经济金融企业管理外文翻译外文文献英文文献

附录

【原文】

Upgrading in Global Value Chains

The aim of this paper is to explore how small- and medium-sized Latin American enterprises ( SMEs) may participate in global markets in a way that provides for sustainable growth. This may be defined as the ‘‘highroad’’ to competitiveness, contrasting with the ‘‘low road,’’ typical of firms from developing countries, which often compete by squeezing wages and profit margins rather than by improving productivity, wages, and profits. The key difference between the high and the low road to competitiveness is often explained by the different capabilities of firms to ‘‘upgrade.’ In this paper, upgrading refers to the capacity of a firm to innovate to increase the value added of its products and processes (Humphrey & Schmitz, 2002a; Kaplinsky&Readman, 2001; Porter, 1990).

Capitalizing on one of the most productive areas of the recent literature on SMEs, we restrict our field of research to small enterprises located in clusters. There is now a wealth ofempirical evidence (Humphrey, 1995; Nadvi &Schmitz, 1999; Rabellotti, 1997) showing that small firms in clusters, both in developed and developing countries, are able to over come some of the major constraints they usually face:

lack of specialized skills, difficult access to technology, inputs, market, information, credit, and external services.

Nevertheless, the literature on clusters, mainly focused on the local sources of

competitiveness coming from intracluster vertical and horizontal relationships

generating ‘‘collective efficiency’’ (Schmitz, 1995), has often neglected the

increasing importance of external link ages. Due to recent changes in production

systems, distribution channels, and financial markets, and to the spread of information

technologies, enterprises and clusters are increasingly integrated in value chains that

often operate across many different countries. The literature on global value chains

(GVCs) (Gereffi, 1999; Gereffi& Kaplinsky, 2001) calls attention to the opportunities

for local producers to learn from the global leaders of the chains that may be buyers or

1

producers. The internal governance of the value chain has an important effect on the scope of local firms’ upgrading (Humphrey& Schmitz, 2000).

Indeed, extensive evidence on Latin America reveals that both the local and the global dimensions matter, and firms often participate in clusters as well as in value chains (Pietrobelli& Rabellotti, 2004). Both forms of organization offer opportunities to foster competitiveness via learning and upgrading. However, they also have remarkable drawbacks, as, for instance, upgrading may be limited in some forms of value chains, and clusters with little developed external economies and joint actions may have no influence on competitiveness.

Moreover, both strands of literature were conceived and developed to overcome the sectoral dimension in the analysis of industrial organization and dynamism. On the one hand, studies on clusters, focusing on agglomerations of firms specializing in different stages of the filie′re, moved beyond the traditional units of analysis of industrial economics: the firm and the sector. On the other hand, according to the value chain literature, firms from different sectors may all participate in the same value chain (Gereffi, 1994). Nevertheless, SMEs located in clusters and involved in value chains, may undertake a process of upgrading in order to increase and improve their participation in the global economy, especially as the industrial sector plays a role and affects the upgrading prospects of SMEs.

The contribution this paper makes is by taking into account all of these dimensions together. Thus, within this general theoretical background, this study aims to investigate the hypothesis that enterprise upgrading is simultaneously affected by firm-specific efforts and actions, and by the environment in which firms operate. The latter is crucially shaped by three characteristics: (i) the collective efficiency of the cluster in which SMEs operate, (ii) the pattern of governance of the value chain in which SMEs participate, and (iii) the peculiar features that characterize learning and innovation patterns in specific sectors.

The structure of the paper is the following: in Section 2, we briefly review the

concepts of clustering and value chains, and focus on their

overlaps and

complementarities. Section 3 first discusses the notion of SMEs’ upgrading and then

2

introduces a categorization of groups of sectors, based on the notions underlying the Pavitt taxonomy, and applied to the present economic reality of Latin America. Section 4reports the original empirical evidence on a large sample of Latin American clusters, and shows that the sectoral dimension matters to explain why clustering and participating in global value chains offer different opportunities for upgrading in different groups of sectors. Section5 summarizes and concludes.

2. CLUSTERS AND VALUE CHAINS

During the last two decades, the successful performance of industrial districts in the developed world, particularly in Italy, has stimulated new attention to the potential offered by this form of industrial organization for firms of developing countries. The capability of clustered firms to be economically viable and grow has attracted a great deal of interest in development studies. 1

In developing countries, the sectoral and geographical concentration of SMEs is

rather common, and a wide range of cases has since been reported. 2 Obviously, the

existence of acritical mass of specialized and agglomerated activities, in a number of

cases with historically strong roots, does not necessarily imply that these clusters

share all the stylized facts which identify the Marshall type of district, as firstly

defined by Becattini (1987). 3 Nonetheless, clustering may be considered as a major

facilitating factor for a number of subsequent developments (which may or may not

occur): division and specialization of labor, the emergence of a wide network of

suppliers, the appearance of agents who sell to distant national and international

markets, the emergence of specialized producer services, the materialization of a pool

of specialized and skilled workers, and the formation of business associations.

To capture the positive impacts of these factors on the competitiveness of firms

located in clusters,Schmitz (1995)introduced the concept of ‘‘collective efficiency’’

(CE) defined as the competitive advantage derived from local external economies and

joint action. The concept of external economies 4 was first introduced by Marshall in

his Principles of Economics(1920). According to Schmitz (1999a), incidental external

economies (EE) are of importance in explaining the competitiveness of industrial

clusters, but there is also a deliberate force at work: consciously pursued joint action

3

(JA).Such joint action can be within vertical or horizontal linkages. 5

The combination of both incidental external economies and the effects of active

cooperation defines the degree of collective efficiency of a cluster and, dynamically,

its potential for fostering SMEs’ upgrading. Both dimensions are crucial: Only

incidental, passive external economies may not suffice without joint actions, and the

latter hardly develop in the absence of external economies. Thus, our focus is on the

role of intracluster vertical and horizontal relationships generating collective

efficiency.

However, recent changes in production systems, distribution channels and financial markets, accelerated by the globalization of product markets and the spread of information technologies, suggest that more attention needs to be paid to external linkages. 6 Gereffi’s global value chain approach (Gereffi, 1999) helps us to take into account activities taking place outside the cluster and, in particular, to understand the strategic role of the relationships with key external actors.

From an analytical point of view, the value chain perspective is useful because (Kaplinsky,2001; Wood, 2001) the focus moves from manufacturing only to the other activities involved in the supply of goods and services, including distribution and marketing. All these activities contribute to add value. Moreover, the ability to identify the activities providing higher returns along the value chain is key to understanding the global appropriation of the returns to production.

Value chain research focuses on the nature of the relationships among the various actors involved in the chain, and on their implications for

development (Humphrey & Schmitz, 2002b). To study these relationships, the

concept of ‘‘governance’’ is central to the analysis.

At any point in the chain, some degree of governance or coordination is

required in

order to take decisions not only on ‘‘what’’ should be, or ‘‘how’’

something should

be, produced but sometimes also ‘‘when,’’ ‘‘how much,’’ and even

‘‘at what price.’’

Coordination may occur through arm’s-length market relations or

non market

relationships. In the latter case, following Humphrey and Schmitz

(2000), we

distinguish three possible types of governance:(a) network implying cooperation

4

between firms of more or less equal power which share their competencies within the chain; (b) quasi-hierarchy involving relationships between legally independent firms in which one is subordinated to the other, with a leader in the chain defining the rules to which the rest of the actors have to comply; and (c) hierarchy when a firm is owned by an external firm.

Also stressed is the role played by GVC leaders, particularly by the buyers, in

transferring knowledge along the chains. For small firms in less developed countries

(LDCs), participation in value chains is a way to obtain information on the need and

mode to gain access to global markets. Yet, although this information has high value

for local SMEs, the role played by the leaders of GVCs in fostering and supporting

the SMEs’ upgrading process is less clear.Gereffi (1999), mainly focusing on East

Asia, assumes a rather optimistic view, emphasizing the role of the leaders that almost

automatically promote process, product, and functional upgrading among small local

producers.Pietrobelli and Rabellotti (2004)present a more differentiated picture for

Latin America.

In line with the present approach, Humphrey and Schmitz (2000) discuss the prospects of upgrading with respect to the pattern of value chain governance. They conclude that insertion in a quasi-hierarchical chain offers very favorable conditions for process and product upgrading, but hinders functional upgrading. Networks offer ideal upgrading conditions, but they are the least likely to occur for developing country producers.

In addition, a more dynamic approach suggests that chain governance is not given forever and may change because(Humphrey & Schmitz, 2002b): (a) power relationships may evolve when existing producers, or their spin offs, acquire new capabilities;(b) establishing and maintaining quasi-hierarchical governance is costly for the lead firm and leads to inflexibility because of transaction specific investments; and (c) firms and cluster soften do not operate only in one chain but simultaneously in several types of chains, and they may apply competencies learned in one chain to supply other chains.

In sum, both modes of organizing production, that is, the cluster and the value

chain, offer interesting opportunities for the upgrading and modernization of local

5

firms, and are not mutually exclusive alternatives. However, in order to assess their potential contribution to local SMEs’ innovation and upgrading, we need to understand their organization of inter firm linkages and their internal governance. Furthermore, as we explain in the following section, the nature of their dominant specialization also plays a role and affects SMEs’ upgrading prospects.

3. THE SECTORAL DIMENSION OFSMEs’ UPGRADING

(a) The concept of upgrading

The concept of upgrading—making better products, making them more efficiently, or moving in to more skilled activities—has often been used in studies on competitiveness (Kaplinsky,2001; Porter, 1990), and is relevant here.

Following this approach, upgrading is decisively related to innovation. Here we

define upgrading as innovating to increase value added. 7 Enterprises achieve this in

various ways, such as, for example, by entering higher unit value market niches or

new sectors, or by undertaking new productive (or service) functions. The concept of

upgrading may be effectively described for enterprises working within a value chain,

where four types of upgrading are singled out (Humphrey & Schmitz, 2000):

—Process upgrading is transforming inputs into outputs more efficiently by reorganizing the production system or introducing superior technology (e.g., footwear producers in the Sinos Valley; Schmitz, 1999b).

—Product upgrading is moving into more sophisticated product lines in terms of increased unit values (e.g., the apparel commodity chain in Asia upgrading from discount chains to department stores; Gereffi,1999).

—Functional upgrading is acquiring new, superior functions in the chain, such as design or marketing or abandoning existing low-value added functions to focus on higher value added activities (e.g., Torreon’s blue jeans industry upgrading from maquila to ‘‘full-package’’ manufacturing; Bair&Gereffi, 2001).

—Inter sectoral upgrading is applying the competence acquired in a particular

function to move into a new sector. For instance, in Taiwan, competence in producing

TVs was used to make monitors and then to move into the computer sector (Guerrieri

& Pietrobelli,2004; Humphrey & Schmitz,2002b). In sum, upgrading within a value

6

chain implies going up on the value ladder, moving away from activities in which competitionis of the ‘‘low road’’ type and entry barriers are low.

Our focus on upgrading requires moving a step forward and away from Ricardo’s static concept of ‘‘Comparative Advantage’’ (CA). While CA registers ex-post gaps in relative productivity which determine international trade flows, success in firmlevel upgrading enables the dynamic acquisition of competitiveness in new market niches, sectors or phases of the productive chain (Lall, 2001; Pietrobelli, 1997). In sum, the logic goes from innovation, to upgrading, to the acquisition of firm-level competitiveness(i.e., competitive advantage). 8

In this paper, we argue that the concept of competitive advantage increasingly

matters. In the theory of comparative advantage, what matters is relative productivity,

determining different patterns of inter industry specialization. Within such a

theoretical approach, with perfectly competitive markets, firms need to target only

production efficiency. In fact, this is not enough, and competitive advantage is the

relevant concept to analyze SMEs’ performance because of (i) the existence of forms

of imperfect competition in domestic and international markets and (ii) the presence

of different degrees of (dynamic) externalities in different subsect or sand stages of

the value chain.

More specifically, in non perfectly competitive market rents and niches of ‘‘extra-

normal’’ profits often emerge, and this explains the efforts to enter selectively specific

segments rather than simply focusing on efficiency improvements, regardless of the

prevailing productive specialization (as advocated by the theory of CA). Moreover,

different stages in the value chain offer different scope for dynamic externalities.

Thus, for example, in traditional manufacturing, the stages of design, product

innovation, marketing, and distribution may all foster competitiveness increases in

related activities and sectors. The advantage of functional upgrading is in reducing the

fragility and vulnerability of an enterprise’s productive specialization. Competition

from new entrants—i.e., firms from developing countries with lower production costs,

crowding out incumbents—is stronger in the manufacturing phases of the value chain

than in other more knowledge and organization-intensive phases (e.g., product design

7

and innovation, chain management, distribution and retail, etc.).Therefore, functional

upgrading may bring about more enduring and solid competitiveness.

For all these reasons, the concept of production efficiency is encompassed within

the broader concept of competitiveness, and the efforts to upgrade functionally and

inter sectorally (and the policies to support these processes) are justified to reap larger

rents and externalities emerging in specific stages of the value chain, market niches,

or sectors.

An additional element that crucially affects the upgrading prospects of firms and clusters is the sectoral dimension. Insofar as we have defined upgrading as innovating to increase value added, then all the factors influencing innovation acquire a new relevance. This dimension is often overlooked in studies on clusters, perhaps due to the fact that most of these studies are not comparative but rather detailed intra industry case studies.

In order to take into account such a sectoral dimension, and the effect this may have on the firms’ pattern of innovation and learning, we need to introduce the concept of ‘‘tacit knowledge.’’ This notion was first introduced by Polanyi(1967)and then discussed in the context of evolutionary economics by Nelson and Winter(1982). It refers to the evidence that some aspects of technological knowledge are well articulated, written down in manuals and papers, and taught. Others are largely tacit, mainly learned through practice and practical examples. In essence, this is knowledge which can be freely used by its owners, but that can not be easily expressed and communicated to anyone else.

The tacit component of technological knowledge makes its transfer and

application

costly and difficult. As a result, the mastery of a technology

may require an

organization to be active in the earlier stages of its development,

and a close and

continuous interaction between the user and the producer—or

transfer—of such

knowledge. Inter firm relationships are especially needed in this

context. Tacit

knowledge is an essential dimension to define a useful grouping

of economic

activities.

(b) Sectoral specificities in upgrading and innovation: a classification for Latin

8

American countries

The impact of collective efficiency and patterns of governance on the capacity of SMEs to upgrade may differ across sectors. This claim is based upon the consideration that sectoral groups differ in terms of technological complexity and in the modes and sources of innovation and upgrading. 9 As shown by innovation studies, in some sectors, vertical relations with suppliers of inputs may be particularly important sources of product and process upgrading (as in the case of textiles and the most traditional manufacturing), while in other sectors, technology users, organizations such as universities or the firms themselves (as, for example, with software or agro industrial products) may provide major stimuli for technical change (Pavitt,1984; Von Hippel, 1987).

Consistently with this approach, the properties of firm knowledge bases across

different sectors (Malerba & Orsenigo, 1993) 10 mayaffect the strategic relevance of

collective efficiencyfor the processes of upgrading in clusters. Thus, for example, in

traditional manufacturing sectors, technology has important tacit and idiosyncratic

elements, and therefore, upgrading strongly depends on the intensity of technological

externalities and cooperation among local actors (e.g., firms, research centers, and

technology and quality diffusion centers), in other words, upgrading depends on the

degree of collective efficiency. While in other groups (e.g., complex products or large

natural resource-based firms) technology is more codified and the access to external

sources of knowledge such as transnational corporations(TNCs, or research

laboratories located in developed countries become more critical for upgrading.

Furthermore, the differences across sectoral groups raise questions on the role of

global buyers in fostering (or hindering) the upgrading in different clusters. Thus, for

example, global buyers may be more involved and interested in their providers’

upgrading if the technology required is mainly tacit and requires intense interaction.

Moreover, in traditional manufacturing industries, characterized by a low degree of

technological complexity, firms are likely to be included in GVCs even if they have

very low technological capabilities. Therefore, tight supervision and direct support

become necessary conditions for global buyers who rely on the competencies of their

9

local suppliers and want to reduce the risk of non compliance(Humphrey & Schmitz,

2002b). The situation is at the opposite extreme in the case of complex products,

where technology is often thoroughly codified and the technological complexity

requires that firms have already internal technological capabilities to be subcontracted,

otherwise large buyers would not contract them at all.

In order to take into account the above-mentioned hypotheses, we develop a

sectoral classification, adapting existing taxonomies to the Latin American case. 11

On the basis of Pavitt’s seminal work (1984), we consider that in Latin America, in-

house R&D activities are very low both in domestic and foreign firms (Archibugi&

Pietrobelli, 2003), domestic inter sectoral linkages have been displaced by trade

liberalization(Cimoli & Katz, 2002), and university-industry linkages appear to be

still relatively weak (Arocena & Sutz, 2001). 12 Furthermore, in the past 10 years,

Latin America has deepened its productive specialization in resource based sectors and has weakened its position in more engineering intensive industries (Katz,2001), reflecting its rich endowment of natural resources, relatively more than human and technical resources (Wood & Berge,

1997).Hence, we retain Pavitt’s key notions and identify four main sectoral groups for Latin America on the basis of the way learning and upgrading occur, and on the related industrial organization that most frequently prevails. 13The categories are as follows:

1. Traditional manufacturing, mainly labor intensive and ‘‘traditional’’ technology industries such as textiles, footwear, tiles, and furniture;

2. Natural resource-based sectors (NRbased),implying the direct exploitation of natural resources, for example, copper, marble, fruit, etc.;

3. Complex products industries (COPs), including, among others, automobiles,

autocomponents and aircraft industries, ICT and consumer electronics;4. Specialized

suppliers, in our LA cases, essentially software.Each of these categories tends to have

a predominant learning and innovating behavior, in terms of main sources of technical

change, dependence on basic or applied research, modes of in-house innovation (e.g.,

‘‘routinized’’ versus large R&D laboratories), tacitness or codified nature of

knowledge, scale and relevance of R&D activity, and appropriability of

10