apec developing economies’ better participation in global...

___________________________________________________________________________

2016/SOM2/025anx08 Agenda Item: 3.1.1

APEC Developing Economies’ Better Participation in Global Value Chains (Phase I): Current Status,

Concerns and Challenges

Purpose: Consideration Submitted by: CTI Chair

Second Senior Officials’ MeetingArequipa, Peru14-15 May 2016

APEC Developing Economies’ Better Participation in Global Value Chains (Phase I) : Current Status, Concerns and Challenges Proposed by China and Indonesia

April 2016

1

1. INTRODUCTION

With the global fragmentation of production, Global Value Chains (GVCs) have become

a dominant feature of the global economy and are essential for achieving APEC’s goals of

regional integration and sustainable, inclusive and balanced growth.

In 2014, APEC Leaders endorsed the Strategic Blueprint for Promoting GVCs

Development and Cooperation, which contains 10 workstreams, and the goal of the 4th

workstream is to enable developing economies to better participate in GVCs.

Integration into GVCs is usually a complicated process; however, there are two critical

steps to follow. First, entering and participating “more” in the global production sharing and

then, considering how to “better” participate in and to benefit from GVCs. Therefore, the first

objective of this project is to reach an understanding of the origin of the capacity that supports

the competitiveness of developing economies as they join and upgrade their positions in value

chains, and then to conduct researches and analyses on APEC developing economies’

economic and trade policies in the GVCs and prepare a set of targeted policy suggestions, and

finally a series of capacity-building programs (trainings, seminars, joint researches, etc.) are

needed to help APEC developing economies enter and move up the GVCs.

China, together with Indonesia, conducted a questionnaire survey among APEC

economies from November 2015 to March 2016 (hereafter “Survey”). The Survey is to

explore the current status and diverse needs of APEC economies' participation in the

development and cooperation of GVCs. The questionnaire encloses with three sections. The

first section is to document the nature of GVC participation among APEC Economies, the

second section is to identify the benefits and challenges of GVC participation, and the last

section is to collect comments and suggestions on capacity building activities.

The Survey has identified the needs of APEC economies’ GVC participation, provided

possible paths for their future development in GVCs, and put forward some targeted policy

suggestions including through a series of capacity-building programs to facilitate developing

2

economies to move up the value chain.

Participation in GVCs can bring developing economies benefits, such as providing new

development paths including engaging in GVCs, upgrading along GVCs, leapfrogging and

competing via GVCs. The contribution of GVCs to economic growth can be significant

because GVCs provide developing economies chances to accelerate the industrialization and

servitization of the economy, to enhance employment, innovation and external trade

resilience.

According to the Survey, access to technology is the key benefit of GVC participation,

along with capital inflows, higher exports and economic growth, and access to foreign

markets.

3

2. CURRENT STATUS OF GVC PARTICIPATION OF APEC DEVELOPING

ECONOMIES

The past decades have witnessed a rapid globalization, which has significantly changed

the outlook of the world economy. International production, trade and investments are

increasingly organized within GVCs where the different stages in the production process are

located across different economies. GVCs have been increasingly discussed on both academic

and policy-making fora.

2.1 Measurements related to GVCs have been developed and applied empirically

With the introduction of trade in value added, international organizations and scholars

have made great efforts to explore new measurements for both value added trade and the

structure of double counted trade flows. In 2012 the WTO and OECD launched a joint

initiative to measure trade in value added, which provided a means to develop new metrics of

trade and generate global Input-Output (IO) table. The ongoing work of the Strategic

Framework on Measurement of APEC Trade in Value Added (TiVA) under GVCs and its

Action Plan, led by China and the US, aims to establish an APEC TiVA Database by 2018.

The OECD is currently developing new empirical evidence studying the emergence of GVCs

based on international trade data and IO data and cooperating with other international

agencies and the academia to develop new metrics for GVCs.

Scholars have made efforts in the following areas: distinguishing upstream and

downstream activities (Beltramello et al, 2012)i; measuring the upstreamness of production

and trade flows (Antràs et al., 2012)ii; accounting for intermediates (Johnson and Noguera,

2012)iii; developing a property-rights model of firm boundary choices along the value chain

(Antràs and Chor, 2012iv; Alfaro et al., 2015v); estimating domestic content in exports when

processing trade is pervasive (Robert Koopman, Zhi Wang and Shang-Jin Wei, 2012vi);

developing international input-output databases with IDE-JETRO and OECD data (Satoshi

Inomata, Norihiko Yamano and Bo Meng, 2013vii); developing a three-stage reconciliation

method to construct a time series international IO database (Nadim Ahmad, Zhi Wang and

Norihiko Yamano, 2013viii). Economists and policy makers have reached a near consensus

4

that official trade statistics are deficient and the deficiency grows with the deepening global

division of production.

2.2 Economies’ Participation in GVCs is heterogeneous and uneven

All economies’ participation in GVCs is growing. Not only the developed economies,

but also the developing economies have taken a role of being both an importer and an

exporter. As shown in Figure 1, APEC economies’ participation rate in 2011 is higher than

that of 1995.

Figure 1 Participation in GVCs is growing

Source: Javier Lopez-Gonzalez, “GVCs and developing economies: drawing on foreign factors to

enhance domestic performance”, OECD Working Paper, 2016.

Participation in GVCs is heterogeneous and uneven across and within economies,

and LIDCs are underrepresented in GVCs. According to an OECD and World Bank report

(2015) ix for the G20 Turkish Presidency, LIDCs are underrepresented in GVCs, even though

their integration has greatly expanded in the course of the past two decades from 6% to about

11% of the world total in 2011. SMEs in LIDCs predominantly operate in the informal

economy and their participation in GVCs is concentrated in the agricultural sector and

01020304050607080

Buying Selling Participation 1995

5

labor-intensive, low value added manufacturing and services activities, where entry costs are

lower and non-capital-intensive. SMEs in middle and higher income economies are operating

in both the low value added end of the spectrum and in high skilled and specialized niche

activities. The increasing importance of knowledge based capital within value chains, coupled

with increased international fragmentation of these chains, has opened up new channels to

integration through specialization in specific tasks.

Within developing economies, the nature of GVC integration varies enormously by

economy and sector. The Southern African Customs Union (SACU) region is moderately

integrated into GVCs. But according to Engel (2015)x, the scale and nature of this integration

varies enormously by economy and sector. Research on five SACU economies including

Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland showed that the region appears to

be positioned relatively upstream in GVCs, especially for South Africa, Swaziland, and

Namibia (while Lesotho is downstream positioned in the apparel GVC). While the region

appears to be better positioned in regional value chains than the South American peers, who

are comparatively better positioned in GVCs. A clear gap is apparent with economies like

Thailand, Turkey, and Mauritius, which import relatively upstream in GVCs and then export

further downstream. By contrast, most SACU economies import further downstream than

they export. The direction of forward and backward integration shows that these five

economies are more integrated into regional value chains than to global ones.

2.3 There are significant differences in GVC participation degree among developing

economies

Among the top 25 developing economy exporters there are significant differences in the

degree to which their exporting activities are integrated in GVCs. As shown in Figure 2, the

main East and South-East Asian exporters rank highest in GVC participation as they both

import a substantial part of their exports (foreign value added) and a significant part of their

exports are intermediate goods that are used in third economies’ exports. These economies’

exports are thus integrated in GVCs both upstream and downstream. The commodity

exporting group of economies also rates relatively high in GVC participation, but largely

because of outsized downstream usage of their export products in third economies’ exports.

6

Figure 2 Domestic value added trade shares of the top 25 developing economy exporters 2010

2.4 Distribution of gains among economies is uneven

Using the OECD-WTO TiVA database, Banga (2013) xi made a research on

“participation of an economy in Global Value Chains (GVCs)” and estimates “distribution of

gains among economies” in terms of economies' shares in total value-added created by trade

under GVCs. The result shows that 67% of total global value created under GVCs accrue to

OECD economies while 33% of total value added is shared among other economies, mostly

developing economies and LDCs. It is found that in the case of the US and Japan, forward

linkages are much stronger than backward linkages, indicating net value-added gains from

linking into GVCs. China and Korea, on the other hand, have negative net value added gains.

Other developing economies, like Viet Nam, Thailand, Malaysia and the Philippines also have

a forward/backward linkage ratio less than one. It is therefore important to gainfully link into

7

GVCs in identified industries where the economy is able to derive net positive domestic value

added gains. It will be more comprehensive to take into account various factors, such as

productivity, sophistication, diversification of exports and etc., when discussing economic

gains from GVCs participationxii.

2.5 GVCs are becoming geographically more consolidated

Since the 1990s, emerging economies have become major production centers worldwide,

although their specific roles in GVCs vary according to their openness to trade and foreign

investment, and other strategic considerations. For example, known initially as BRICs (Brazil,

Russia, India and China), the emerging economies now include a diverse array of “growth

economies” such as Mexico, Korea, Turkey, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Viet Nam, which

offer seemingly inexhaustible pools of relatively low-wage workers, highly capable

export-oriented manufacturers, abundant raw materials, and sizeable domestic markets

(O’Neill, 2011)xiii.

2.6 GVCs are becoming organized more concentrated

The transnational lead firms in GVCs seek to “rationalize” their global supply chains

from 300-500 suppliers in the heyday of economic globalization in the 1990s to 25-30

suppliers (or less) in the current era (Gereffi and Luo, 2014)xiv. Over 80% of the production in

GVCs are covered by multinational corporations’ production network. These new supplier

firms are expected to be bigger, more capable (technologically as well as in modern models of

supply-chain management), and strategically located to access markets.

2.7 APEC Economies have significant differences in extent and patterns of GVC

participation

According to the Survey, covered by the OECD TiVA Database, value added created by

APEC economies accounts for 52.3% of the world’s gross exports. The value-added share

contributed from APEC developing economies is increasing; while GVCs bring developed

APEC economies more rooms to provide higher value-added content with lower costs and

correspondingly enhance the productivity.

8

APEC developed economies’ GVC participation is mainly driven by service sector,

followed by the manufacturing sector. As shown in Table 1, APEC developing economies’

GVC participation is mainly driven by manufacturing and four other sectors (Agriculture,

Mining, Construction, Electricity, Gas and Water Supply), and service sector’s participation is

relatively weaker.

Table 1 Developed and Developing APEC Economies: Most Forward/Backward

Involved Industries in the GVCs, 2011

Developed

Economy Forward Backward

AUS

1 Mining and quarrying 1 Basic metals

2 Wholesale and retail trade 2 Coke and refined petroleum

3 Transport and storage 3 Electrical machinery and apparatus

BRN

1 Mining and quarrying 1 Fabricated metal products

2 Transport and storage 2 Other non-metallic mineral products

3 R&D 3 Food products, beverages and tobacco

CAN

1 Mining and quarrying 1 Motor vehicles

2 Wholesale and retail trade 2 Electrical machinery and apparatus

3 Transport and storage 3 Basic metals

HKC

1 Transport and storage 1 Basic metals

2 Wholesale and retail trade 2 Fabricated metal products

3 Finance and insurance 3 Chemicals and chemical products

JPN


2 Electrical and optical equipment 2 Textiles and leather products

3 Basic metals 3 Chemicals and chemical products

KOR

1 Electrical and optical equipment 1 Coke and refined petroleum

2 Wholesale and retail trade 2 Basic metals

3 Basic metals 3 Electricity, gas and water supply

9

NZL

1 Wholesale and retail trade 1 Chemicals and chemical products

2 R&D 2 Coke and refined petroleum

3 Agriculture 3 Basic metals

SGP


2 Electrical and optical equipment 2 Basic metals

3 Transport and storage 3 Other non-metallic mineral products

Chinese

Taipei


2 Electrical and optical equipment 2 Mining and quarrying

3 Chemicals and chemical

products 3 Basic metals

USA

1 R&D 1 Motor vehicles


3 Electrical and optical equipment 3 Basic metals

Developing

Economy Forward Backward

CHL

1 Basic metals 1 Coke and refined petroleum

2 Mining and quarrying 2 Rubber and plastics products

3 Electricity, gas and water

supply 3 Textiles and leather products

CHN

1 Electrical and optical equipment 1 Electrical and optical equipment

2 Basic metals 2 Electrical machinery and apparatus

3 Mining and quarrying 3 Coke and refined petroleum

IDN

1 Mining and quarrying 1 Machinery and equipment

2 Agriculture 2 Electrical and optical equipment


products 3 Fabricated metal products

MEX

1 Mining and quarrying 1 Electrical and optical equipment

2 Basic metals 2 Motor vehicles

3 Motor vehicles 3 Manufacturing nec; recycling

10

MYS

1 Mining and quarrying 1 Electrical and optical equipment

2 Electrical and optical equipment 2 Electrical machinery and apparatus

3 Agriculture 3 Motor vehicles

PHL

1 Electrical and optical equipment 1 Coke and refined petroleum

2 Basic metals 2 Basic metals


RUS


2 Basic metals 2 Electrical machinery and apparatus

3 Coke and refined petroleum 3 Other transport equipment

THA



products 2 Basic metals

3 Electrical and optical equipment 3 Fabricated metal products

VNM

1 Mining and quarrying 1 Machinery and equipment, nec


3 Textiles and leather products 3 Basic metals

Source: Calculated from the Trade in Value Added (TiVA) Database. Developing APEC

economies are defined according to the list of “APEC travel-eligible economies”, which includes

eleven developing economies. Papua New Guinea and Peru are not included in the calculation due

to unavailability of data.

11

3. CONCERNS OF APEC DEVELOPING ECONOMIES FOR FURTHER

PARTICIPATION IN GVCS

Despite the benefits of GVC participation, developing economies have concerns over the

possible negative effects of participation in GVCs

3.1 Locked at the lower-end of GVCs

With the deepening of economic globalization, vertical specialization has replaced

traditional horizontal specialization to be the main mode of international fragmentation of

production. Among the global layout of multinational corporations’, most economies are

included in international vertical specialization system. Most developing economies enter into

GVCs through OEM with labor cost advantage and natural endowment. But the fast

industrialization through OEM in a short time can’t bring further industrial upgrade. On the

contrary, developing economies are more likely to be locked at the lower-end of GVCs

because of the original specialization division and path dependence on processing trade.

3.2 Vulnerability of GVCs

The heavy reliance on GVCs will have serious consequences on developing economies

because GVCs have its own vulnerability due to the changing nature of the global trading

system or business climate issues in the host economy. Once some chains break, the total

GVCs will not work effectively and the economies on the chains will be affected. As costs

rise, multinational corporations may reconsider the original investment layout which may

bring a fatal attack to industrial system built up specifically by host economies for

multinational corporations.

3.3 Specificity of GVCs

On GVCs, the dominant partners will govern the whole value chain and make other

partners or buyers on the chain to follow its lead. The leader of the value chains would be

either dominant intermediates supplier or technology provider. the buyers could be

interrupted operating once the supplier cut the supply of the specific items because of

unexpected political , economic or natural reasons, which will cause a lose-lose situation as

12

the SME suppliers are dependent on certain buyers. Developing economies are generally

incapable on negotiating a bilateral agreement to avoid negative impact on their domestic

firms.

3.4 Environmental Concerns

Multinational corporations have been in some cases linked to environmental concerns in

host economies in the past. During the industrialization process, host economies (especially

the developing host economies) attracted lots of industrial FDI. Host economies face

challenges in developing regulations that protect their environment and encourage sustainable

environmental practices while at the same time maintaining a business climate that attracts

investment. Developing host economy on the value chains will sometimes face the possible

pollution problem during the process of industrialization.

In order to realize the sustainable, inclusive and coordinated development of GVCs in

the region, relevant stake holders, including MNCs International Organizations and

Developed Economies, need to pay more attention on the concerns of APEC developing

economies mentioned above and to support efforts to address these concerns.

13

4. CHALLENGES TO APEC ECONOMIES’ BETTER PARTICIPATION IN GVCS

In order to better participate in GVCs, most APEC developing economies still face

challenges due to economic, social and institutional restraints, according to the Survey.

4.1 Productive Capacity

To meet the quality, cost and reliability standards and international requirements.

The ability to comply with international requirements in terms of product standards, quality,

technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures is an especially important

constraint on APEC developing economies that have heretofore been strictly domestic.

Standards are often lower in developing markets for a number of reasons while global

markets tend to have stronger standards at the public, private, and civil society levels, so

standards compliance has become a pre-requisite for entry in GVCs. According to the Survey,

Singapore, Chile and Thailand find this problem prominent.

To develop talents and technical knowledge. According to the Survey, Singapore,

Korea, Indonesia and Thailand face the problem of insufficient skilled human resources.

Singapore, Chile and Thailand are suffering from shortage of technical knowledge.

4.2 Infrastructure and Services

To improve the quality of physical infrastructure, and the efficiency of procedures

followed in the operation of these facilities. Public goods and externalities constrain the

ability of APEC developing economies to better participate in GVCs. For instance, land

transportation, port infrastructure and energy are important for the manufacturing and

extractive industries; transportation and water are essential for agricultural chains; or

telecommunications are pivotal for offshore service exports. Improving logistics services, in

particular, is essential to effective GVC participation. High-quality logistics affect trade even

more than distance or transport costs; statistics show that every extra day needed to ready

goods for export and import reduces trade flows by around 4%.xv Improving logistics is also

where developing economies have the most potential to reduce trade costs. Sufficient access

to ICT network, including the Internet and mobile telecommunications is of the same

14

importance for some APEC developing economies to better participate in GVCs. According to

the Survey, Indonesia, Thailand and Chile face the challenge of insufficient reliable

infrastructures, such as roads, electricity and telecommunication.

To expand access to credit, enlarge scale to support the costs of adequate R&D and

training of personnel. The broad key challenge for APEC developing economies that want to

integrate GVCs or that want to strengthen and upgrade their participation in GVCs is to

access the necessary human capital, knowledge and technology to compete in international

markets. Improving access to finance is also essential for SMEs in some developing

economies to integrate themselves into GVCs.

To create an open, transparent and competitive environment for services

development. GVCs are particularly sensitive to the quality and efficiency of services,

accounting for 42% of the value added in the exports of G20 economies and more than 50%

for some economies.xvi This is particularly true for services that act as essential enablers in

the geographic dispersion of GVCs, such as ICT, supply chain management services(to reduce

inventories, shorten lead times, and enable faster customer response), and improved logistic

services, etc.

To cut excessively burdensome regulations. Excessively burdensome regulations can

affect APEC developing economies’ GVC participation by inducing an inefficient allocation

of resources across firms and lowering productivity. Administrative burdens (red tape) and

product market regulations may limit the entry of young innovative SMEs and restricting

competition in the market. Policies that affect firm exit matter too. Subsidies to incumbents

and other policy measures that delay the exit of less productive firms can stifle competition

and slow the reallocation of resources from less to more productive firms. Excessively

burdensome regulations are also important factors to influence the friendliness of the overall

regulatory and business climate. According to the Survey, Indonesia, Korea, Chinese Taipei

and Thailand face the challenge of lack of a stable regulatory environment and needs to cut

excessive regulations.

4.3 Trade and Investment Flows

15

To increase market openness while considering the specific situation of each

economy. Multilateral market opening is preferred, as trade restrictive measures between

third economies, upstream or downstream, can matter as much as that put in place by direct

trade partners. Tariffs on inputs are particularly costly because they are used directly in

production and drive up costs, affecting producers’ ability to participate in GVCs.

Impediments to foreign direct investment are found excessive for some developing economies

as well. These restrictive measures affect not only foreign suppliers but also domestic

producers.

To streamline border procedures. Inefficient border procedures, non-tariff measures

that unnecessarily constrain goods or services trade are important influential factors for APEC

developing economies’ better participation in GVCs. Policy that may impede the trade

facilitation can include time-consuming customs procedures that affect the competiveness of

time-sensitive and perishable products. Efficient trade facilitation measures help economies

participate in GVCs by cutting costs, avoiding unnecessary delays, and reducing uncertainty.

Study indicates that the potential reduction in trade costs of fully implementing the WTO

Agreement on Trade Facilitation is as high as 14% for some developing economies (slightly

lower than the 16% estimate had all items under negotiation been agreed). xvii

To reduce trade cost. The quality, availability and cost of border infrastructure and

services are other essentials for value chain activities which rely on rapid and inexpensive

access to global trade flows, both for imports and exports. Constrained access to information

on trade and investment opportunities may as well drive up the trade cost.

4.4 Policy Implementation

To improve coordination among responsible institutions. Some APEC developing

economies lack capacity to mobilize actions on several fronts. A major challenge is how to

prioritize actions and select areas of intervention with the highest potential impact. According

to the Survey, Thailand and Indonesia faces the problem of difficulty in reaching policy

consensus among related governmental agencies.

To design specific GVC Policies or tailored policy responses to optimize upgrading

16

opportunities. It is usually difficult for developing economies to pin down the right policy

needed to smooth the process of GVC participation. Introducing new policy tools is also

challenging for some APEC developing economies due to the potential risks involved.

To put forward a basket of policies to enhance productive capacity. Policies to foster

the development of local productive capacity in the form of the promotion of technology

dissemination and commercializing creative content, skill building and upgrading, play

central roles in determining how developing economies can access and upgrade in GVCs as

well as the net benefits that are accrued domestically. Intellectual property protections also

need to pay extra attention as implementation of relative rules and regulations can be a bigger

issue for some developing economies

To foster mutually beneficial interactions between SMEs of developing economies

and multinational corporations in the context of GVCs. SMEs in developing economies

can grow faster given constant interactions with multinational corporations. It is also helpful

to embed foreign firms into the local economy in the long term.

4.5 International Cooperation

To promote international regulatory cooperation. International regulatory cooperation,

including via mutual recognition agreements, can help mitigate compliance costs that arise as

a result of unnecessarily complex or heterogonous regulations, enhancing the ability of firms,

in particular SMEs of developing economies, to participate in GVCs. According to the Survey,

Thailand and Hong Kong, China consider that volatile restrictive trade and investment

policies in destination economies can impede participation in GVCs.

To increase regional economic cooperation. Developing economies are usually

reluctant or in a disadvantageous position to participate in trade and investment negotiations

which can be effective if they help deepen integration by covering as many dimensions of

GVCs as possible, including tariffs, technical measures, services and trade facilitation

measures, as well as competition policy, investment, intellectual property protection and

dispute settlement.

4.6 Destination Economies’ Issues

17

To pay much attention to restrictive trade and investment policies in destination

economies. The inability of developing economies and less developed economies to

participate more in the GVCs are partly due to the entry restrictions and entry barriers in the

destination economies. According to the Survey, it is one of the main challenges for Korea,

Indonesia, Thailand and Hong Kong, China in upgrading and strengthening the participation

of domestic firms in GVCs.

To pay more attention to policy uncertainty in the destination economies. Frequently

changing policies in the destination economies impose high cost to other economies and

prevent greater participation of these economies in the GVCs since there are costs associated

with adapting to new policies. According to the Survey, trade and investment policy

uncertainty in destination economies is the most important challenge for Thailand and Hong

Kong, China in upgrading and strengthening the participation of domestic firms in GVCs.

18

i Andrea Beltramello, Koen de Backer and Laurent Moussiegt, “The Export Performance of Economies within Global Value Chains (GVCs)”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2012/02, OECD.

ii Pol Antràs, Davin Chor, Thibault Fally, and Russell Hillberry, “Measuring the Upstreamness of Production and Trade Flows”. The American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 2012, 102(3): 412-416.

iii Robert C. Johnson and Guillermo Noguera, “Accounting for Intermediates: Production Sharing and Trade in Value Added”. Journal of International Economics, 2012, 86(2): 224-236.

iv Pol Antràs and Davin Chor, “Organizing the Global Value Chain”，NBER Working Paper No.

18163，June 2012.

v Laura Alfaro, Pol Antràs, Davin Chor and Paola Conconi, “Internalizing global value chains: a firm-level analysis”, NBER Working Paper, No. 21582, Sep 2015.

vi Robert Koopman, Zhi Wang and Shang-Jin Wei, “Estimating Domestic Content in Exports When Processing Trade is Pervasive”. Journal of Development Economics, 2012, 99(1): 178-189.

vii Satoshi Inomata, Norihiko Yamano and Bo Meng, “Developing International Input–Output Databases: IDE-JETRO and OECD Experiences”, in Trade in Value Added Developing New Measures of Cross-Border Trade (Edited by Aaditya Mattoo, Zhi Wang and Shang-Jin Wei), Washington DC, 2013.

viii Nadim Ahmad, Zhi Wang and Norihiko Yamano, “A Three-Stage Reconciliation Method to Construct a Time Series International Input-Output Database” in Trade in Value Added Developing New Measures of Cross-Border Trade (Edited by Aaditya Mattoo, Zhi Wang and Shang-Jin Wei), Washington DC, 2013.

ix OECD and World Bank Group, “Inclusive Global Value Chains: Policy options in trade and complementary areas for GVC Integration by small and medium enterprises and low-income developing economies”, Report prepared for submission to G20 Trade Ministers Meeting Istanbul, Turkey, 6Oct 2015.

x Jakob Engel, “SACU in Global Value Chains: Measuring GVC integration, position, and performance of Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland”, World Bank Working Paper, No.102987, 2015.

xi Rashmi Banga, “Measuring Value in Global Value Chains”, UNCTAD Working Paper, May 2013.

xii Przemyslaw Kowalski, Javier Lopez Gonzalez, Alexandros Ragoussis and Cristian Ugarte “Participation of Developing Countries in Global Value Chains: implications for trade and traderelated policies.” OECD Trade Policy Papers No. 179, p31-36.

xiii O’Neill, J. The Growth Map: Economic Opportunity in the BRICs and Beyond, New York: Penguin, 2011.

xiv Gary Gereffi and Xubei Luo, “Risks and Opportunities of Participation in Global Value Chains”, World Bank Working Paper, No. 6847, April 2014.

xv OECD, WTO, UNCTAD, “Analysis of Global Value Chains: Challenges, Opportunities and

19

Implications for Policy”, 12 March 2014.

xvi OECD, WTO, UNCTAD, “Analysis of Global Value Chains: Challenges, Opportunities and Implications for Policy”, 12 March 2014.

xvii OECD, WTO, UNCTAD, “Analysis of Global Value Chains: Challenges, Opportunities and Implications for Policy”, 12 March 2014.

apec developing economies’ better participation in global...

Documents