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 : 2023-09-11 DOI:10.1111/aepr.12443
Prema-chandra Athukorala
{"title":"Comment on “Deconstructing Deglobalization: The Future of Trade is in Intermediate Services”","authors":"Prema-chandra Athukorala","doi":"10.1111/aepr.12443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The paper by Baldwin <i>et al</i>. (<span>2024</span>) aims to demonstrate that the future of economic globalization lies in services trade as the expansion of merchandise trade has already begun to run out of steam.</p><p>Baldwin <i>et al</i>. begin with a narrative of growth of world merchandise trade relative to world income (gross domestic product [GDP]), both in aggregate and by major trading nations and the three main sectors, manufacturing, mining and fuel, and agriculture. The data suggest that the trade-to-GDP ratio peeked around 2008, even though the peak was not equally present in all major nations and all sectors. However, Baldwin <i>et al</i>. have stopped short of probing the underlying drivers of the observed structural change. If the “hyper globalization” during 1985–2008 had been largely driven by cyclical rather than structural factors, it is hazardous to treat the subsequent slowdown as a structural phenomenon. Moreover, the observed trends in the trade to GDP ratio need to be treated with caution because the well-known structural shift in the composition of GDP from tradable production and toward services. Given this structural change, the measured trade-to-GDP ratio is likely to face downward pressure, thus confirming the fear of deglobalization.</p><p>My major concern with the inference of trade slowdown is that it has overlooked possible changes in the price structure of global manufacturing trade associated with production fragmentation (vertical specialization). Production fragmentation essentially means restructuring of the production process of a given product among firms located in different regions and countries. In this process, as Young (<span>1928</span>) postulates, increasing returns take place throughout the industry rather than at the individual firm level, generating cumulative, rather than firm-specific, gains from scale economies. Therefore, goods traded within global manufacturing value chain (GMVCs) could experience slower price increases (and hence faster volume growth) compared to the other traded goods.</p><p>There is evidence of significant decline, rooted in developments in semiconductor technology, of prices of information technology (IT) products (computers, and data storage and communicating equipment), automobiles and a wide range of other related GMVC products from about the early 1990s (Jorgenson, <span>2001</span>; Byrne <i>et al</i>., <span>2016</span>). The relative stability of the real trade-to-GDP ratio after 2008, compared to the sharp decline in the two nominal ratios in Baldwin <i>et al</i>.'s figure 1, is perhaps indicative of this price effect. However, I suspect that, the price index used to deflate the nominal exports does not fully capture the price lowering effect of global production sharing. An analysis using a new dataset, which is carefully constructed to better capture the price effects of GMVC trade, yields the inference that merchandise trade to GDP ratio has not yet peeked, and has continued to maintain its pre-crisis trend following a sharp dip during 2008–2009 (Athukorala, <span>2023</span>).</p><p>The rest of Baldwin <i>et al</i>. provides a comprehensive analysis of trends and patterns of global services trade based on data pieced together from scattered sources. The key inference that the growth of global service trade has continued to boom is reassuring. I have only two comments, which could help further enrich the analysis.</p><p>First, Baldwin <i>et al</i>. have not paid adequate attention to the emerging process of “servicification” of manufacturing: shifting of some manufacturing-related services, which were traditionally treated as part of manufacturing output, to service sector firms as an integral aspect of GMVC operation. Failure to distinguish between these services, which are an integral part of manufacturing, from the intermediate services would artificially increase the role of serves in economic globalization. Also, servicification poses a challenge for trade and industry policy formulation because not only the conventional forms of trade protection but also barriers targeted at services could affect manufacturing (Hoekman &amp; Shepherd, <span>2017</span>). Therefore, the distinct dichotomy made in Baldwin <i>et al</i>. between services and merchandise trade deserves reconsideration.</p><p>Secondly, the data in Baldwin <i>et al</i>. seem to suggest that growth in services trade could further widen the North–South divide in the world economy. Unlike merchandise trade, services trade is heavily concentrated in countries in the North (Baldwin <i>et al</i>.'s figures 7 and 11). Contrary to the remark that export capacity is not a limiting factor for engaging in service trade, the dearth of appropriate skill labor remains a major constraint faced by most developing countries in participating in IT-related modern services. Moreover, modern services are unlikely to match manufacturing in terms of the potential for employment generation, in particular absorbing unskilled labor. For instance, the IT-based services sector in India has a relatively low employment elasticity and employment in that sector requires at least college-level education (Panagariya, <span>2008</span>, p. 286).</p>","PeriodicalId":45430,"journal":{"name":"Asian Economic Policy Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aepr.12443","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Economic Policy Review","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aepr.12443","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 paper by Baldwin et al. (2024) aims to demonstrate that the future of economic globalization lies in services trade as the expansion of merchandise trade has already begun to run out of steam.

Baldwin et al. begin with a narrative of growth of world merchandise trade relative to world income (gross domestic product [GDP]), both in aggregate and by major trading nations and the three main sectors, manufacturing, mining and fuel, and agriculture. The data suggest that the trade-to-GDP ratio peeked around 2008, even though the peak was not equally present in all major nations and all sectors. However, Baldwin et al. have stopped short of probing the underlying drivers of the observed structural change. If the “hyper globalization” during 1985–2008 had been largely driven by cyclical rather than structural factors, it is hazardous to treat the subsequent slowdown as a structural phenomenon. Moreover, the observed trends in the trade to GDP ratio need to be treated with caution because the well-known structural shift in the composition of GDP from tradable production and toward services. Given this structural change, the measured trade-to-GDP ratio is likely to face downward pressure, thus confirming the fear of deglobalization.

My major concern with the inference of trade slowdown is that it has overlooked possible changes in the price structure of global manufacturing trade associated with production fragmentation (vertical specialization). Production fragmentation essentially means restructuring of the production process of a given product among firms located in different regions and countries. In this process, as Young (1928) postulates, increasing returns take place throughout the industry rather than at the individual firm level, generating cumulative, rather than firm-specific, gains from scale economies. Therefore, goods traded within global manufacturing value chain (GMVCs) could experience slower price increases (and hence faster volume growth) compared to the other traded goods.

There is evidence of significant decline, rooted in developments in semiconductor technology, of prices of information technology (IT) products (computers, and data storage and communicating equipment), automobiles and a wide range of other related GMVC products from about the early 1990s (Jorgenson, 2001; Byrne et al., 2016). The relative stability of the real trade-to-GDP ratio after 2008, compared to the sharp decline in the two nominal ratios in Baldwin et al.'s figure 1, is perhaps indicative of this price effect. However, I suspect that, the price index used to deflate the nominal exports does not fully capture the price lowering effect of global production sharing. An analysis using a new dataset, which is carefully constructed to better capture the price effects of GMVC trade, yields the inference that merchandise trade to GDP ratio has not yet peeked, and has continued to maintain its pre-crisis trend following a sharp dip during 2008–2009 (Athukorala, 2023).

The rest of Baldwin et al. provides a comprehensive analysis of trends and patterns of global services trade based on data pieced together from scattered sources. The key inference that the growth of global service trade has continued to boom is reassuring. I have only two comments, which could help further enrich the analysis.

First, Baldwin et al. have not paid adequate attention to the emerging process of “servicification” of manufacturing: shifting of some manufacturing-related services, which were traditionally treated as part of manufacturing output, to service sector firms as an integral aspect of GMVC operation. Failure to distinguish between these services, which are an integral part of manufacturing, from the intermediate services would artificially increase the role of serves in economic globalization. Also, servicification poses a challenge for trade and industry policy formulation because not only the conventional forms of trade protection but also barriers targeted at services could affect manufacturing (Hoekman & Shepherd, 2017). Therefore, the distinct dichotomy made in Baldwin et al. between services and merchandise trade deserves reconsideration.

Secondly, the data in Baldwin et al. seem to suggest that growth in services trade could further widen the North–South divide in the world economy. Unlike merchandise trade, services trade is heavily concentrated in countries in the North (Baldwin et al.'s figures 7 and 11). Contrary to the remark that export capacity is not a limiting factor for engaging in service trade, the dearth of appropriate skill labor remains a major constraint faced by most developing countries in participating in IT-related modern services. Moreover, modern services are unlikely to match manufacturing in terms of the potential for employment generation, in particular absorbing unskilled labor. For instance, the IT-based services sector in India has a relatively low employment elasticity and employment in that sector requires at least college-level education (Panagariya, 2008, p. 286).

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
Baldwin et al.(2023)的论文旨在证明,由于商品贸易的扩张已经开始失去动力,经济全球化的未来在于服务贸易。Baldwin等人首先叙述了世界商品贸易相对于世界收入(国内生产总值[GDP])的增长,包括总量和主要贸易国以及三个主要部门,制造业,采矿业和燃料,以及农业。数据显示,贸易与gdp之比在2008年左右见顶,尽管在所有主要国家和所有行业中,这一峰值并不平均。然而,Baldwin等人没有探究所观察到的结构变化的潜在驱动因素。如果1985年至2008年期间的“超级全球化”主要是由周期性因素而非结构性因素推动的,那么将随后的放缓视为结构性现象是危险的。此外,观察到的贸易占国内生产总值比率的趋势需要谨慎对待,因为众所周知,国内生产总值构成的结构性转变是从可贸易生产转向服务。鉴于这种结构性变化,衡量的贸易与gdp之比可能面临下行压力,从而证实了对去全球化的担忧。我对贸易放缓推断的主要担忧是,它忽略了与生产碎片化(垂直专业化)相关的全球制造业贸易价格结构可能发生的变化。生产碎片化本质上是指在位于不同区域和国家的公司之间对某一产品的生产过程进行重组。在这个过程中,正如Young(1928)所假设的那样,增加的回报发生在整个行业,而不是单个企业层面,产生累积的,而不是特定于企业的规模经济收益。因此,与其他贸易商品相比,在全球制造业价值链(GMVCs)内交易的商品可能会经历较慢的价格上涨(从而更快的数量增长)。有明显下降的证据,扎根于半导体技术的发展,信息技术(IT)产品的价格(电脑、和数据存储和通信设备),汽车和各种各样的其他相关GMVC产品从1990年代初(Jorgenson, 2001;Byrne et al., 2016)。贸易占gdp比重相对稳定的比率在2008年之后,相比大幅下滑两个名义上的比率在鲍德温et al。图1,可能是这种价格效应的反映。然而,我怀疑,用于抑制名义出口的价格指数不完全捕捉全球生产共享的价格降低效果。使用精心构建的新数据集进行分析,以更好地捕捉GMVC贸易的价格效应,得出的结论是,商品贸易占GDP的比例尚未见顶,并且在2008-2009年急剧下降之后继续保持其危机前的趋势(Athukorala, 2023)。Baldwin等人的其余部分基于从分散来源收集的数据,对全球服务贸易的趋势和模式进行了全面分析。全球服务贸易增长持续繁荣的关键结论令人放心。我只有两点意见,可以帮助进一步丰富分析。首先,Baldwin等人没有充分关注制造业“服务化”的新兴过程:将一些传统上被视为制造业产出一部分的制造业相关服务转移到服务业公司,作为GMVC运营的一个组成部分。未能区分这些服务,制造业不可或缺的一部分,从中间服务会人为地增加服务在经济全球化中的作用。此外,服务化对贸易和产业政策的制定提出了挑战,因为不仅传统形式的贸易保护,而且针对服务业的壁垒也可能影响制造业(Hoekman & Shepherd, 2017)。因此,Baldwin等人在服务贸易和商品贸易之间所做的明显的二分法值得重新考虑。其次,Baldwin等人的数据似乎表明,服务贸易的增长可能进一步扩大世界经济中的南北差距。与商品贸易不同,服务贸易主要集中在北方国家(Baldwin等人的数字7和11)。与出口能力不是从事服务贸易的限制因素的说法相反,缺乏适当技能的劳动力仍然是大多数发展中国家参与与信息技术有关的现代服务业所面临的主要制约因素。此外,现代服务业不可能匹配制造业的就业潜力的一代,特别是吸收非熟练劳动力。 鲍德温等人(2024 年)的论文旨在证明,经济全球化的未来在于服务贸易,因为商品贸易的扩张已经开始力不从心。鲍德温等人首先叙述了世界商品贸易相对于世界收入(国内生产总值 [GDP])的增长情况,既有总体情况,也有按主要贸易国和三个主要部门(制造业、采矿和燃料以及农业)分列的情况。数据表明,贸易与国内生产总值的比率在 2008 年左右达到顶峰,尽管并非所有主要国家和所有部门都同样达到顶峰。然而,鲍德温等人并没有探究所观察到的结构变化的根本原因。如果说 1985-2008 年期间的 "超全球化 "主要是由周期性因素而非结构性因素驱动的,那么将随后的放缓视为结构性现象则是危险的。此外,由于国内生产总值的构成发生了众所周知的结构性变化,从可贸易生产转向服务业,因此需要谨慎对待所观察到的贸易与国内生产总值之比趋势。我对贸易放缓推论的主要担忧是,它忽略了与生产分散化(垂直专业化)相关的全球制造业贸易价格结构的可能变化。生产分化主要是指位于不同地区和国家的企业对特定产品的生产流程进行重组。在这一过程中,正如 Young(1928 年)所假设的,收益递增发生在整个行业而不是单个企业层面,从而产生规模经济的累积收益,而不是特定企业的收益。因此,与其他贸易产品相比,全球制造业价值链(GMVCs)内的贸易产品可能会经历较慢的价格上涨(从而较快的数量增长)。有证据表明,大约从 20 世纪 90 年代初开始,信息技术(IT)产品(计算机、数据存储和通信设备)、汽车和其他各种相关的 GMVC 产品的价格大幅下降,其根源在于半导体技术的发展(Jorgenson,2001 年;Byrne 等人,2016 年)。与 Baldwin 等人的图 1 中两个名义比率的急剧下降相比,2008 年后实际贸易与 GDP 比率的相对稳定或许表明了这种价格效应。不过,我怀疑用于平减名义出口的价格指数并不能完全反映全球生产共享的降价效应。为了更好地捕捉全球生产共享贸易的价格效应,我们精心构建了一个新的数据集,使用该数据集进行分析后得出的推论是,商品贸易与国内生产总值的比率尚未见顶,在 2008-2009 年期间急剧下降之后,该比率继续保持危机前的趋势(Athukorala,2023 年)。全球服务贸易持续蓬勃发展这一重要推论令人欣慰。首先,鲍德温等人没有充分关注新出现的制造业 "服务化 "进程:传统上被视为制造业产出一部分的一些与制造业相关的服务转移到服务业公司,成为全球价值链运作的一个组成部分。如果不将这些作为制造业组成部分的服务与中间服务区分开来,就会人为地增加服务在经济全球化中的作用。此外,服务化对贸易和产业政策的制定也提出了挑战,因为不仅是传统形式的贸易保护,针对服务业的壁垒也可能影响制造业(Hoekman &amp; Shepherd, 2017)。因此,鲍德温等人将服务贸易与商品贸易截然分开的做法值得重新考虑。其次,鲍德温等人的数据似乎表明,服务贸易的增长可能会进一步扩大世界经济的南北差距。与商品贸易不同,服务贸易主要集中在北方国家(鲍德温等人的图 7 和图 11)。与出口能力不是从事服务贸易的限制因素的说法相反,缺乏适当技能的劳动力仍然是大多数发展中国家在参与与信息技术相关的现代服务业时面临的主要制约因素。此外,就创造就业的潜力而言,现代服务业不可能与制造业相提并论,特别是在吸收非熟练劳动力方面。 例如,印度以信息技术为基础的服务行业的就业弹性相对较低,该行业的就业至少需要大学教育水平(Panagariya,2008 年,第 286 页)。
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