023)强调了对比趋势,即世界货物贸易在2008年达到顶峰,或至少达到稳定,而世界服务贸易在1990年至2019年期间继续快速增长。全球化的历史与技术进步有着千丝万缕的联系,其未来也将如此。信息通信技术(ICT)的进步使服务数字化成为可能,从而增加了以数字方式提供的服务的贸易。此外,新的数据网络、数字工具和平台使供应商能够将其客户群扩展到国界之外,并使消费者能够以具有竞争力的价格更好地获得更多种类的优质服务。更重要的是,信息和通信技术促进了中间服务的离岸外包,这些中间服务被购买并用作整个经济的投入,包括制成品的生产。Baldwin等人(2024)对服务贸易日益增长的作用感兴趣,研究了其他商业服务(OCS)和中间服务跨境流动的贸易数据。基于简单的统计和经济逻辑,Baldwin等人提出了令人信服的论点,即服务贸易将继续以比货物贸易更快的速度增长,世界贸易的未来将取决于服务,特别是中间服务。虽然鲍德温等人(2024)的数据分析和讨论中没有提到,但我对鲍德温等人使用的数据和服务贸易预期增长的有利条件有一些评论,这两个问题都应该在未来的研究中得到解决。首先,为了与货物贸易进行比较,Baldwin等人重点研究了传统的“这里制造,那里销售”类型的服务贸易,它属于世界贸易组织(WTO)服务贸易术语的模式1。然而,与模式3相对应的金融、工程和其他通过外国子公司提供的商业服务似乎越来越重要。以美国经济分析局(Bureau of Economic Analysis)的数据为例,2019年,美国企业向外国人提供的服务中,约有70%是通过美国跨国公司控股的外国子公司提供的,即模式3。为了更好地评估服务在全球化经济活动中日益重要的作用,需要分析以所有权为基础和以居住为基础的国家边界的服务贸易。此外,利益的中间服务不仅在市场上交易,而且在公司的边界内交易。更复杂的服务,如决定公司竞争优势的研发、设计和营销,更有可能被保留为内部投入,而不是依赖于外包(参见,例如Miroudot & Cadestin, 2017)。公司内部的服务投入,例如跨国公司母公司向其外国子公司提供的服务投入,很难被普通的服务贸易统计数据或国际投入产出表所捕捉。在阅读中间服务贸易的数据时,我们应该注意到外包相对于内部服务投入的比例下降或上升的不可观察的趋势。其次,尽管Baldwin等人(2024)认为未来服务贸易的扩张空间很大,但数字技术作为加速服务贸易的杠杆不会无条件地在各国之间均匀扩散。此外,技术的传播本身并不一定意味着促进采用技术的国家的自治和这些国家之间经济活动的分化。相反,数字转型的不平衡性可能导致财富向少数国家和少数公司集中。为了更深入地思考服务贸易的未来前景,似乎有必要澄清什么条件使“人人享有技术”能够最大限度地从新的全球化浪潮中获得潜在利益,并增加服务贸易。至少,除了强调数字化转型为地理位置分散的服务供应商和买家带来的机遇之外,还需要理清欠发达国家和不在技术前沿的公司面临的挑战。 需要克服的挑战从数字基础设施不发达到监管框架薄弱,从数字能力有限到金融支持不足(见联合国贸易和发展会议,2022 年)。面对机遇和挑战,政府的政策努力和企业的战略应对将决定服务贸易的未来格局。 需要克服的挑战包括从数字基础设施不发达到监管框架薄弱,从数字能力有限到资金支持不足(例如,参见联合国贸易和发展会议,2022年)。面对机遇和挑战,政府的政策努力和企业的战略应对将决定未来服务贸易的格局。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.90
自引率
2.60%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: The goal of the Asian Economic Policy Review is to become an intellectual voice on the current issues of international economics and economic policy, based on comprehensive and in-depth analyses, with a primary focus on Asia. Emphasis is placed on identifying key issues at the time - spanning international trade, international finance, the environment, energy, the integration of regional economies and other issues - in order to furnish ideas and proposals to contribute positively to the policy debate in the region.
期刊最新文献
Comment on “Pakistan's Economy: Fallout of 2022 Economic Distress Magnifies the Need for Structural Reforms” Comment on “The Sri Lankan Economy: From Optimism to Debt Trap” Comment on “Pakistan's Economy: Fallout of 2022 Economic Distress Magnifies the Need for Structural Reforms” Export Diversification in Bangladesh: Overcoming Policy Impediments Comment on “Recent Developments in Indian Central Banking: Flying through Turbulence but Aided by Some Tailwinds”
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1