-
In November 2018, Premier Li Keqiang delivered a speech at the 13th East Asia summit: Promoting Sustainable Regional Economic Development and Building a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind (Li, 2018). For a long time, compared with the European Union and North American integration trends, the regional integration process and effect in East Asia are not obvious. Strengthening regional cooperation and integrating into the global value chain is an important driving force for the strong development of East Asia. Although East Asia has shifted from the flying geese pattern with ‘declining technological level’ to a regional production network with multiple value chains (Lin et al., 2012), this simple one-way production network leads to the instability and unsustainable economic development in East Asia. As a region that accepts the transfer of industries from developed countries or regions and begins to be deeply involved in the global division of labor, the most important thing for East Asia to reverse its weak position in the global division of labor system is to promote the rise of East Asian industries in the global value chain fundamentally. The spatial distribution pattern of industrial undertaking capacity and industrial position in the global value chain of East Asian countries is complex, and its changing trend and coordination will largely affect the stability and sustainable development of regional economy (Gereffi, 2019; Xu et al., 2019).
According to the capacity index, the spatial interaction mechanism of industrial undertaking capacity on GVC position is divided into three aspects. First, technological innovation. As an important part of industrial undertaking capacity, the level of scientific and technological innovation can realize the independent research and development of core technology, partially replace imported intermediate products, increase the added value of export products, and promote the position of the industry in the global value chain. Second, cost effectiveness type. Good economic foundation and infrastructure can promote enterprises to allocate resources properly, reduce barriers to resource circulation, reduce transaction cost and improve economic operational efficiency. Third, division of labor effectiveness type. Education and training can transform the labor force into high-level human capital, thus improving the production efficiency of enterprises and enhancing the international competitiveness. The foreign direct investment and technology spillover of the developed economies in this region can promote the improvement of industrial undertaking capacity of emerging economies, and the improvement of the global value chain position of emerging economies can form a fixed supply chain with the developed economies and form a stable regional spatial interaction. An in-depth analysis of the operation rules of spatial interaction relations is conducive to East Asian countries’ understanding of the situation, improving their industrial undertaking capacity, strengthening regional cooperation, so as to enhance the position of industries in the global value chain, gain the right to speak in foreign trade, and finally become the dominant player in the global division of labor system.
At present, the academia’s research focus on the industrial value chain in East Asia has shifted from the causes and characteristics of formation to the promotion and reconstruction of the regional industrial value chain. The study found that two factors jointly promoted the formation of an industrial value chain in East Asia, namely the vertical division of labor (Hummels et al., 2001; Li and Lu, 2008; Chen et al., 2009; Ma and Zhang, 2019), factor endowment difference (Kimura and Ando, 2003; Feng, 2011; Cheng, 2019). How to change the vulnerability and dependence of the industrial value chain in East Asia as the region’s participation in the global value chain continues to deepen? Scholars represented by Li et al. (2005) advocate promoting the reconstruction of East Asia’s industrial value chain; Tang and Zhang (2008), Yu and Xu (2010), Zhou (2013), Zhu et al. (2018), Staritz and Whitfield (2019) believe that competition effects and technological advantages can promote the rise of East Asian industrial value chain; Arvis (2016), Horner and Alford (2019) state that infrastructure construction can improve the efficiency of production systems, thereby increasing the position of countries in the global value chain; Kee and Tang (2016), Yu and Wang (2016), Pan and Li (2018), Ma and Zhang (2019) claim that from the perspective of value-added, trade in services can enhance the competitiveness of East Asian exports and enhance their position on the global value chain; Cai and Li (2017), Yan (2018), and Hauge (2020) believe that regional cooperation can enhance the status of China, Japan, and Republic of Korea in the value chain of East Asia. The focus of the research on industrial undertaking capacity is to analyze industrial transfer, mainly involving the construction of industrial undertaking capacity indicators (Teng et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2017; Andreoni,2019; Morris and Staritz, 2019), economic and environmental effects of undertaking transfer industries (Li et al., 2017; Behuria, 2020), the analysis of the causes of industrial transfer (Henderson et al., 2002; Qiu et al., 2013; Gao et al., 2015; Hauge, 2019), the research on the mode of industrial transfer (Ando and Kimura, 2003; Liu et al., 2014; Cui and Zhao, 2015), risk analysis of industrial transfer (Sun, 2015; Wu et al., 2015). To sum up, few literatures explore the improvement of GVC position in East Asia from the perspective of industrial undertaking capacity.
In recent years, domestic and foreign scholars have carried out in-depth research on industrial undertaking capability and global value chain position, but they have not systematically sorted out the spatial interaction between industrial undertaking capability and global value chain position in East Asia. This article explores the relationship between the two and revealing the laws of its operation will help East Asian countries better position themselves for development and make proactive adjustments to improve their position on the global value chain. The purpose of this paper is to provide valuable suggestions for improving the status of East Asian industries such as China in the global value chain.
-
At present, scholars’ identification of East Asia includes both Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia. There are 16 countries in East Asia. Considering the serious lack of data in Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Mongolia and East Timor, 60% of Brunei’s GDP relies on oil and gas resources, and the service industry and construction industry account for 30%, while the development of productive industries lags behind. The 12 countries are finally selected as research objects, including Japan, Republic of Korea, Singapore, China, the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. The location of the study area
-
The relevant data sources of the research indicators are shown in the following Table 1.
Table 1. Data sources of indicators
Indicators Data sourses Industry undertaking capacity WDI database (2012) Global value chain position UNCTAD database (2012) The research period is selected as 1995–2011 for the following three reasons: first, the world input-output table released by World Input-Output Database (WIOD) includes two versions, namely 1995–2011 released in 2013 and 2000–2014 released in 2016. It will include 56 sectors instead of 35. The data of the two stages can not be combined if they are not comparable. Taking the representativeness and availability of data into account, the world input-output table published in 2013 is used to calculate the position of each country’s industries in the global value chain. Second, since 1995, there have been many major events affecting the industry’s undertaking ability and the position of the industry in the global value chain, including Japan’s investment in China entering the ‘fast track’, the Asian financial crisis in 1997, China’s entry into the ‘WTO’, and the global financial crisis in 2008, etc., which have made the trade structure of East Asia carry on the depth adjustment, each country economy develop rapidly, and reshape the industrial value chain of East Asia. Third, from 1995 to 2001, the export value added of East Asian countries changed greatly. From 2001 to 2007, the average annual growth rate of export value added of East Asian countries was the highest. However, the value added of exports remained stable after 2011. Therefore, this time period can better reflect the position of a country’s industry in the global value chain based on export value added, and better study the interaction between industrial undertaking capability and the position of the global value chain.
-
This article introduces two indicators, namely the industry undertaking capacity indicator and the position index of a country’s industry on the global value chain. It studies the spatial distribution pattern and interaction of the industry undertaking capacity and its position on the global value chain in East Asian countries, and reveals its operation law.
(1) Industrial undertaking capacity indicator
For scientific and reasonable evaluation of East Asian countries, based on the views of Ma et al. (2009), Duan et al. (2016), Wang et al. (2019) and the actual situation of East Asian countries, the industrial undertaking capacity indicators are divided into 5 secondary indicators and 12 tertiary indicators, including economic basis, market potential, innovation level, infrastructure and labor conditions. Among them, the basis of economic development reflects the status quo and sustainability of a country’s economic development; Market potential reflects a country’s market size, openness and ability to attract foreign investment; The level of innovation reflects the level of a country’s own brands and technology patents, its economic and international competitiveness, and its ability to control the global value chain; The level of infrastructure reflects the capacity of a country’s infrastructure to support industries; Labor conditions reflect the attractiveness of a country’s labor costs and quality to industries in other countries.
In this paper, entropy evaluation method is used to determine the weight of each index to avoid the deviation caused by subjective factors. The research year was 1995–2011, and the research objects were 12 countries in East Asia, and the research targets were 12 tertiary indicators. The specific weights of each index measured by the entropy method are shown in Table 2. The calculation step is divided into five steps: first, 12 three-level indicators are standardized and the standard min-max standardized data processing method is adopted.
Table 2. Industrial undertaking capacity indicators
Level indicator Level two indicators Level three indicators Index meaning Index weight Industrial undertaking capacity Foundation of economic development GDP as measured by purchasing
power parityReflect economic aggregate 0.11 GDP per person at purchasing
power parityReflect the state of the economy 0.07 Urbanization rate Reflect the sustainability of economic development 0.04 Market potential Gross population Reflect market size 0.13 Globalization index Reflect the level of openness 0.01 The net inflow of FDI Reflect the ability to attract
foreign investment0.09 Technological innovation level Number of patent applications Reflect the international competitiveness of products 0.18 The proportion of R & D expenditure
in GDPReflect the level of innovation 0.10 Infrastructure support Total disposable energy consumption Reflect infrastructure supporting capacity 0.14 Internet user ratio Reflect the level of information development 0.09 Labor conditions Income index Reflect labor costs 0.02 Human development index Reflect the quality of labor force 0.02 Notes: Data are from WDI database and UNCTAD database $${y_{ijt}} = \frac{{{x_{ijt}} - \mathop {\min }\limits_{i,t} \left\{ {{x_{ijt}}} \right\}}}{{\mathop {\max }\limits_{i,t} \left\{ {{x_{ijt}}} \right\} - \mathop {\min }\limits_{i,t} \left\{ {{x_{ijt}}} \right\}}}$$ (1) where t stands for year, i stands for country, and j stands for indicator. xijt stands for the three-level indicator, which means indicator j of country i in year t. yijt stands for the standardized three-level indicator.
Second, determine the specific gravity zijt of j index. The formula is as follows:
$${{\textit{z}}_{ijt}} = \dfrac{{{y_{ijt}}}}{{\displaystyle\sum\limits_i {\sum\limits_t {{y_{ijt}}} } }}$$ (2) Thirdly, calculate the entropy value pj of j index, where k = 1/Ln(n), n is the number of sample, then 0
$\le $ pj$\le $ 1. The formula is as follows:$${p_j} = - k\sum\limits_i {\sum\limits_t {{\textit{z}_{ijt}}\ln \left({{\textit{z}_{ijt}}} \right)} } $$ (3) Fourth, entropy redundancy uj is calculated as follows:
$${u_j} = 1 - {p_j}$$ (4) Fifth, calculate the weight fj of index j and calculate the comprehensive scores wj of 12 East Asian countries. The formula is as follows:
$${f_j} = \dfrac{{{u_j}}}{{\displaystyle\sum\limits_j {{u_j}} }}$$ (5) $${w_i} = \sum\limits_{} {\left({{f_j} \times {y_{ijt}}} \right)} $$ (6) (2) Global value chain position indicator
Based on the research idea and calculation methods of Hausmann et al. (2007), the technological complexity of export is taken as a measurement index of a country’s industry position in the global value chain, and corresponding adjustments are made to the measurement index. To simplify data measurement, 16 countriesincluding the United States, Germany, Japan, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Spain, Mexico, Russia and Saudi Arabia are selected as the benchmark countries, thanks to these 16 countries or regions’ exports accounting for more than 70% of the world’s total exports, which can basically reflect the foreign trade status of all countries in the world; the technical complexity of 17 representative industries is further calculated, and the Global Value Chains (GVCS) of 12 east Asian countries in this paper are finally calculated. The calculation method is as follows:
$$PROD{Y_i} = \sum\limits_j {\frac{{\left({{{{x_{ij}}} / {{X_j}}}} \right)}}{{\displaystyle\sum\nolimits_j {\left({{{{x_{ij}}} / {{X_j}}}} \right)} }}{Y_j}} $$ (7) $$ES = \sum\limits_i {\frac{{{x_i}}}{{{X_j}}}PROD{Y_i}} $$ (8) where, PRODYi is the technical complexity index of the ith export industry; ES refers to the technical complexity of a country’s exports, as well as the position of the industry in the global value chain. i represents the exporting industry, j represents the exporting country, xij represents the exporting volume of j country’s industry i, Xj represents the total exports of j country, Yj represents the GDP per capita of j country, and xij/Xj represents the share of i industry in j country’s exports. Formula (7) shows that the export technical complexity of industry i is composed of the sum of the weighted average of GDP per capita of each exporting country, and the weight is represented by the comparative advantage of each country in the export of this industry.
-
The Moran’s I is used to explore the global spatial pattern of industrial undertaking capacity and position of 12 East Asian countries in the global value chain. Moran’s I∈(0, 1) indicates that there is a positive correlation between indicators; Moran’s I∈(−1, 0), indicates that there is a negative correlation between indicators; the greater the absolute value of Moran’s I, indicates that the spatial correlation is more obvious; Moran’s I = 0, indicates that there is no spatial correlation. Its statistical expression can be expressed as follows:
$${\rm{Moran{\text{'}}s }}\;I = \dfrac{{n\displaystyle\sum\limits_{a = 1}^n {\displaystyle\sum\limits_{b = 1}^n {{\omega _{a,b}}\left({{x_a} - \overline {{x_a}} } \right)\left({{x_b} - \overline {{x_b}} } \right)} } }}{{\displaystyle\sum\limits_{a = 1}^n {\sum\limits_{b = 1}^n {{\omega _{a,b}}} } \sum\limits_{a = 1}^n {{{\left({{x_a} - \overline {{x_a}} } \right)}^2}} }}$$ (9) Among them, n is the number of countries. a and b stand for different countries. xa and xb are respectively the industrial undertaking capacity value or global value chain position of different countries.
$ {\bar x_a}$ and$ {\bar x_b}$ are the average values of industrial undertaking capacity and global value chain of different countries. ωa,b is the weight of the space. The Getis-Ord Gi* (Getis, 1994) measurement is introduced to explore the spatial distribution law of high-value clusters (hot spots) and low-value clusters (cold spots) of the industrial undertaking capacity value of 12 countries in East Asia and industries in the global value chain. Its statistical expression can be expressed as follows:$$G_i^* = \dfrac{{\displaystyle\sum\limits_{b = 1}^n {{\omega _{ab}}} {x_b}}}{{\displaystyle\sum\limits_{b = 1}^n {{x_b}} }}$$ (10) The statistical expression of Gi* can be expressed as follows:
$$B\left({G_i^*} \right) = \frac{{G_i^* - E\left({G_i^*} \right)}}{{SE\left({G_i^*} \right)}}$$ (11) where E(Gi*) and SE(Gi*) are the mean and standard deviation of Gi* respectively. When B(Gi*) is significantly positive, the industrial undertaking capacity and global value chain position of country i and its neighboring countries are relatively high and these countries belong to the high-value area (hot spot); when B(Gi*) is significantly negative, then country i is the low-value area (cold point).
-
The construction of the coupling coordination model (Valerie, 1996) is to introduce a comprehensive harmonization index on the basis of the coupling degree. The purpose is to reflect the evolution path of the ‘synergy’ effect of the industry’s undertaking capacity and the position of the global value chain, explore the degree of interaction and mutual influence between industrial undertaking capacity and global value chain position in 12 East Asian countries, and analyzes the cyclic cumulative influence process between them.
$$D\left({x,y} \right) = \sqrt {C\left({x,y} \right) \times T\left({x,y} \right)} $$ (12) $$C\left({x,y} \right) = \frac{{\sqrt {x \times y} }}{{\left({x + y} \right)}}$$ (13) $$T\left({x,y} \right) = ax + by$$ (14) where, x and y are industrial capacity and GVC position indicators respectively, D(x, y) is the value of coupling coordination degree, C(x, y) is the value of coupling degree, and T(x, y) is the comprehensive harmonic index of industrial undertaking capacity and global value chain position, reflecting the impact of the two indexes on the value of coupling coordination degree. a and b are the impact coefficients, and the importance of industrial undertaking capacity and global value chain position to the coupling coordination are basically the same. In the actual calculation, a = b = 1/29 is determined on the basis of continuous debugging to ensure D∈(0, 1).
-
Based on the index of industrial undertaking capacity and global value chain, the values of industrial undertaking capacity and global value chain of 12 East Asian countries are calculated. Based on the values of industrial undertaking capacity and global value chain position, this paper analyzes the temporal and spatial distribution of industrial undertaking capacity and their industry positions in the global value chain.
-
Industrial undertaking capacity values of 12 East Asian countries can be obtained from Table 3. Among the 12 East Asian countries, the industrial undertaking capacity of developed countries is above 0.20, including Japan, Republic of Korea and Singapore; from 1995 to 2011, the industrial undertaking capacity of East Asian developing countries is no more than 0.20, excluding China; China is the only developing country in East Asia with an industrial undertaking capacity of more than 0.20, and has maintained a sustained growth since 1995.
Table 3. Industrial undertaking capacity indicators of the 12 East Asian countries, 1995–2011
Year Developed country Developing country Japan Republic of Korea Singapore China The Philippines Thailand Malaysia Indonesia Myanmar Laos Vietnam Cambodia 1995 0.37 0.18 0.16 0.23 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 1997 0.40 0.19 0.18 0.24 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.00 1999 0.42 0.21 0.20 0.26 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 2001 0.46 0.27 0.23 0.29 0.06 0.07 0.12 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01 2003 0.46 0.29 0.25 0.35 0.06 0.08 0.14 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.01 2005 0.50 0.33 0.27 0.42 0.06 0.09 0.16 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.01 2007 0.51 0.36 0.31 0.52 0.07 0.10 0.17 0.10 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.02 2009 0.49 0.37 0.29 0.59 0.07 0.10 0.18 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.02 2011 0.49 0.39 0.32 0.79 0.10 0.12 0.20 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.10 0.03 The industrial undertaking capacity of 12 East Asian countries tended to increase from 1995 to 2011 (Fig. 2). From the perspective of the total industry undertaking capacity (Fig. 3): the undertaking capacity values of the three developed countries and China are above 0.20, that is, the undertaking capacity values of Japan, Republic of Korea, Singapore, and China are higher; among developing countries, Malaysia has the highest capacity value, and in 2011, its capacity value increased to 0.20; Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia had the lowest undertaking capacity values, ranking among the least developed countries. The economic development levels of the 12 East Asian countries are basically consistent with the corresponding industry undertaking values.
Figure 2. Time trends of industrial undertaking capacity of the 12 East Asian countries, 1995–2011
Figure 3. The average industrial undertaking capacity of the 12 East Asian countries
-
As is shown in Table 4, the spatial distribution of industrial undertaking capacity in 12 countries in East Asia presents obvious differentiation characteristics. It is divided into three levels for discussion: lower capacity value level [0.01–0.06), medium capacity value level [0.06–0.14), and higher capacity value level [0.14–0.46). Countries with higher levels of industrial undertaking capacity include Japan, China, Republic of Korea, and Singapore, with an average value of 0.35. Most countries in this level belong to developed countries in East Asia, except China. Countries with a medium industrial capacity value include Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines, with an average value of 0.09. Countries with lower levels of industrial capacity include Vietnam, Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia, with an average value of 0.03. Countries at this level belong to the developing countries in Southeast Asia. These countries have weak economic foundations.
Table 4. Spatial differentiation characteristics of industrial undertaking capacity of countries at different levels in 12 East Asian countries
Level Lower competency level (0.01–0.06) Medium competency level (0.06–0.14) Higher competency level (0.14–0.46) Country Vietnam Malaysia Japan Myanmar Indonesia China Laos Thailand Republic of Korea Cambodia The Philippines Singapore -
As shown in Table 5, the spatial distribution of the global value chain positions of the 12 countries in East Asia is uneven, showing a distribution pattern of low in the middle and high in the periphery. Countries around East Asia include the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Republic of Korea, and Japan, with relatively high global value chain positions; intermediate countries include Thailand, China, Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Laos, with relatively low global value chain positions; the country with the highest global value chain position is the Philippines and the lowest is Laos.
Table 5. Spatial differentiation characteristics of the global value chain position of countries at different levels
Level Intermediate country Surrounding country Thailand, China, Indonesia, The Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Country Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos Republic of Korea, Japan -
According to Moran’s I calculation results, the industrial undertaking capacity of the 12 East Asian countries in 1995–2011 showed an aggregate distribution in space. As can be seen from Table 6, there is a significant spatial positive correlation between the industrial undertaking capabilities of the 12 East Asian countries. On the whole, from 1995 to 2011, the Moran’s I value of the industrial undertaking capacity showed an ‘inverted U’ trend, that is, it first increased from 0.15 to 0.16, and then decreased from 0.16 to 0.09. The highest value of Moran’s I was around 2002, that is, in 2002, the industrial undertaking capacity value was the strongest. This result is closely related to the economic and social development status of each country in East Asia and the global economic environment in this region.
Table 6. Global Moran Index values of industrial undertaking capacity of 12 East Asian countries, 1995–2011
Indicators 1995 2000 2003 2007 2011 Moran’s I 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.09 Z(I) 3.31 3.48 3.43 3.12 2.52 P(I) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Notes: Z(I) is the Z-statistics of Moran’s I that pass the significance tests; P(I) is the probability value of Z(I) Introduce Gi* measurement indicator to further study the spatial clustering of industrial undertaking capacity in 12 East Asian countries. By calculation, Japan, Republic of Korea, and the Philippines are high-value hotspots, indicating that countries with large spatial concentration have relatively high industrial undertaking capacity; Thailand, Indonesia, and Singapore are low-value hotspots, which means that countries with small spatial aggregation have relatively low industrial undertaking capacity. China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia and Myanmar have no significant Gi* measurement values.
-
According to Moran’s I calculation, the global value chain positions of the 12 East Asian countries from 1995 to 2011 showed an aggregate distribution in space. As can be seen from Table 7, there are significant spatial positive correlations in the positions of the global value chains of the 12 East Asian countries. On the whole, from 1995 to 2011, the Moran’s I value of the global value chain position showed an ‘inverted U’ trend, that is, it first increased from 0.04 in 1995 to 0.11, and then decreased from 0.11 to 0.09; The highest value of Moran’s I was around 2002, that is, the position of the global value chain in 2000 had the strongest aggregation ability.
Table 7. Global Moran index values of global value chain positions in 12 East Asian countries, 1995–2011
Indicators 1995 2000 2003 2007 2011 Moran’s I 0.04 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.09 Z(I) 1.74 2.92 2.79 2.35 2.63 P(I) 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 Notes: Z(I) is the Z-statistics of Moran’s I that pass the significance tests; P(I) is the probability value of Z(I) The Gi* measurement index is introduced to further study the spatial clustering of the positions of the 12 countries in East Asia on the global value chain. By calculation, Japan, Republic of Korea, the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam are high-value hotspots, which mean that countries with significant spatial aggregation trends have relatively high global value chain positions. Laos and Thailand are low-value hotspots, indicating that the spatial aggregation of the two countries is small and the global value chain position is relatively low. China, Indonesia, Myanmar and Cambodia are not significant. The Gi* measurement values of China, Indonesia, Myanmar, and Cambodia are not significant.
-
Based on the index of coupling coordination degree, the values of coupling coordination degree of 12 East Asian countries were calculated. Fig. 4 shows the changes in the degree of coupling coordination at five-year intervals. Overall, the values of coupling coordination degree between industrial undertaking capacity and global value chain position present a stable upward trend, and East Asia is superior to South Asia.
Figure 4. Coupling coordination values of industrial undertaking capabilities and global value chain positions of 12 East Asian countries in 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010
The increase of coupling coordination degree in East Asian countries is most significant in China. Japan was the country with the highest degree of coupling coordination between industrial undertaking capacity and global value chain position in East Asia before 2007. In 2007, China surpassed Japan and became the country with the highest degree of coupling coordination in East Asia. In 2010, the degree of coupling coordination in China exceeded 0.65. The coupling coordination degree values of China, Republic of Korea and Singapore are above the medium level and show a steady rising trend. This means that the industrial undertaking capacity and the global value chain position present a long-term stable development trend of mutual promotion and mutual influence.
South Asian countries have low degree of coupling coordination values and slow development. The value of the coupling and coordination degree between Malaysia’s industrial undertaking capacity and the global value chain position is at a medium level, however, the degree of coupling coordination in Laos has long been 0; the difference between the upper-middle level and the lower-middle level is 0.20; Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Laos have coupling coordination values at the lower-middle level; these seven countries are all agricultural countries with relatively weak economic foundations and have basically developed labor-intensive industries. The above seven countries can be further divided into two categories: regions with relatively high economic levels, including Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam; and regions with relatively low economic levels, including Cambodia, Myanmar, and Laos. The coupling degree values of the four countries are basically fitted together, showing a consistent trend of change, and they all showed a temporary decline in 1997 and 2008 and then picked up again, because of the Asian financial crisis in 1997 and the global economic crisis in 2008. The last three countries are relatively backward economically, which are backward agricultural countries, and have not formed their own industrial system, so the degree of coupling coordination is the lowest.
-
From the perspective of time, the industrial undertaking capacity and global value chain position of the 12 East Asian countries showed a trend of continuous growth. Although there was a slight downward trend in 2009, they then tended to be stable. The industrial undertaking capacity value of the vast majority of countries shows a consistent trend of change with the global value chain position, namely countries with high industrial undertaking capacity also have a high global value chain position. Apart from the Philippines, because of its excessive emphasis on the role of export in driving the economy, although the nominal value of global value chain position has increased, it has not improved the Philippines’ voice in foreign trade. This inspires the government to develop the components of industrial undertaking capacity indicator in a balanced manner, such as infrastructure construction, market-oriented reform, education and training, so as to promote the substantial improvement of the industry position in the global value chain, and ensure the consistency of the industrial undertaking capacity value and the global value chain position. This idea is basically consistent with Cheng (2019)’s view that ‘the changes in the internal economic structure and the external industrial association will inevitably urge the reshaping of the industrial value chain in East Asia’.
From the perspective of space, the industrial undertaking capacity and global value chain position of the 12 East Asian countries are significantly positively correlated, indicating that with the accumulation of spatial distribution, the industrial undertaking capacity and global value chain position will also be higher. Therefore, it is necessary to increase the economic and trade exchanges with other countries in East Asia and enhance the level of regional cooperation. The Moran’s I of industrial undertaking capacity and global value chain position showed an ‘inverted U’ shape, and both reached their peaks around 2000. It indicated that the correlation between industrial undertaking capacity and the global value chain position and spatial distribution first increased and then decreased, which may be related to the rapid growth of China’s economy in the 1990s, whose infinite development potential and huge market size have brought impetus to the regional cooperation in East Asia. The spatial distribution of industrial undertaking capacity and global value chain position in 12 East Asian countries is synchronous, and the average spatial aggregation trend of global value chain position lags behind that of industrial undertaking capacity by one year, which means that the improvement of industrial undertaking capacity affects the improvement of global value chain position. Japan, Republic of Korea and Singapore are all high value hotspots for their industrial undertaking capacity and global value chain position.
From the perspective of cyclic cumulative influence, the coupling coordination degree between the industrial undertaking capacity and the global value chain position of 12 East Asian countries shows a steady rising trend, which means that the interaction and mutual influence degree of the two indicators are getting stronger and stronger, and there is a cyclic cumulative influence process. Most countries have a good coupling coordination degree, that is, countries with high index values have high coupling coordination degrees, except for the Philippines, which relied too much on foreign investment and ignored the country’s path of independent innovation. The gap of coupling coordination degree between different countries has been narrowing, and each country is taking the initiative to enhance its own industrial undertaking capacity in a balanced way, which is in line with the goal of its industry’s moving up in the global value chain. After 2007, China has become the country with the highest degree of coupling coordination in East Asia.
-
Based on the mechanism of technological innovation, cost effectiveness, and division of labor effectiveness of industrial undertaking capacity on global value chain position, with the help of spatial analysis methods such as Moran’s I, coupling coordination degree value and so on, this paper explores the spatial interaction relationship between industrial undertaking capacity and global value chain position in 12 East Asian countries and draws the following conclusions: 1) In terms of time and space, there is a significant positive correlation between the industrial undertaking capacity and global value chain position of East Asian countries. 2) There is a cyclic cumulative impact process between the industrial undertaking capacity and global value chain of 12 East Asian countries. In other words, improving the industrial undertaking capacity of emerging economies will further enhance their position in global value chain and further stabilize the supply relations with advanced economies, which can nurture regional industrial undertaking capacity. 3) The gap in the coupling coordination degree among East Asian countries has been narrowing, and after 2007, China has become the country with the highest degree of coupling coordination in the region. Therefore, countries with weak industrial undertaking capacity in East Asia should improve the components of the index in a balanced way, including economic foundation, market potential, scientific and technological innovation level, infrastructure and labor quality. Countries with medium capacity for industrial undertaking should improve the short-board part of the ability value purposefully. Countries with a high capacity for industrial undertaking should not only focus on research and development, innovation and product design, but also play a leading role in economic development. As a large developing country, China should deepen the development path of regional cooperation in East Asia. Domestically, we will promote supply-side structural reform, actively develop the industries with high added value and synergize the Made in China 2025 initiatively. With the help of the One Belt And One Road and other regional cooperation strategies, we will promote the distribution of relevant industries in East Asia and make sure that domestic industrial upgrading and foreign industrial transfer are well coordinated.
Spatial Interaction Between the Industrial Undertaking Capacity and Global Value Chain Position of East Asian Countries
-
Abstract: A comprehensive understanding of the spatial interaction between the industrial undertaking capability and the position of the global value chain of the 12 East Asian countries is conducive to strengthening regional cooperation, gaining a say in foreign trade and becoming the dominant player in the global division of labor system. The article reveals the operating rules of the interaction between the industrial undertaking capacity and the global value chain position of East Asian countries by calculating the Global Moran Index (Moran’s I), coupling coordination degree and other indicators. The results show that: in time, the values of industrial undertaking capacity and the positions of global value chain in East Asian countries showed a sustained and stable growth trend, and have a consistent trend of change. Spatially, both of the two indexes had significant positive spatial correlation, with Moran’s I showing an ‘inverted U’ pattern, and the spatial aggregation distribution of global value chain position lagged behind the spatial aggregation distribution of industrial undertaking capacity by one year. In terms of spatial coupling coordination, the coupling coordination values of the two indicators show a steady upward trend. Combined with the comparative advantage of each country, this paper provides suggestions for promoting the positions of Chinese and other East Asian industries in the global value chain from the perspectives of enhancing independent innovation capability and upgrading industrial structure.
-
Figure 2. Time trends of industrial undertaking capacity of the 12 East Asian countries, 1995–2011
Figure 4. Coupling coordination values of industrial undertaking capabilities and global value chain positions of 12 East Asian countries in 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010
Table 1. Data sources of indicators
Indicators Data sourses Industry undertaking capacity WDI database (2012) Global value chain position UNCTAD database (2012) 
下载: 导出CSV
Table 2. Industrial undertaking capacity indicators
Level indicator Level two indicators Level three indicators Index meaning Index weight Industrial undertaking capacity Foundation of economic development GDP as measured by purchasing
power parityReflect economic aggregate 0.11 GDP per person at purchasing
power parityReflect the state of the economy 0.07 Urbanization rate Reflect the sustainability of economic development 0.04 Market potential Gross population Reflect market size 0.13 Globalization index Reflect the level of openness 0.01 The net inflow of FDI Reflect the ability to attract
foreign investment0.09 Technological innovation level Number of patent applications Reflect the international competitiveness of products 0.18 The proportion of R & D expenditure
in GDPReflect the level of innovation 0.10 Infrastructure support Total disposable energy consumption Reflect infrastructure supporting capacity 0.14 Internet user ratio Reflect the level of information development 0.09 Labor conditions Income index Reflect labor costs 0.02 Human development index Reflect the quality of labor force 0.02 Notes: Data are from WDI database and UNCTAD database
下载: 导出CSV
Table 3. Industrial undertaking capacity indicators of the 12 East Asian countries, 1995–2011
Year Developed country Developing country Japan Republic of Korea Singapore China The Philippines Thailand Malaysia Indonesia Myanmar Laos Vietnam Cambodia 1995 0.37 0.18 0.16 0.23 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 1997 0.40 0.19 0.18 0.24 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.00 1999 0.42 0.21 0.20 0.26 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 2001 0.46 0.27 0.23 0.29 0.06 0.07 0.12 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01 2003 0.46 0.29 0.25 0.35 0.06 0.08 0.14 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.01 2005 0.50 0.33 0.27 0.42 0.06 0.09 0.16 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.01 2007 0.51 0.36 0.31 0.52 0.07 0.10 0.17 0.10 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.02 2009 0.49 0.37 0.29 0.59 0.07 0.10 0.18 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.02 2011 0.49 0.39 0.32 0.79 0.10 0.12 0.20 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.10 0.03
下载: 导出CSV
Table 4. Spatial differentiation characteristics of industrial undertaking capacity of countries at different levels in 12 East Asian countries
Level Lower competency level (0.01–0.06) Medium competency level (0.06–0.14) Higher competency level (0.14–0.46) Country Vietnam Malaysia Japan Myanmar Indonesia China Laos Thailand Republic of Korea Cambodia The Philippines Singapore
下载: 导出CSV
Table 5. Spatial differentiation characteristics of the global value chain position of countries at different levels
Level Intermediate country Surrounding country Thailand, China, Indonesia, The Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Country Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos Republic of Korea, Japan
下载: 导出CSV
Table 6. Global Moran Index values of industrial undertaking capacity of 12 East Asian countries, 1995–2011
Indicators 1995 2000 2003 2007 2011 Moran’s I 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.09 Z(I) 3.31 3.48 3.43 3.12 2.52 P(I) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Notes: Z(I) is the Z-statistics of Moran’s I that pass the significance tests; P(I) is the probability value of Z(I)
下载: 导出CSV
Table 7. Global Moran index values of global value chain positions in 12 East Asian countries, 1995–2011
Indicators 1995 2000 2003 2007 2011 Moran’s I 0.04 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.09 Z(I) 1.74 2.92 2.79 2.35 2.63 P(I) 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 Notes: Z(I) is the Z-statistics of Moran’s I that pass the significance tests; P(I) is the probability value of Z(I)
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] Ando M, Kimura F, 2003. The Formation of International Production and Distribution Networks in East Asia. NBER Working Paper No. 10167. [2] Andreoni A, 2019. A generalized linkage approach to local production systems development in the era of global value chains, with special reference to Africa. In: Kanbur R, Noman A, Stiglitz J E (eds). The Quality of Growth in Africa. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 264–294. [3] Arvis J F, 2016. World Bank Logistics Performance Index Report. https://wb-lpi-media.s3.amazonaws.com/LPI_Report_2016.pdf [4] Behuria P, 2020. The domestic political economy of upgrading in global value chains: how politics shapes pathways for upgrading in Rwanda’s coffee sector. Review of International Political Economy, 27(2): 348–376. doi: 10.1080/09692290.2019.1625803 [5] Cai Weihong, Li Huijuan, 2017. A comparative study of status in division of labor in East Asia in service trade in China, Japan and Republic of Korea: from a perspective of trade in value-added. Economic Survey, 34(5): 75–80. (in Chinese) [6] Chen Jing, Sen S, Hu Zhaoling et al., 2009. The unique about production fragmentation network in East Asia: An analysis based on augmented gravity model (1992–2006). The Journal of World Economy, 32(11): 83–96. (in Chinese) [7] Cheng Xinxuan, 2019. The re-creation of industrial value chains in East Asia: Based on the positon of changing of China’s industrial strategy. Contemporary Asia-Pacific Studies, (3): 29–158. (in Chinese) [8] Cui Jianxin, Zhao Haixia, 2015. Spatial relocation of pollution-intensive industry and the mechanism in Yangtze River Delta. Geographical Research, 34(3): 504–512. (in Chinese) [9] Duan Xiaowei, Li Lulu, Miao Changhong et al., 2016. Evaluation of industry transfer comprehensive undertaking ability of six major urban agglomerations in the central region. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 36(5): 681–690. (in Chinese) [10] Feng Yongqi, 2011. The distribution of production, the structure of demand and changing models of trade in East Asia. Journal of Contemporary Asia-Pacific Studies, (3): 40–56. (in Chinese) [11] Gao Boyang, Li Junwei, Liu Hongguang, 2015. The quantitative study on electronic information industry transfer in China. Economic Geography, 35(10): 103–109. (in Chinese) [12] Gereffi G, 2019. Economic upgrading in global value chains. In: Ponte S, Gereffi G, Raj-Reichert G (eds). Handbook on Global Value Chains. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 240–254. [13] Getis A, 1994. Spatial dependence and heterogeneity and proximal databases. In: Fotheringham A S, Rogerson P A (eds). Spatial Analysis and GIS. London: Taylor & Francis, 104–120. [14] Hauge J, 2019. Should the African lion learn from the Asian tigers? A comparative-historical study of FDI-oriented industrial policy in Ethiopia, South Korea and Taiwan. Third World Quarterly, 40(11): 2071–2091. doi: 10.1080/01436597.2019.1629816 [15] Hauge J, 2020. Industrial policy in the era of global value chains: towards a developmentalist framework drawing on the industrialisation experiences of South Korea and Taiwan. The World Economy, 43(8): 2070–2092. doi: 10.1111/twec.12922 [16] Hausmann R, Hwang J, Rodrik D, 2007. What you export matters. Journal of Economic Growth, 12(1): 1–25. doi: 10.1007/s10887-006-9009-4 [17] Henderson J, Dicken P, Hess M et al., 2002. Global production networks and the analysis of economic development. Review of International Political Economy, 9(3): 436–464. doi: 10.1080/09692290210150842 [18] Horner R, Alford M, 2019. The Roles of the State in Global Value Chains: An Update and Emerging Agenda. Global Development Institute Working Paper Series 2019–036. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester. [19] Hummels D L, Ishii J, Yi K M, 2001. The Nature and Growth of Vertical Specialization in World Trade. Journal of International Economics, 54(1): 75–96. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1996(00)00093-3 [20] Kee H L, Tang H W, 2016. Domestic value added in exports: theory and firm evidence from China. American Economic Review, 106(6): 1402–1436. doi: 10.1257/aer.20131687 [21] Kimura F, Ando M, 2003. Fragmentation and agglomeration matter: Japanese multinationals in Latin America and East Asia. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 14(3): 287–317. doi: 10.1016/S1062-9408(03)00022-6 [22] Li Keqiang, 2018. Li Keqing’s speech at the 13th East Asia Summit. Available at: http://www.gov.cn/guowuyuan/2018-11/16/content_5340929.htm. [23] Li Jiao, Lu Xiaoli, 2008. Study on the change of East Asian trade patterns from the viewpoint of International production networks. Asia-Pacific Economic Review, (3): 3–9. (in Chinese) [24] Li Linzi, Fu Zeqiang, Wang Yanhua et al., 2017. Empirical study on manufacturing transfer and environmental impacts in Jing-Jin-Ji Region. Research of Environmental Sciences, 30(12): 1813–1821. (in Chinese) [25] Li Xiao, Ding Yibing, Qin Tingting, 2005. China’s rising economic status in East Asia: an investigation based on trade trends. Forum of World Economy and Politics, (5): 1–7. (in Chinese) [26] Lin Guijun, Tang Bi, Shen Qiujun, 2012. The development of regional production networks in East Asia and the deepening of East Asian economic integration. Journal of International Trade, (11): 3–18. (in Chinese) [27] Liu Zhongwei, 2014. East Asian production networks, global value chain consolidation and trends in East Asian regional cooperation. Journal of Contemporary Asia-Pacific Studies, (4): 126–156. (in Chinese) [28] Ma Tao, Li Dong, Yang Jianhua et al., 2009. The measurement of the difference in division of labor according to regions: a study based on the evaluation of the undertaking ability in industrial transfer. Management World, (9): 168–169. (in Chinese) [29] Ma Lili, Zhang Ya’nan, 2019. Comparison of the division of labor status of service trade in East Asian region from the perspective of value-added. Asia-Pacific Economic Review, (6): 45–54. (in Chinese) [30] Morris M, Staritz C, 2019. Industrialization paths and industrial policy for developing countries in global value chains. In: Ponte S, Gereffi G, Raj-Reichert G (eds). Handbook on Global Value Chains. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 505–520. [31] Pan Wenqing, Li Genqiang, 2018. National value chain and global value chain in Chinese regions: regional interaction and value-added gains. Economic Research Journal, 53(3): 171–186. (in Chinese) [32] Qiu Fangdao, Jiang Tao, Zhang Chunmin et al., 2013. Spatial relocation and mechanism of pollution-intensive industries in Jiangsu province. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 33(7): 789–796. (in Chinese) [33] Staritz C, Whitfield L, 2019. Local firm-level learning and capability building in global value chain. In: Ponte S, Gereffi G, Raj-Reichert G (eds). Handbook on Global Value Chains. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 385–402. [34] Sun Mingyan, 2015. Risks and countermeasures of undertaking industrial transfer in less developed areas. People’s Tribune, 24(17): 216–218. (in Chinese) [35] Tang Haiyan, Zhang Huiqing, 2008. China’s rise and reorganization of East Asian production networks. China Industrial Economics, (12): 60–70. (in Chinese) [36] Teng Tangwei, Hu Senlin, Hou Luyao, 2016. The industrial transfer trend and spatial pattern of undertaking industry in the Yangtze River economic belt. Economic Geography, 36(5): 92–99. (in Chinese) [37] United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), 2012. Internationnal trade in goods and services. https://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx?sCS_ChosenLang=en [38] Valerie Illingworth, 1996. The enguin Dicti onary of Physics. [39] Wang Xinjing, Cheng Yu, Wang Jianshi et al., 2019. China’s location selection of industry transfer in countries along the belt and road. Economic Geography, 39(8): 95–105. (in Chinese) [40] World Bank (WDI), 2012. World Development Indicators. http://data.worldbank.org/country. [41] Wu Yao, Wang Chunmei, Xiao Weihua et al., 2015. Water environment risk assessment of undertaking industrial structure transfer in Harbin-Daqing-Qiqihar industrial corridor. Journal of Safety and Environment, 15(6): 352–357. (in Chinese) [42] Xu Hao, Zhou Zikang, Kong Deli et al., 2019. Spatial pattern of basic education resources in Wuhan based on spatial coupling algorithm. Economic Geography, 39(8): 88–94. (in Chinese) [43] Yan Yunfeng, 2018. The competitiveness of China, Japan and South Korea’s service industry in global value chain. Contemporary Economy of Japan, (1): 48–59. (in Chinese) [44] Yu Chunjiao, Xu Ling, 2010. Analysis on the China’s position in the East-Asian production network: based on the trade of the machinery & electronic parts & accessories. Intertrade, (2): 12–18. (in Chinese) [45] Yu Daoxian, Wang Lu, 2016. Research on the international competitiveness of brics trade in services-from the perspective of value added of trade and global value chain. World Economy Study, (8): 36–46. (in Chinese) [46] Zhao Hongbo, Miao Changhong, Feng Yuanbo et al., 2017. The spatial and temporal pattern and optimized path analyses of the carrying capacity of industrial transfer in Henan province. Economic Geography, 37(12): 112–120. (in Chinese) [47] Zhou Xin, 2013. Regionalization and globalization of China’s intra-product specialization. Asia-Pacific Economic Review, (3): 105–111, 148. (in Chinese) [48] Zhu Zhujun, Huang Xianhai, Yu Xiao, 2018. Import intermediates quality, innovation and firms’ export DVAR. China Industrial Economics, (8): 116–134. (in Chinese) -
点击查看大图
图(4) / 表ll (7)
计量
- 文章访问数: 116
- HTML全文浏览量: 21
- PDF下载量: 20
- 被引次数: 0
