当前位置：文档库 › The evolving geography of production hubs

The evolving geography of production hubs

The evolving geography of production hubs and regional value chains

across East Asia:Trade in value-added

Gabriele Suder a,*,Peter W.Liesch b,1,Satoshi Inomata c,2,Irina Mihailova d,3,Bo Meng e,4

a International Relations,Melbourne Business School,The University of Melbourne,Level3,John Smyth Building,Parkville,VIC30110,Australia

b UQ Business School,The University of Queensland,St Lucia,Brisbane4072,Queensland,Australia

c Institute of Developing Economies,JETRO(IDE-JETRO),3-2-2Wakaba,Mihama-ku,Chiba-shi,Chiba261-8545,Japan

d Department of Management and International Business,Aalto University School of Business,P.O.Box21230,00076-Aalto,Finland

e International Input-Output Analysis Studies Group,Development Studies Center,Institute o

f Developin

g Economies,Japan External Trade Organization

(IDE-JETRO),Wakaba3-2-2,Mihamaku,Chiba,Chiba Prefecture261-8545,Japan

1.Introduction

Asian preeminence in attracting production activities from

internationalizing?rms has attracted increased attention of late.

China,already the global factory(Buckley,2011),is predicted to

become the world’s largest economy before2030(World Bank,

2012).In the1980s,Japan was heralded as the Asian miracle with

Japanese management style acclaimed for its championing

Japanese industrial development(Beechler&Yang,1994;Nonaka

&Johansson,1985).Other Asian economies have recorded envious

growth over recent decades too,with the Asian miracle and Asian

tigers encapsulating the rise of East Asia in the world economy

(Stiglitz,1996).However,none of these economies has developed

in isolation,with production networks across national borders

engaging extensively in intermediates trade,often at the regional

level.

The discussion of regional economic integration and its impacts

has gained signi?cant attention in scholarly research(Dunning,

Fujita,&Yakova,2007;Fratianni&Oh,2009;Murray,2010;Neffke

&Boschma,2011;Sierra,2011;Verbeke&Kano,2012).Policy-

makers are concerned with a balance between creating the

incentives for?rms to engage across borders,and the bene?ts for

long-term national economic development of creating these

incentives(Lawton,Lindeque,&McGuire,2009;UNCTAD,2009).

International business(IB)scholars have raised the question

whether this engagement in cross border activities is more

extensive at the regional or the global levels(Rugman&Verbeke,

2004).This debate is embedded in the discussion of location

speci?c issues that have been long recognized as key issues in IB

research(Beugelsdijk,2007;Dunning,1998;Dunning et al.,2007;

Vernon,1966,1974;Wells,1972).

Long ago,the pioneering works of Alfred Marshall(1919)

identi?ed the externalities appropriation of?rms within clusters

when these near-neighborhood?rms externalize activities to

generate concentrations of mutually supportive industries.The

externalization of IB activity has created a‘‘...‘new geography of

competition’for mobile investment(Raines,2003)and an

Journal of World Business xxx(2014)xxx–xxx

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Available online xxx

Keywords:

Regional integration

Production networks

Input-output data

Trade in value-added

East Asia

A B S T R A C T

The interdependence of regional trade and production networks has important implications for national

prosperity,regional stability and the internationalization of production.We ask:What are the locational

patterns of trade in value-added in East Asia and how are these patterns changing over time?The

disintermediation of value chains and the externalization of business activity create hubs of capability

and extend value chains between countries.We adopt input-output techniques to analyze the evolution

of production networks in East Asia over the period1990–2005from a value chain perspective.A high

density of cross-border interaction is reported alongside changing geographic dynamics,and an informal

integration derived from intermediates trade in value-addition.The locational interdependence of

developed and less-developed countries across the region leverages on the heterogeneity of location-

speci?c advantages within the region.

*Corresponding author at:Director,International Relations,The University of

Melbourne,and Principal Fellow,Melbourne School of Business.McPhee Terrace,

Faraday Street,Parkville,VIC3010,Australia.Tel.:+61383440858;

fax:+61383449961;mobile:+61402969007.

E-mail addresses:gabriele.suder@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b018564067.html,.au(G.Suder),

p.liesch@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b018564067.html,.au(P.W.Liesch),satoshi_inomata@ide.go.jp(S.Inomata),

irina.mihailova@aalto.?(I.Mihailova),mengbo@ide.go.jp(B.Meng).

1Tel.:+61733468174;fax:+61733468166.

2Tel.:+81432999685;fax:+81432999763.

3Tel.:+358403538351;fax:+358943138880.

4Tel.:+81432999685;fax:+8143299

9673.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of World Business

j o u r n a l h o m e p a ge:w w w.e l s e v i e r.co m/l o c a t e/j w b

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b018564067.html,/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.05.003

increasingly complex interplay between states,economic regional blocs ...and semi-autonomous regions’’(Buckley &Ghauri,2004:91).Likewise,Dunning (1977)elaborated on his location dimen-sion of the OLI paradigm to explain cross-border growth of international business activity and investment.In the more recent IB literature,Rugman and colleagues (2004,2005,2007,2010)have elaborated the L (location)dimension in Dunning’s paradigm in regard to regional dynamics.

Economic geographers have called for a better understanding of locational choice in innovation,knowledge transfer and produc-tion networks research (Aoyama,Rigby,Rodr?

′guez-Pose,&Yeung,2011;Bebbington,2003).In addition,growth paths of various regions have been studied (Neffke &Boschma,2011)that illustrate regional agglomeration can accelerate national and regional economic development (Fan &Scott,2003;Suder,2011)by ameliorating challenges of foreignness and institutional distance that internationalizing ?rms face,and that impact business strategy (Luo,2011;Zaheer,1995).Yet,it has been argued that there is little overlap between the IB literature studying MNEs’operations across ?rm boundaries and economic geography which focuses on understanding the location-speci?c issues of economic activities (Mudambi,2008).

We contribute to the location choice in IB research and the economic geography rationales by examining the changing structure of production network hubs in East Asia.We understand regional integration to be the interdependence of trade and production networks within a region,and we investigate this interdependence by analyzing intra-and inter-industry industrial production networks using trade in value-added.We chose this approach because trade in intermediates is the largest share of total trade,is growing (Meng,Yamano,&Fang,2012),and it provides additional insights into the internationalization of production.The research question we address is:What are the locational patterns of trade in value-added in East Asia and how are these patterns changing over time?We use a methodology,novel for the IB ?eld,that focuses on the different stages of production rather than on trade in ?nished goods or of sales revenue.We conduct a longitudinal analysis on trade in value-added using macro-level input-output (IO)data.This adaptation of analytical techniques from industrial economics to IB provides us with the means to better understand how value chains and locations interlink,and thus,it offers insight about the evolution of locational advantage.

We analyze IO data from three industries (textile,chemical and machinery)from nine East Asian countries over the period 1990–2005chosen because they are recognized as sectors that experience the most signi?cant cross-border movement of production activity across the Asian region (IDE-JETRO,1998,

2006;Kamin

′ski &Smarzynsk Javorcik,2001).Our sample comprises China,Japan,Korea,Taiwan,Singapore,Malaysia,Thailand,The Philippines and Indonesia,and our data allow us to distinguish in-and out-?ows of ?nished and un?nished intermediary products at the industry and country levels.This use of multiple country contexts represents yet another extension of the existing IB literature that traditionally focuses either on single-country studies or on emerging or developed contexts separately (Fan &Scott,2003).We consider this approach important because the distributed production activities of goods typically span across economies at different development levels.We build our analysis on multiple environments,and diverse institutional and economic settings (Bello &Kostova,2012).

This study is multidisciplinary and contributes to several ?elds of research.First,IB scholars will be interested in the rationales behind the changing dynamics in regional integration from the value-added perspective.Our ?ndings inform the conversation on how MNEs organize their value-added activities and undertake

various types of trade and investment in a world economy that has transformed over the decades (Doh,Bunyaratavej,&Hahn,2009;Dunning,1998;Kali &Reyes,2007).Furthermore,this study offers new measures to understand the underlying forces behind regional integration,and allows us to better comprehend the rationales for business strategic choices between global and regional expansion that have been discussed in the IB literature.Second,this logic extends economics-based explanations for regional integration (Petri,2006)and its geography (Neffke &Boschma,2011)which observe that regional and free trade agreements (RTA/FTA)have emerged alongside the internationalization of production in response to globalizing forces (Suder,2011).Third,our results contribute to a politically-based lens that draws upon macro-data to analyze the in?uence of harmonized and normalized laws and regulations as strategic inducement for regional integration (Cherry,2011;Morlino &Magen,2009;Murray,2010).

2.Perspectives on regional integration

2.1.The international business perspective

The regional aspect of international expansion has long been the focus of traditional ?rm internationalization theories.The Uppsala School (Johanson &Vahlne,1977,2009)stresses the importance of the home region in the early phases of a ?rm’s internationalization,arguing that cross-border activity will incre-mentally follow a path of experiential learning and knowledge acquisition that evolves commensurate with psychic distance considerations,which in general correlate with geographic proximity.In the home region,internationalization is generally less risky because there are fewer differences in national,institutional and business cultures,reinforcing a proximity factor in international business.The liability of foreignness (Eden &Miller,2001;Zaheer,1995)is minimized as are the costs of doing business abroad.Recently,scholarly attention has shifted to a global perspective on internationalization although some studies have questioned the dominance of global scale in ?rm expansion abroad.Scrutiny of foreign sales patterns of large MNEs has revealed regional rather than global distributions,and Rugman and Verbeke (2004),Rugman (2005)and Piekkari,Nell,&Ghauri (2010)have observed the regional nature of large Fortune 500MNEs’activities.

In the 1980s,Ohmae (1985)argued that successful MNEs were present in three predominant regions of the world,the USA,Europe and Japan.Success or failure within each of these regions has been considered dependent on ‘insiderization’(Rugman &Verbeke,2004:4)rather than ‘outsidership’(Johanson &Vahlne,2009),and the availability of what these authors have termed a fourth market in which market share could be obtained more easily compared to other global markets,and typically located in a less-developed economy.Reported by Rugman and Collinson (2005:430),‘‘...of the 380?rms with regional sales data examined by Rugman and Verbeke (2005),North American ?rms averaged 77.2%of their sales in their home region,the Europeans averaged 62.8%and the Asian ?rms averaged 74.3%’’.UNCTAD (2007)noted that these three regions represented more than 80%of world manufacturing value-added,raising scholarly interest in scrutinizing internation-alization at the regional level.

Interestingly,Rugman and Verbeke (2004)identi?ed that home region oriented MNEs were different from other MNEs in decision styles and downstream ?rm-speci?c advantages (FSAs).They argued strong regional interests to be a re?ection of unequal sales distributions,unequal accessibility and attractiveness to consu-mers,limits in applying experience gained in one market across into another market and location speci?c FSAs (Rugman &Verbeke,2004).That is,they suggested there is a need to translate country

G.Suder et al./Journal of World Business xxx (2014)xxx–xxx

speci?c advantages (CSAs)that ?rms encounter across borders into FSAs for successful international business if ?rms are to leverage on operations and experience in one country for application in another.A similar logic has been revealed in studies of emerging market MNEs,where the empirical evidence suggests that few are yet global companies,and that most of these ?rms are dependent on domestic regions for their initial growth (Banalieva &Santoro,2009;Collinson &Rugman,2007;Jormanainen &Koveshnikov,2010;McGuire,Lindeque,&Suder,2011;Morck,Yeung,&Zhao,2008;Rugman &Li,2007;Sethi &Judge,2009).Most emerging market MNEs are regional with a strong home country orientation (Narula,2012).Contrary to Mathews (2002)for example,aggres-sive expansion by emerging market MNEs into developed countries is atypical due to the preference for network capability leverage,and a mix of location,demand and knowledge factors (Banalieva &Santoro,2009;Musteen,Francis,&Datta,2010).

From a transaction-cost perspective,the transaction costs incurred in home regional markets are likely to be lesser than those incurred in distant,more dissimilar markets,as market imperfec-tions in nearby markets are likely to be fewer than in more distant markets.From a resource based view,another set of bene?ts stems from intra-regional locational production network strategies.Additional region bound FSAs are applied to achieve scale economies,scope economies,exploitation of national differences in nearby markets as well as arbitrage and externality bene?ts.These bene?ts enable an ‘‘evolutionary strategy of resource combinations’’and ‘‘platforms for future investments’’(Kogut &Zander,1993:16)linked to knowledge bundling amongst more localized partners.

It seems that over the last two decades,the economic rationale behind informal regional integration has become increasingly stronger than the politically-based explanations of formal institu-tionalization which have dominated the prior literature.In this context,Kali and Reyes (2007)examined the global trading system as an interdependent and complex network,and concluded that the more integrated an country is within a given network,the better the ability for this country to counterbalance the lack of location or technological advantages through interconnectivity advantages.These interconnectivity advantages are evidenced in physical capital (increased human capital productivity through centrality effects),links to other countries (network density),and/or clustering (transitivity of partnerships).By drawing upon country-speci?c advantage explanations,they concluded that ‘‘international trade relations are not determined by the number of trading partners that each country has’’(Kali &Reyes,2007:603),but rather by cultural,social and geographical attributes that

lead to comparative advantage (Isogai,Morishita,&Ru

¨ffer,2002;James &Movshuk,2003;Widodo,2009).That is,there are country speci?c specializations and country speci?c advantages that underlie a country’s comparative advantage.The informal and formal integration of these specializations and advantages through value-adding networks and through political normalization shape the pattern of a ?rm’s regional activities.

Here,it is useful to distinguish between economic integration and intra-and inter-industry trade integration (Greenaway,1987a,b ).Accordingly,horizontal specialization leads to intra-industry trade whereas vertical specialization leads to inter-industry trade and integration (Ando,2006;Fukao,Ishido,&Ito,2003;Greenaway,1987a,b ).The nature of specialization depends on factor endowments such as cheap labor and complementarity in production structures.These factor endowments represent CSAs and determine the value-added activities ?rms are likely to place in particular locations (Chen,1996;Park,1993).Studies that refer to such value-added distributions take different perspectives of global value chains (GVCs)and supply chains,and of fragmentation and outsourcing (Ernst &Guerrieri,1998;Kimura &Ando,2003;

Wakasugi,2007).One view emphasizes the positive aspects of globalization,including spillover effects,knowledge diffusion,employment creation and new opportunities for capital formation by local suppliers in developing countries (Ernst &Kim,2002),whereas in contrast,an alternative view points out the uneven distribution of global values,and argues that developing countries tend to be locked-in to low-margin production activities (Geref?,1999;Henderson,1998;Kaplinsky,2000;Widodo,2009).Meth-odologies applied thus far have not provided the analytical re?nement needed to resolve these dilemmas.

This study thus attempts to contribute to this debate in the IB literature about the extent and nature of regional integration by offering novel measures to assess regional integration.It does so in terms of the evolution of production hubs and value chains over time,with a focus on ?nished and intermediate product ?ows between locations of differing CSAs.Our measures enable us to understand how location within a region matters for different types of value-added activities,and thus holds the potential to explain international business strategy more comprehensively.The value of this approach arises from its longitudinal nature with empirical evidence now presented that was not previously available in the IB literature.

2.2.Economic geography and value chain perspectives

Studies in the ?eld of economic geography present a number of rationales for organizing production activities on a regional basis (Bell &Albu,1999;Chen,1996).Speci?cally,Fan and Scott (2003)emphasize the bene?ts arising from inter-?rm transactions organized within a network (Bchir &Fouquin,2006;Krueger,1999;Scott,1988),alongside the ease of acquisition,processing and acting on information about labor supply opportunity and shared production networks.In addition,the existence of close business links provides for ef?cient exchange and spillovers of business knowledge (Fan &Scott,2003),while regional coopera-tion supports the formation of alliances between ?rms and the development of distinctive business cultures.Studies have also revealed economies of scale from sharing infrastructure,with ef?ciency derived from industrial linkages and subcontracting (Chen,1999;Tsay,1993),the division of labor (Park,1993;Tang,1996)and common regional governance structures (Amin,1999)supporting the development of regional industrial hubs.Finally,in analyses of trade ?ows,there is evidence that points to steadily increasing intra-regional demand for ?nished and un?nished intermediate products (Pula &Peltonen,2009).

One of the analytical approaches that has gained increasing attention in the economic geography literature is a GVC approach (Grossman &Rossi-Hansberg,2008;Mudambi,2008).This approach concentrates on how different tasks,activities and types of operations positioned in the value-chain are distributed across locations.The rise of GVCs has been considered one of the most important features of rapid economic globalization in recent decades.The economic and popular literatures have described phenomena relating to GVCs as ‘‘vertical specialization’’,‘‘produc-tion fragmentation’’,‘‘outsourcing’’,‘‘offshoring’’,‘‘global supply chains’’,and so on.Despite the use of these different terms,they all point to the same fact:higher volumes of intermediate products such as parts,components and intermediate services are being produced in stages or processes across different countries and then exported to other countries for further production.Given the increasing complexity and sophistication in GVCs,it has been dif?cult to identify who produces what kind of value for whom by what kind of activity in the chain.

We argue that there is considerable potential for further developments within this domain and we suggest that an understanding of the evolution of value chains at the regional

G.Suder et al./Journal of World Business xxx (2014)xxx–xxx

level requires better measurement than that applied to date.We identify at least two reasons for this view.First,current international trade statistics fall short in terms of the research requirements needed to understand GVCs.This is perhaps why WTO statistical of?cers have stated‘what you see is not what you get5.’Second,better measurement can help provide more relevant and reliable information to policy-makers,particularly since‘you can’t manage what you can’t measure.’IO methodology,providing insights into?nished and intermediary product stages can advance the work of Humphrey and Schmitz(2002),for example,in incorporating location appropriately into GVC investigations,and thus bring new insight for IB strategy.

IO is one of three methods currently used to measure GVCs.One such method is based on survey data obtained for a speci?c?rm and product.Studies can use this quantitative?rm-level data to analyze locations of value-added activities at the level of the MNE or depict particular activities in the chain as spatially distributed (Cantwell&Mudambi,2005;Doh et al.,2009),such as case studies about China’s role in Apple’s global supply chain(Dedrick, Kraemer,&Linden,2010;Linden,Dedrick,&Kraemer,2009; Mudambi,2008).Xing and Detert(2010)examined the case of the iPhone and found that China contributed only3.6%of$2.0billion of export to the US.The remainder simply constituted a transfer from Germany,Japan,Korea,the US and other countries.These studies rely on tear-down analyses that assign the value of individual components to source companies and their countries.Such?rm-and product-based case studies can provide important intuitive images of GVCs as part of MNEs’cross-border activities.However, when we examine the role of the Chinese economy in global production networks,its share of total value-added through the export of?nal products to the United States was around75%in 2005(Meng,Yamano,&Webb,2011).This indicates that tear-down case studies may be too limited in focus to inform the locational impacts on a broader level.Their contributions are not representative of,for example,the broader role of China’s domestic production networks and inter-industrial linkages in the total value creation process.

The second approach relies on trade statistics-based measure-ment.Trade data can provide global insights on the interactions(e.g. trade?ows and patterns)of countries in terms of a speci?c good or service,and of global trade balances.For example,Kali and Reyes (2007)combine data on international trade linkages with network methods to examine the global trading system.However,using trade data alone does not reveal the role that inter-industrial production networks play in GVCs.In addition,a product shipped from one country to another may incorporate a third country’s parts and components.This implies that using traditional customs statistics may cause a double-counting problem in the measurement of GVCs.

The third approach is based on the international IO https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b018564067.html,ing IO tables allows the analyst to avoid the shortcomings of?rm-and product-based case studies as domestic inter-industry relationships are explicitly considered.An international IO table consists of detailed information about both inter-country(trade data)and inter-industry (IO)linkages.New measures of GVCs have been developed in industrial economics using international IO databases,including Maurer and Degain(2010),WTO-IDE(2011),Meng et al.(2012), Johnson and Noguera(2012),Stehrer(2012),OECD and WTO(2013) and Koopman,Wang,and Wei(2014).These new measures can be useful in understanding IB issues.They can inform,for example, enquiry into the differentiation of subsidiaries and their contributions to the total value chain.This stream of analyses can shed light on high knowledge activities,typically undertaken by competence-creating subsidiaries(Cantwell&Mudambi,2005).This also informs the study of internationalization knowledge and its sourcing(Riviera&Suder,2013).As pointed out by Cantwell and Mudambi(2011),competence-creating subsidiaries tend to be industry leaders that rapidly gain insider status in local economies.IO thus contributes to detecting crucial factors and dynamics that instruct business strategy.In this paper,we follow the concept of‘Trade in Value-Added(TiVA)’proposed by Johnson and Noguera(2012).

Compared with conventional trade statistics,such as customs export data,the use of TiVA has the following three advantages. First,using TiVA can avoid the well known double counting problem because the conventional trade statistics capture the gross value of products at each border crossing,rather than the net value-added between border crossings.Second,TiVA measures how much the value-added produced in a source country is absorbed by a destination country.This can help us understand who produces the value-added,how much and for whom.Third, when measuring a country’s total trade balance(a country’s net export to the rest of the world),there is no in-principle difference between conventional trade statistics and TiVA.However,at the bilateral level,using conventional trade statistic causes a discrepancy in bilateral trade balances because a country’s intermediate products can travel to their?nal destination country by an indirect route through third countries.TiVA can be used to remove this discrepancy in bilateral trade balances.

3.Hypotheses

While we acknowledge the partial contributions of each perspec-tive discussed above,we expect a better understanding of locational patterns of trade in value-added and of regional integration will result from adopting an interdisciplinary approach which integrates the IB and economic geography literatures.An industrial economics methodology,IO analysis,for data interrogation will assist.We concentrate on understanding how hubs of value-added activities have evolved over time in a region where countries have undergone signi?cant economic and political transformation,thus shaping trade patterns through IB activity.We hypothesize

H1.The nexus between the economic geography of production networks and regional integration dynamics among countries has evolved trade in value-added that derives from locational choices in international business.

Understanding better the patterns of trade in value-added that ensue from these locational choices may subsequently enable us to better theorize about the change in the location of value-added activities associated with different types of FDI as regional integration progresses(Dunning,1998).

We also take into consideration the politico-economic approach, with the claim that the integration of countries has been marked as an interdependence‘‘de?ned as the region’s preference for trade with regional partners’’(Petri,2006:381).While the economic literature argues that‘‘developing countries at early stages of industrial development bene?t less from regional integration than those with a more diversi?ed production structure’’(UNCTAD,2007: 41),developing countries are an integral part of RTA/FTA networks (Sierra,2011).We hypothesize that

H2.There is a role for developed and emerging and lesser devel-oped economies in the evolution of the patterns of trade in value-added.This evolution progresses because of the roles of countries at different stages of industrial development.

Consistent with studies that have focused on the analysis of institutional contexts and the role of governmental in explaining the regional nature of production network activities in Asian regions(Amin,1999;Murray,2010),Petri(1993)earlier had studied the historical trends of interdependence over several decades,examining factors such as military interventions,special

5Source:Maurer and Degain(2010).G.Suder et al./Journal of World Business xxx(2014)xxx–xxx

bilateral agreements and the balance of power in world trade.It was found that trends toward greater inter-country interdependence strengthened from the mid-1980s for political reasons (Kawai,2005;Petri,1993),consistent with the beginning of mature globalization trends in IB.We conjecture that this intra-regional integration is not concentrated in developed economies solely,or in emerging and lesser developed economies,but that trade in value-added occurs at the micro-level originating from all types of ?rms from the diversity of countries in a region,and ?ows to ?rms in countries at different stages of economic development.Indeed,Ghemawat (2003)labeled regionalism of ?rms to be a form of semi-globalization,representing an incomplete global integration of economies.Externalization of a ?rm’s value-added activities into regional markets results in high regional un?nished-product trade ?ows,both into and from member countries.Hence,we hypothesize

H3.Regional integration is enhanced with the increasing density of cross-border within-region production networks of value-added trade activity,and this economic geography is dynamic,evolving over time with shifts in value generation possibilities across pro-duction stages and across locations.

This process likely takes place along the lines of the patterns revealed by Rugman and Verbeke (2004),because in the home region,with easier market penetration,local market experience vastly reduces the liability of foreignness encountered when doing business abroad within the home region,as compared with doing business in other regions.

4.Method of analysis

Our methodology applies the IO model 6

for the analysis of cross-national production networks.The IO model is typically used in industrial economics and international trade studies to provide a mapping of international transactions.Such a mapping enables us to detect detailed ?ows of goods and services among industrial sectors across countries,alongside the sequences of value-added activity within an industry from conception through production to end use.This characterizes value chains as a whole and depicts changing economic geographies over time within those value chain activities.Our primary data sources are the Asian International Input-Output (AIO)tables for the years from 1990to 2005,7constructed by the Institute of Developing Economies,JETRO.The AIO table is designed and calculated to represent spatial and inter-industrial networks within the nine East Asian countries:Indonesia,China,Malaysia,Korea,Japan,The Philippines,Singapore,Taiwan and Thailand.8We

concentrate on the three industries that have the highest levels of regional integration of their production network:textiles,chemicals and machinery 9(For more information about the AIO table,refer to IDE-JETRO,1998,2001,2006).

We ?rst capture the movements in and intensi?cation of production networks using un?nished product data (intermediate goods).We are then able to study dynamic change captured by calculating the share of bilateral trade in total international trade for each country over time.Consequently,we can analyze (a)the evolution of interdependencies between countries through a matrix of cross-border transfers of intermediate goods by origin and destination,(b)value-added distributions and their evolution across the sample region,and (c)how a country’s (Country A)value-added is induced by its partner country’s (Country B)?nal demand.In doing so,we investigate the development of regional interdependencies through value chain mappings between coun-tries over time.

5.Findings

5.1.The evolution of interdependencies between countries

In order to ?rst obtain an insight into the development of spatial economic interdependence in East Asia,the shares of bilateral trade compared to total intra-regional trade for intermediate goods is a relevant measure,and these are presented in Fig.1.This ?gure shows the share of bilateral inter-country trade in total international trade for the focus region.The contour map provides for better visualization.The vertical and horizontal axes refer to the countries of origin and destination,respectively.From variations in the range of contour lines from 1990to 2005,we observe the changing roles of Asian economies in regard to location for value chain activity and their economic interdependence that evolved over the two-decade period.In 1990,the main international trade ?ows were centered on Japan.Indeed,the deeper the shading of the maps,the larger the share of bilateral trade in international trade consistent with the strength of inter-country trade interdepen-dence.Fig.1thus reveals the following:

(1)In 1990,most countries depended on Japan’s exports and

imports in the Asian region,but in 2005,signi?cant changes are observed.China assumes activity from Japan and becomes a dominant hub of Asian international trade.

(2)By 2005,almost all Asian developing countries enhanced their

presence in international trade in this region.There are two notable features:the increasing interaction and complexity between China,Korea,Japan and Taiwan,and the increasing interdependence between East Asia and ASEAN.10

This period witnessed the signi?cant emergence of China as a regional actor,and this has broadened the regional dimension of Asian production networks to include all developed and lesser developed economies in the region,to varying degrees.

5.2.Value-added distributions

The value-added that a country can gain from or give-out to other countries through engagement in trade,and the resulting value-added obtained and distributed,can be analyzed through a matrix of cross-border transfer of value-added by origin and

For detailed information on the origins,implications,strengths and weaknesses of the IO model,refer to Leontief (1966),Miller and Blair (1985,2009)and Ford,Karande,and Seifert (1998).7

The data used here are constrained by availability.Because of the time requirement for data collection,quality checking and construction process,in general,most countries can compile one benchmark national IO table every ?ve years only.Furthermore,making international IO tables is not just a patchwork of the pieces taken from national tables,but rather a product of compilation of supplementary data,speci?c survey and manual reconciliation,that takes on average an additional two years.The most up-to-date AIO table available is for 2005.8

In Asia,some emerging countries such as Vietnam and Myanmar have become thriving locations for low cost manufacturing and have attracted manufacturing formerly located in China.However,due to data availability (the AIO table covers only nine Asian economies)we could not include them here.In addition,compared to trade databases which can cover 200countries (see Kali &Reyes,2007),the survey based international IO data cannot reach such a level of country coverage because of data availability limitations.Recently,a WIOD project (https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b018564067.html, )covered 40countries,but without suf?cient coverage of Asian countries for our purposes.Furthermore,the construction of AIO data is based on speci?c survey material from countries that covers information of the domestic use of import goods.This kind of survey is not conducted by other international IO data construction and is a unique attribution.

The AIO data are available for 76industrial sectors for the most detailed classi?cation.10

This dynamic change is also captured by the Coef?cients of Variation (CV)for each contour map:i.e.,CV (1990)=2.57and CV (2005)=1.27.The decline in these CVs is interpreted to be an increasing variation in international trade and the expansion of spatial economic interdependence among countries within the region.

G.Suder et al./Journal of World Business xxx (2014)xxx–xxx

destination.In our model,to capture inter-country interdepen-dence through production networks (rather than trade relation-ships),we need to evaluate the impact of each country’s ?nal demand change on all other countries’GDPs.In Table 1,for example,the entry at the intersection of Japan’s row and China’s column for 1990is 0.0172.This indicates that in 1990,a 0.0172unit of GDP could be induced in Japan if ?nal demand in China increased by one unit.We use this measure of ‘one unit change of ?nal demand’for all countries for standardization purposes,so that country size effects do not contaminate our observations.In this regard,the column sum of China (0.0266)in 1990represents the total GDP spillover that China brings to the other countries in the region,which can be de?ned as China’s GDP give-out potential.The row sum for Japan (0.5529)shows the total spillover effect that Japan receives from the other countries,which can then be de?ned as Japan’s GDP gain potential.The interdependence between these countries is signi?cant and includes linkages that twenty years ago were not present,or were insigni?cantly so,and that extent across the entire region.

The development of cross-border transfers of value-added can be illustrated by plotting the standardized indices,presented in Fig.2.Notably,Japan has the largest gain potential,but has a small give-out potential to the other countries in our sample.In contrast,the ASEAN countries excluding Indonesia have large give-out potentials but small gain potentials,while Indonesia and NIEs-3are at the immediate level for both potentials.Over ?fteen years,Japan’s gain-potential from the production network and regional value chains participation had reduced.However,its give-out potential (the distribution of its value chains)had somewhat increased and become more regional.China’s gain-potential,spurred by its emergence as an economy of signi?cance,had increased substantially and so had its give-out potential.The data thus indicate that the emergence of China’s economy has resulted in a different and broader regional distribution of production linkages.Japan,in keeping its competitive advantage of highly sophisticated technology and knowledge increased its give-out potential,yet its economy attracts fewer gains.In our analysis,it appears that the Japanese economy is dependent on its high value-added orientation,and its future role as a location in the very dynamic regional production networks may take advantage of greater integration with other Asian countries.

5.3.Pattern of changes in gain and give-out potentials

The pattern of changes in the indices represented in Fig.2for each country demonstrates signi?cant variation across the region.This potential crucially impacts the signi?cance of a country in its role as a location within value chains.For the Philippines,Thailand,Indonesia and China,both gain and give-out potentials increased rapidly from 1990to 2005in general.This is an important indication implying that these four economies receive and give an increasing inter-country effect from and to regional partners in terms of GDP creation and distribution,though relatively weakening in 2005for the Philippines’s give-out.Taiwan mainly enhanced its give-out potentials from 1990to 2005and did so rapidly,while it lost gain potential to some extent.Korea does not show remarkable change for give-out potential until 2000and its gain potential after 1995remained stable.

Singapore and Malaysia’s give-out potentials have decreased remarkably.Singapore is a very small country that enjoys an open economy and achieved international interdependence in the 1990s.When the other Asian economies became more integrated into their regional production networks (Fig.1),Singapore’s presence decreased relatively.Singapore’s give-out potential decreased.In 1990,Singapore showed a very high interdependence on value chain links with Malaysia (Table 1).However,due to the extension of Asian production network,this Malaysia-Singapore link has become relatively weaker and Singapore is linking more so with other Asian countries.

In this period,Japan began with a very high gain potential that has decreased.This can be explained as follows.First,a part of Japan’s production capacity has moved to other developing countries as FDI.This implies that the ?nal demand of these other countries has a decreasing impact on Japan’s GDP creation.A complementary explanation is that the economic growth of China (and its increasing production capacity)makes it a value chain substitute able to replace Japan in providing ?nal goods to other countries.China’s increasing importance results in decreases in other countries,as revealed by the standardized indexes,which accommodate all countries’average levels.

All other countries start with low gain potentials,and mostly they remain low over the ?fteen years.Since the gain potentials of Japan and China are very large,the situation for other countries is not as obvious.However,with the ASEAN and other East Asian economies,some comments are warranted.Why

Fig.1.Spatial economic interdependence in East Asia,1990and 2005.

G.Suder et al./Journal of World Business xxx (2014)xxx–xxx

Japan and China present such large gain potentials?These countries have fully developed sets of production capacity at home,whereas smaller countries have to focus on a selection of speci?c production processes to maintain some attractiveness in regional value chains.If one considers the case of Japan for example,many provinces have a similar economic size as Malaysia,for instance.Malaysia’s evolution is thus similar to that of Singapore.Fig.2thus re?ects the change of a country’s

participation and presence in the GDP creation process by the way of production networks.While Fig.1is a direct image of inter-country interdependence using an international trade perspective,Fig.2permits us to consider both the direct and indirect impact of production networks.Indirect in this context means a country’s ?nal demand may directly induce its partner country’s export,and further,indirectly,this may induce its partner country’s partner’s exports.

Table 1

Cross-border transfer of the value-added creation effect in East Asia:1990–2005(at the relative level).

Taiwan

Japan

Korea

China

Indonesia Malaysia Singapore Thailand Philippines Row sum

Gain potential

1990Taiwan 0.0020

0.00240.00310.00460.01770.01670.00870.00870.06370.6504Japan 0.06080.04590.01720.03930.12330.14930.07910.03810.5529 5.6428Korea 0.00370.00250.0011

0.00420.00980.01060.00590.00560.04340.4426China 0.00040.00330.00030.00460.01060.02100.00900.00330.05250.5359Indonesia 0.00360.00350.00460.00190.0050

0.00950.00180.00310.03300.3364Malaysia 0.00290.00150.00400.00170.00230.0362

0.00950.00430.06240.6363Singapore 0.00190.00040.00090.00070.00300.02530.0050

0.00330.04050.4128Thailand 0.00150.00090.00110.00070.00110.00970.00990.0022

0.02700.2757Philippines 0.00060.00050.00060.00020.00030.00220.00170.00060.00660.0669

Column sum

0.07540.01440.05980.02660.05940.20350.25480.11940.06850.8819

Give-out potential

0.7699

0.1472

0.6104

0.2713

0.6067

2.0766

2.6005

1.21870.69861995Taiwan 0.0015

0.00210.00430.00410.01860.01230.00790.00980.06050.5433Japan 0.06740.0440

0.03190.03400.16900.11690.08510.05040.5987 5.3773Korea 0.00670.00220.0075

0.00580.02090.01800.00780.00700.07590.6819China 0.00580.00510.00850.0049

0.01260.01800.00800.00670.06970.6258Indonesia 0.00490.00230.00460.00230.0076

0.01530.00270.00590.04570.4104Malaysia 0.00440.00140.00300.00220.00250.0283

0.00900.00660.05740.5157Singapore 0.00280.00050.00130.00150.00350.02810.0057

0.00430.04770.4284Thailand 0.00260.00110.00100.00160.00220.01090.01500.0036

0.03810.3425Philippines 0.00090.00040.00070.00020.00030.00300.00180.00090.00830.0746

Column sum

0.09560.01450.06510.05160.05730.27070.22570.12710.0944 1.0020

Give-out potential

0.8588

0.1301

0.5851

0.4634

0.5146

2.4314

2.0274

1.14170.84752000Taiwan 0.0020

0.00290.00930.00430.01770.00770.00870.00800.06070.6166Japan 0.06650.0320

0.02480.02990.11200.08290.06710.04280.4579 4.6514Korea 0.00920.00250.0093

0.00650.01320.00960.00670.01020.06720.6827China 0.00970.00790.01140.0091

0.02040.01920.01420.00750.0993 1.0083Indonesia 0.00510.00270.00540.00250.0134

0.01170.00590.00630.05310.5398Malaysia 0.00430.00170.00300.00200.00460.0309

0.00760.00780.06180.6282Singapore 0.00290.00050.00160.00140.00280.01850.0058

0.00650.04000.4063Thailand 0.00280.00120.00120.00130.00390.01230.00910.0044

0.03620.3679Philippines 0.00130.00060.00080.00050.00050.00290.00130.00170.00970.0989

Column sum

0.10180.01910.05820.05120.06170.21040.17250.11770.09350.8860

Give-out potential

1.0345

0.1937

0.5914

0.5198

0.6265

2.1372

1.7520

1.1956

0.94932005Taiwan 0.0024

0.00300.01250.00370.01160.00720.00910.00850.05800.5426Japan 0.06950.0330

0.03280.02730.05020.05060.07300.02670.3631 3.3970Korea 0.00870.00330.01580.00670.01050.00930.01100.00620.07150.6689China 0.02530.01790.02190.0226

0.03510.04240.03220.01160.2090 1.9553Indonesia 0.00690.00360.00630.00340.0202

0.04190.00860.00580.09670.9047Malaysia 0.00400.00200.00310.00330.00620.0212

0.01320.00540.05840.5464Singapore 0.00250.00080.00360.00220.00800.01500.0069

0.00440.04340.4060Thailand 0.00330.00190.00160.00260.00950.01470.00830.0046

0.04650.4350Philippines 0.00160.00080.00100.00190.00120.00300.00210.00380.01540.1441

Column sum

0.12180.03270.07350.07450.08520.16030.18300.15780.07320.9620

Give-out potential

1.1395

0.3059

0.6876

0.69700.7971

1.4997

1.7121

1.4763

0.6848Change rate (%)between 1990and 2005

Taiwan

2326

298à19à34à575à2à9à17Japan 14à28

91à31à59à66à8à30à34à40Korea 134321373

598à1286116551China 56194436872387

230102260253298265Indonesia 9043780306

34038186193169Malaysia 4037à2391167à41

3927à6à14Singapore 29115289204170à4139

337à2Thailand 1181105027179252à16113

7258Philippines 18172819642783625546135115

Column sum 611272318043à21à283279

Give-out potential 48108

157

à28

à34

à2

Source :Asian International Input-Output Table,1990–2005,IDE-JETRO.

G.Suder et al./Journal of World Business xxx (2014)xxx–xxx

5.4.Value added induced by partners’?nal demand

A matrix of cross-border transfers of value-added activity by origin and destination for the years 1990and 2005identi?es the amount of added-value that a country gains from or delivers into other countries.This is calculated as a proportion of a home-country’s GDP spilling over to other host-countries included in the production network to which its ?rms belong when a ?rm moves production stages from one country to another until the ?nal product is complete,assembled and ultimately delivered to the product’s owner ordered in the home country.Within a fragmented value chain,the induction stage of the main ?nal-product TiVA accumulation for each country can be consumption and production-driven.This is summarized in Fig.3.This ?gure shows how a country’s value added (Country A)is induced by its partner country’s (Country B)?nal demand for a product,thus isolating the value-dimension of production networks of locations.This has been de?ned as Country A’s exports of value-added to Country

B in the international IO model earlier presented.

For China,we observe an increase over time in TiVA obtained from its exports of ?nal products.That of Japan parallels this increase over the same period of time.This can be explained by Japan’s early highly sophisticated production input and the additional impact stemming from the opening up of its markets.However,China surpassed Japan’s early advance with a large TiVA induced by its export of ?nal products (consumption-induced),indicating its rapidly emerging integration into the world economy,but also the potential it holds as a high value market.

Coupled with our data from Fig.1,we observe that the dynamics of the regional production network in our sampled countries became ‘?atter’over the twenty years.That is,the integration of a variety of countries into these dynamics has resulted in a regionally dependent integration,with gain-and give-out focused production hubs around Japan and China that impact the development of an entire region.11As an illustration,this shall be interpreted as follows.For the case of iPhone’s export from China to the USA,the gross (quantitative)export of iPhones is large.However,in terms of value-added,China’s contribution to these exports represents a very small portion to the US in the iPhone

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b018564067.html,ing the international IO model,we can calculate who produces what,how much and for whom.Fig.3is illustrative for our Asian sample.The upper part of this ?gure shows the TiVA at the absolute level.The lower part shows the percentage share of TiVA.The main ?ndings of Fig.3are:

(1)In 1990,imports of value added by Japan dominate the Asian

region’s regional value chains at the absolute level.However,in 2000,China’s imports of value added have increased,but are still lower than Japan’s.As for Taiwan,China’s performance exceeded Japan in 2000.For 2005(after China’s accession to the WTO in 2001),China’s imports of value-added are the largest,followed by Japan.This re?ects the rapidly increasing potential of China to be a growth engine of regional trade through its value-added gain potential.

(2)South Korea’s presence in the gain of value-added from

regional markets also increased rapidly.A similar phenomenon can also be found for the other Asian economies,such as Thailand and Indonesia.This re?ects the increasing participa-tion of relatively large developing economies in the value chains of the Asian region between 1990and 2005.For Taiwan,the similar tendency continues until 2000.However,from 2000to 2005,its presence of value-added transfer with its partner countries excluding China has decreased.

(3)When looking at the components of the TiVA ?gures by

country,we can see that in 1990,the ?nal demands of Japan were the main sources in the value-added creation processes of almost all Asian countries.In 2005,however,China exported much more value-added,especially to the East Asian econo-mies (Japan,South Korea and Taiwan).This indicates that China is not simply a ‘global factory’or ‘supply center’,but also a ‘demand center’,at least for the Asian region.

In addition,considering Fig.4,the features and changing pattern of a country’s industrial value-added exports to its partner countries can be summarized as follows.In 1990,most Asian countries’value-added exports produced by the textile industry were mainly absorbed by ?nal demand in Taiwan and Japan.However,in 2005,Taiwan and Japan’s positions were completely replaced by China.For the chemical and machinery sectors,Japan’s ?nal demand played a dominant role on other Asian countries’value-added creation over time.The increasing presence of China is remarkable.These facts clearly re?ect the observation that China’s ?nal demand is having much larger impacts on the creation of value-added in other Asian countries in the three

industries

Fig.2.GDP gain/give-out potentials of a unit increase.

It should be noted that all explanations concerning the results are under the following assumption:there is no impact through the rest of the world (especially through EU).This is mainly because the data used treat the rest of the world as exogenous.

G.Suder et al./Journal of World Business xxx (2014)xxx–xxx

Fig.3.Cross-border transfer of value-added creation effect in East Asia:1990–2005(at the absolute level,thousand

US$).

Fig.4.Cross-border transfer of value-added creation effect in East Asia:1990–2005(at the industrial level,%).

G.Suder et al./Journal of World Business xxx (2014)xxx–xxx

considered here.This not only re?ects the increasing power of China’s economic size,but also the deepening linkages between China and other Asian countries in this regional value chain pattern.Due to the scale of its ?nal demand,China’s direct imports of ?nal goods from other Asian countries can induce their value-added directly.On the other hand,China’s ?nal demand for domestic goods can also induce large imports of intermediate goods from other Asian countries.Most Asian countries have been the main provider of parts and components to China in these Asian regional value chains.

6.Discussion

The primary empirical ?ndings revealed economic interdepen-dencies in the East Asian region that re?ects locational patterns of value chains in this particularly dynamic region.First,since 1990,Japan had been and remained the dominant member country for East Asian regional production networks to the year 2005.At the same time,China’s emergence is coupled with a signi?cant broadening of the regional dimension of GVCs in Asia toward the end of this time period.Over this time period,Japan’s outstanding gain potential suggests that the production system in East Asia derives from the emergence of supply networks extending from Japanese home-country production bases.This supports our initial hypothesis about the nexus between the economic geography of production networks and regional integration dynamics that emerge from those inter-linkages and which evolve over time.Second,even though other emerging economies in this region are less signi?cant players in the distribution of value-added in the three industries examined here,most of these countries increased the value of at least one index,gain or give-out,over this time period,implying that they have become more ?rmly integrated into the production networks in this region over time.As a group,they now have a signi?cant in?uence in shaping the regional production structure and potentially could dynamically shift the economic geography of the region accordingly.This con?rms the second hypothesis about the roles of developed,emerging and lesser developed economies in the evolution of the distribution of value-added in the industries studied here.

Alongside Japan,the countries that show an increase in give-out potential but a slight decrease in gain potential (i.e.most inclined to the former increased give-out potential)are Korea and Taiwan,leading advanced economies in the region.These are followed by China,Indonesia,Thailand and The Philippines,showing an increase in both potentials,while these countries are known to have signi?cant FDI in?ows from other advanced economies and have rapidly promoted their technological pro?les as a country-speci?c advantage.The remaining two countries,Malaysia and Singapore,decreased in both potentials.

As is evidenced in our analysis,a country with more advanced production technologies tends to be a location engaged more in the upstream segments of the vertical production process (such as the production of manufacturing parts and components)which generally require more advanced production systems and logistics skills (Fukao et al.,2003;Wakasugi,2007).By advancing along the technological trajectory,a location is likely to shift away from being a mere assembler of ?nal products to the more sophisticated production of intermediate items.As a result,it becomes a key supplier of important parts and components to other countries in the region which guarantees its dominant position in the value-added payoff across the regional production networks.This country might then be labeled a hub in the regional production network,with an important and highly integrated in-and out-potential and gain.

We thus identify Japan and Korea,amongst the countries represented here,over this time period,as the most recognized hubs of added-valued across this increasingly integrating region,in terms of production location of intermediate and ?nished products.We also observe the emergence of China toward the end of the time period in 2000,and most signi?cantly in our 2005data,which con?rms the above developmental trajectory.Further,China has also emerged by 2005as the market for high value ?nal products.In general,the give-out and gain potentials depend on both the openness to trade and the technological level of a country in the region.A small country has relatively large give-out potential.This is because a small country could not produce everything to ful?ll its domestic ?nal demand.Its demand on foreign products naturally induces relatively more value-added for its partner countries,which can be re?ected in a relative higher give-out potential (see Singapore and Malaysia’s cases in Fig.2).In addition,if a country can satisfy foreign demands by focusing on high knowledge specialized activities,a relatively higher gain potential can be observed,since high knowledge implies a high value-added rate (see Japan’s case in Fig.2).

As recognized by Jacobides and Hitt (2005),the internationali-zation of productive capabilities has rede?ned the nature of the world economy in that the capacity to undertake manufacturing activity is no longer concentrated exclusively in a few economies in the developed world.With increasing codi?cation of production technologies and the disaggregation of value chains,and the imperative to seek out both cost-and talent (Manning,Massini,&Lewin,2008)competitive production sites,the interfacing of country-speci?c comparative advantage with ?rm-speci?c com-petitive advantage is altering the geography of industrialization.The location choice decision (Mudambi &Venzin,2010)now open to ?rms has been broadened and extended across national borders,and this is altering ?rm boundaries and re?ning the scale and scope of the modern ?rm (Liesch,Buckley,Simonin,&Knight,2012).Whether to externalize the internationalization of production into independent ?rms or whether to internalize productive capability into captive offshored facilities is largely determined by the relative ef?cacy of market transacting (Buckley &Casson,1976;Doh et al.,2009;Kedia &Mukherjee,2009;Liesch et al.,2012;Narula,2012),and a ?rm’s bargaining power (Hennart,2012).Liesch et al.(2012)argue that alongside foreign direct investment,foreign involvement of various forms is rede?ning the scale and the scope of the ?rm in our modern era.Facilitating this rede?nition is the ‘worldwide market for market transactions’a concept they introduce to encapsulate and represent the nature of the modern world economy (Liesch et al.,2012)and which is enabling ?rms large and small from anywhere to access the capabilities of ?rms elsewhere.We thus have provided evidence in support of hypothesis three.

As such,evidence consistent with all three hypotheses which elaborate the research question:what are the locational patterns of trade in value-added in East Asia and how are these patterns changing over time ,has been presented.We contribute to the locational choice in international business and economic geography litera-tures in that we have provided a rationale for the changing structure of production hubs in East Asia.Trade in value-added is rede?ning the region.We have offered an approach,new to the IB ?eld through an application of IO analysis,that has enabled us to reveal how trade in value-added is shaping the regional economics landscape in East-Asia through the activities of MNEs and other ?rms as they seek out productive capabilities across the region.Not only is trade in ?nished product conditioning this landscape,but as we demonstrate,economies throughout the region at different stages of economic development,are enabling a dynamic pattern of integration to evolve as these ?rms take decisions on the location of value-added production.The multi-disciplinarity of

G.Suder et al./Journal of World Business xxx (2014)xxx–xxx

these processes is in evidence.Macroeconomic rationales for these patterns of international production are conjoint with the microeconomic decisions of ?rms,and the resulting patterns are tracing out a regional integration as would be likely if a formalized process of RTA/FTA were to occur.Questions of political motiva-tions for formalized integration that have been asked of the region have been at least partially addressed in that our analyses have shown the decisions of ?rms seeking ef?ciencies in the production of value-added,and of its trade,can produce a regional integration in the absence of formalized macro-level agreements.

Consistent with the resource dependency theory (Pfeffer &Salancik,1978),?rms no longer internalize production activity to the extent they once did (when market imperfections were more widespread and a barrier to exchange),and their internationaliza-tion in search of talent and cost-ef?ciency –productive capability –is achieving economic interdependence through regional integra-tion,and is de?ning a ‘‘...‘new geography of competition’...and the increasingly complex interplay between states,economic regional blocs ...and semi-autonomous regions’’(Buckley &Ghauri,2004:91).This new geography of competition is one in which a ?rm’s ownership-speci?c assets interact with the location-speci?c assets of countries elsewhere in different ways that are constrained by the ?rm’s FSAs and its home-country origins,and these differences are pronounced for countries at different stages of economic development (Narula,2012).However,as to whether new frameworks are needed to explain these processes for internationalizing ?rms from countries at different stages of economic development remains an open question,with persuasive argument suggesting new frameworks are not needed (Narula,2012;Verbeke &Kano,2012).

The implications of this study support the importance of addressing CSA factors in greater depth,as these have only been discussed in broad terms in this paper.The interactions between CSAs and the FSAs inherited by ?rms due to their country of origins,and how these might develop over time as the ?rm involves itself across borders is emerging to be a topic of interest in the international business ?eld.Also needing attention is the question of how analysis of consumption hubs might potentially in?uence the patterns revealed here.How important to regional interde-pendence is the role of large MNEs from inside and from outside this Asian region?What is the role of government in the long-term development of regional integration,and in the deployment of regional trade agreements (RTAs)in this region,and the interfaces of this region with beyond?From our analysis,it appears that RTAs in,or with,this East Asia region are negotiated mainly amongst high gain-potential countries.A more extensive analysis of this phenomenon will be illuminating.Will China’s role be affected by FTAs between South Korea and the EU or the US,or with Japan in this context?Finally,the forthcoming publication of new and more recent IO data will permit further longitudinal analysis.Desirably,additional extension to a comparative study with the US and European IO data will be revealing as to whether the patterns we have observed are universal,and how they can be used to analyze the results of business strategy at the global level.

7.Conclusions

The three main ?ndings from our IO analysis over the period 1990through to 2005are:(1)Japan retains its outstanding gain-potential throughout the period studied and displays a basic layer of supply networks extending from Japanese production bases;(2)most of the countries represented here increased the value of at least one index,and have become more ?rmly integrated into the regional production networks over time,creating hubs of intensive gain and give-out potential;and (3)a country’s level of integration

is likely to be explained by its production technology (through IO analysis)and its CSAs.

We report clear indications that regional integration is aligned in the East Asian region with value-adding production network activities and that this integration is informal in that it is motivated by the decisions of ?rms as they internationalize in search of productive capabilities outside of the ?rm.This aligns with Verbeke and Kano (2012:138)in that ‘‘the key determinant of the MNE’s geographic scope is the ?rm’s ability to recombine FSAs with CSAs in order to reach its strategic goals’’.It also aligns with Narula (2012)in that diversity in regional CSAs will determine the initial FSAs of internationalizing ?rms which will condition their internationalization strategies as they search for productive capabilities to internalize through various forms of international involvement regionally (Liesch et al.,2012).The patterns of production ?ows we observe are motivated primarily by ?rm strategy as little formal institutional-mandated regional integra-tion,as is the case in the EU,is in place in East Asia.We contribute to the Buckley and Ghauri (2004)call for the international business scholarly community to address a shortfall in spatial analyses of the geographical and temporal spread of international business activity in the light of the new international division of labor,global commodity chains and regional production networks.

Acknowledgements

This is to acknowledge the co-support/-funding received by the Jean Monnet Chair,held by Prof.G.Suder,at SKEMA Business School,2011–2014,from the European Union/EACEA.We also acknowledge the institutional support received from all universi-ties concerned.Prof.Suder would also like to express her gratitude to the University of Melbourne and speci?cally,Melbourne Business School,for support in the ?nal phase of this publication.Finally,we are grateful for the valuable contribution of the anonymous reviewers and the great support by the Editorial Board and team of JWB.

References

Amin,A.(1999).An institutionalist perspective on regional economic development.

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,23:365–378.

Ando,M.(2006).Fragmentation and vertical intra-industry trade in East Asia.North

American Journal of Economics and Finance,17:257–281.

Aoyama,Y.,Rigby,D.,Rodr?

′guez-Pose,A.,&Yeung,H.W.(2011).Emerging themes in economic geography:Outcomes of the economic geography 2010Workshop.Economic Geography,87:111–126.

Banalieva, E.R.,&Santoro,M. D.(2009).Local,regional,or global?Geographic

orientation and relative ?nancial performance of emerging market multinational enterprises.European Management Journal,27(5):344–355.

Bello,D.,&Kostova,T.(2012).From the Editors:Conducting high impact international

business research:The role of theory.Journal of International Business Studies,43:537–543.

Bchir,M.H.,&Fouquin,M.(2006).Economic integration in Asia:Bilateral free trade

agreements versus Asian single market,CEPII Working Paper 2006-15,October..Bebbington,A.(2003).Global networks and local developments:Agendas for devel-opment geography.Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geogra?e,94:297–309.Beechler,S.,&Yang,J.Z.(1994).The transfer of Japanese-style management to

American subsidiaries:Contingencies,constraints,and competencies.Journal of International Business Studies,25:467–491.

Bell,M.,&Albu,M.(1999).Knowledge systems and technological dynamism in

industrial clusters in developing countries.World Development,27:1715–1734.Beugelsdijk,S.(2007).The regional environment and a ?rm’s innovative performance:

A plea for a multilevel interactionist approach.Economic Geography,83(2):181–199.

Buckley,P.J.(Ed.).(2011).Globalization and the global factory .Cheltenham:Edward

Elgar.

Buckley,P.J.,&Casson,M.C.(1976).The future of the multinational enterprise .London:

Macmillan.

Buckley,P.J.,&Ghauri,P.N.(2004).Globalisation,economic geography and the

strategy of MNEs.Journal of International Business Studies,35(2):81–98.

Cantwell,J.,&Mudambi,R.(2005).MNE competence –Creating subsidiary mandates.

Strategic Management Journal,26(12):1109–1128.

Cantwell,J.,&Mudambi,R.(2011).Physical attraction and the geography of knowledge

sourcing in multinational enterprises.Global Strategy Journal,1:206–232.

G.Suder et al./Journal of World Business xxx (2014)xxx–xxx

Chen,W.-H.(1999).Manufacturing strategies of network-based small ?rms:Observa-tions on the textile industry in Taiwan.Journal of Small Business Management,37:46–62.

Chen,Y.(1996).Impact of regional factors on productivity in China.Journal of Regional

Science,36:417–436.

Cherry,J.(2011).Making friends with the hydra European expectations of the EU-Korea

free trade agreement.European Journal of East Asian Studies,10(1):59–83.

Collinson,S.,&Rugman,A.M.(2007).The regional character of Asian multinational

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b018564067.html, Paci?c Journal of Management,24:429–446.

Dedrick,J.,Kraemer,K.L.,&Linden,G.(2010).Who pro?ts from innovation in global

value chains?A study of the iPod and notebook PCs.Industrial and Corporate Change,19(1):81–116.

Doh,J.,Bunyaratavej,K.,&Hahn,E.(2009).Separable but not equal:The location

determinants of discrete services offshoring activities.Journal of International Business Studies,40(6):926–943.

Dunning,J.H.(1977).Trade,location of economic activity and the MNE:A search for an

eclectic approach.In B.Ohlin,P.O.Hesselborn,&P.M.Wijkmon (Eds.),The international allocation of economic activity (pp.395–418).London:Macmillan.Dunning,J.H.(1998).Location and the multinational enterprise:A neglected factor?

Journal of International Business Studies,29(1):45–66.

Dunning,J.H.,Fujita,M.,&Yakova,N.(2007).Some macro-data on the regionalisation/

globalisation debate:A comment on the Rugman/Verbeke analysis.Journal of International Business Studies,38(1):177–199.

Eden,L.,&Miller,S.(2001).Opening the black box:Multinationals and the costs of

doing business abroad.Academy of Management Proceedings &Membership Direc-tory,C1–C6.

Ernst,D.,&Guerrieri,P.(1998).International production networks and changing trade

patterns in East Asia:The case of the electronics industry.Oxford Development Studies,26(2):191–212.

Ernst,D.,&Kim,L.(2002).Global production networks,knowledge diffusion,and local

capability formation.Research Policy,31(8–9):1417–1429.

Fan,C.C.,&Scott,A.J.(2003).Industrial agglomeration and development:A survey of

spatial economic issues in East Asia and a statistical analysis of Chinese regions.Economic Geography,79(3):295–319.

Ford,J.B.,Karande,K.W.,&Seifert,B.M.(1998).The role of economic freedom in

explaining penetration of consumer durables.Journal of World Business,33(1):69–86.

Fratianni,M.,&Oh,C.H.(2009).Expanding RTAs,trade ?ows,and the multinational

enterprise.Journal of International Business Studies,40:1206–1227.

Fukao,K.,Ishido,H.,&Ito,K.(2003).Vertical intra-industry trade and foreign direct

investment in East Asia.Journal of the Japanese and International Economies,17:468–506.

Geref?,G.(1999).International trade and industrial upgrading in the apparel com-modity chain.Journal of International Economics,48:37–70.

Ghemawat,P.(2003).Semi-globalization and international business strategy.Journal of

International Business Studies,34(2):138–152.

Greenaway,D.(1987a).The new theories of intra-industry trade.Bulletin of Economic

Research,39(2):95–120.

Greenaway,D.(1987b).Intra-industry trade,intra-?rm trade and European integra-tion:Evidence,gains and policy aspects.Journal of Common Market Studies,26(2):153–172.

Grossman,G.M.,&Rossi-Hansberg,E.(2008).Trading tasks:A simple theory of

offshoring.American Economic Review,98(5):1978–1997.

Henderson,J.(1998).Danger and opportunity in the Asia-Paci?c.In G.Thompson (Ed.),

Economic dynamism in the Asia-Paci?c (pp.356–384).New York:Routledge.

Hennart,J.-F.(2012).Emerging market multinationals and the theory of the multina-tional enterprise.Global Strategy Journal,2(3):168–187.

Humphrey,J.,&Schmitz,H.(2002).How does insertion in global value chains affect

upgrading in industrial clusters.Regional Studies,39(6):1017–1027.IDE-JETRO.(1998).Asian International Input-Output Table 1990,IDE-SDS,81..IDE-JETRO.(2001).Asian International Input-Output Table 1995,IDE-SDS,82..IDE-JETRO.(2006).Asian International Input-Output Table 2000,IDE-SDS,89,90..

Isogai,T.,Morishita,H.,&Ru

¨ffer,R.(2002).Analysis of intra-and inter-regional trade in East Asia:Comparative advantage structures and dynamic interdependency in trade ?ows.Bank of Japan,International department working paper series 02-E-1,Tokyo,Japan..

Jacobides,M.G.,&Hitt,L.M.(2005).Losing sight of the forest for the trees:Productive

capabilities and gains from trade as drivers of vertical scope.Strategic Management Journal,26:1209–1227.

James,W.J.,&Movshuk,O.(2003).Comparative advantage in Japan,Korea,and Taiwan

between 1980and 1999:Testing for convergence and implications for closer economic relations.The Developing Economies,41(3):287–308.

Johanson,J.,&Vahlne,J.-E.(1977).The internationalization process of the ?rm –A

model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments.Journal of International Business Studies,8(1):23–32.

Johanson,J.,&Vahlne,J.-E.(2009).The Uppsala internationalization process model

revisited:From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership.Journal of International Business Studies,40(9):1411–1431.

Johnson,R.,&Noguera,G.(2012).Accounting for intermediates:Production sharing

and trade in value-added.Journal of International Economics,86:224–236.

Jormanainen,I.,&Koveshnikov,A.(2010).Theoretical and empirical research on

emerging market multinationals:Current state and future directions.36th Euro-pean International Business Academy Conference .

Kali,R.,&Reyes,J.(2007).The architecture of globalization:A network approach to

international economic integration.Journal of International Business Studies,38:595–620.

Kamin

′ski, B.,&Smarzynsk Javorcik, B.K.(2001).Foreign direct investment and integration into global production and distribution networks.World Bank working paper 1813-9450,New York..

Kaplinsky,R.(2000).Globalisation and unequalisation:What can be learned from

value chain analysis?Journal of Development Studies,37(2):117–146.

Kawai,M.(2005).East Asian economic regionalism:Progress and challenges.Journal of

Asian Economics,16:29–55.

Kedia,B.,&Mukherjee,D.(2009).Understanding offshoring:A research framework

based on disintegration,location and externalization advantages.Journal of World Business,44(3):250–261.

Kimura,F.,&Ando,M.(2003).Fragmentation and agglomeration matter:Japanese

multinationals in Latin America and East Asia.North American Journal of Economics and Finance,14:287–317.

Kogut,B.,&Zander,U.(1993).Knowledge of the ?rm and the evolutionary theory

of the multinational enterprise.Journal of International Business Studies,24(4):625–645.

Koopman,R.,Wang,Z.,&Wei,S.J.(2014).Tracing value-added and double counting in

gross exports.American Economic Review,104(2):1–37.and NBER wp18579(2012).

Krueger,A.(1999).Are preferential trading arrangements trade-liberalizing or protec-tionist?Journal of Economic Perspectives,13(4):105–124.

Lawton,T.,Lindeque,J.,&McGuire,S.(2009).Multilateralism and the multinational

enterprise.Business and Politics,11(2).

Leontief,W.(1966).Input-output economics .New York:Oxford University Press.

Liesch,P.W.,Buckley,P.J.,Simonin,B.L.,&Knight,G.(2012).Organising the modern

?rm in the worldwide market for market transactions.Management International Review,52(1):3–21.

Linden,G.,Dedrick,J.,&Kraemer,K.L.(2009).Innovation and job creation in a global

economy:The case of Apple’s iPod.Working Paper ,Personal Computing Industry Center,UC Irvine..

Luo,Y.(2011).Keynote speech:China goes global.5th China goes global conference .

Cambridge,MA:Harvard Kennedy School.

Manning,S.,Massini,S.,&Lewin,A.Y.(2008).A dynamic perspective on next-generation offshoring:The global sourcing of science and engineering talent.Academy of Management Perspectives,22(3):35–54.Marshall,A.(1919).Industry and trade .London:Macmillan.

Mathews,J.(2002).Competitive advantages of the latecomer ?rm:A resource-based

account of industrial catch-up https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b018564067.html, Paci?c Journal of Management,19:467–488.

Maurer,A.,&Degain,C.(2010).Globalization and trade ?ows:What you see is not what

you get!WTO Staff Working Paper ,ERSD-2010-12..

McGuire,S.M.,Lindeque,J.P.,&Suder,G.(2011).Learning and lobbying:Emerging

market ?rms and corporate political activity in Europe.European Journal of International Management,6(3):342–362.

Meng,B.,Yamano,N.,&Fang,Y.(2012).International economic interdependence and

global value chains:An international input-output analysis.IDE Discussion Paper ,362..

Meng,B.,Yamano,N.,&Webb,C.(2011).Application of factor decomposition tech-niques to vertical specialisation measurements.Journal of Applied Input-Output Analysis,16.

Miller,R.,&Blair,P.(1985).Input-output analysis:Foundations and extensions .Engle-wood Cliffs,New Jersey:Prentice-Hall.

Miller,R.,&Blair,P.(2009).Input-output analysis:Foundations and extensions .Cam-bridge:Cambridge University Press.

Morck,R.,Yeung,B.,&Zhao,M.(2008).Perspectives on China’s outward foreign direct

investment.Journal of International Business Studies,39:337–350.

Morlino,L.,&Magen,A.(2009).Methods of in?uence,layers of impact,cycles of

change:A framework for analysis.In L.Morlino &A.Magen (Eds.),International actors,democratization and the rule of law:Anchoring democracy?(pp.26–52).New York:Routledge.

Mudambi,R.(2008).Location,control and innovation in knowledge-intensive indus-tries.Journal of Economic Geography,8:699–725.

Mudambi,R.,&Venzin,M.(2010).The strategic nexus of offshoring and outsourcing

decisions.Journal of Management Studies,47(8):1510–1533.

Murray,P.(2010).Comparative regional integration in the EU and East Asia:Moving

beyond integration snobbery.International Politics,47:308–323.

Musteen,M.,Francis,J.,&Datta,D.K.(2010).The in?uence of international networks

on internationalization speed and performance:A study of Czech SMEs.Journal of World Business,45(3):197–205.

Narula,R.(2012).Do we need different frameworks to explain infant MNEs from

developing countries?Global Strategy Journal,2(3):188–204.

Neffke,M.H.,&Boschma,R.(2011).How do regions diversify over time?Industry

relatedness and the development of new growth paths in regions.Economic Geography,87:237–265.

Nonaka,I.,&Johansson,J.K.(1985).Japanese management:What about the ‘‘hard’’

skills?Academy of Management Review,10(2):181–191.

OECD &WTO.(2013).Measuring trade in value added:An OECD-WTO joint initiative .

Paris.Retrieved from https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b018564067.html,/industry/ind/measuringtradeinvalue-addedanoecd-wtojointinitiative.htm

Ohmae,K.(1985).Triad power:The coming shape of global competition .New York:The

Free Press.

Park,S.O.(1993).Industrial restructuring and spatial division of labor:The case of the

Seoul metropolitan region,the Republic of Korea.Environment and Planning,25:81–93.

Piekkari,R.,Nell,P.,&Ghauri,P.(2010).Regional management as a system.Manage-ment International Review,50(4):513–532.

G.Suder et al./Journal of World Business xxx (2014)xxx–xxx

Petri,P.A.(1993).The East Asian trading bloc:An analytical history.In J.A.Frankel &M.

Kahler (Eds.),Regionalism and rivalry (A National Bureau of economic research conference report)(pp.21–52).Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Petri,P.A.(2006).Is East Asia becoming more interdependent?Journal of Asian

Economics,17:381–394.

Pfeffer,J.,&Salancik,G.R.(1978).The external control of organizations:A resource

dependence perspective .New York:Harper and Row.

Pula,G.,&Peltonen,T.(2009).Has emerging Asia decoupled?An analysis of production

and trade linkages using the Asian international input-output table.European Central Bank –Eurosystem ,Working Paper Series No.993,Frankfurt..

Raines,P.(2003).Flows and territories:The new geography of competition for mobile

investment in Europe.In N.A.Phelps &P.Raines (Eds.),The new competition for inward investment (pp.119–135).Cheltenham:Edward Elgar.

Riviera,M.,&Suder,G.(2013).Dynamic capabilities for successful strategic renewal:

Internationalization and sourcing capabilities.EURAM conference proceedings,EURAM 2013annual conference .

Rugman,A.M.(2005).The regional multinationals:MNEs and global strategic manage-ment .Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Rugman,A.M.,&Collinson,S.(2005).Multinational enterprises in the new Europe:Are

they really global?Kelley School of Business Working Papers 2005-12.Indiana University,Kelley School of Business,Department of Business Economics and Public Policy..

Rugman,A.M.,&Li,J.(2007).Will China’s multinationals succeed globally or region-ally?European Management Journal,25(5):333–343.

Rugman,A.M.,&Oh,C.H.(2010).Does the regional nature of multinationals affect the

multinationality and performance relationship?International Business Review,19(5):479–488.

Rugman,A.M.,&Verbeke,A.(2004).A perspective on regional and global strategies of

multinational enterprises.Journal of International Business Studies,35:3–18.

Rugman,A.M.,&Verbeke,A.(2005).Towards a theory of regional multinationals:A

transaction cost economics approach.Management International Review,45(1):5–17.

Scott,A.J.(1988).Metropolis:From the division of labor to urban form .Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Sethi,D.,&Judge,W.(2009).Reappraising liabilities of foreignness within an integrat-ed perspective of the costs and bene?ts of doing business abroad.International Business Review,18(4):404–416.

Sierra,O.(2011).Shaping the neighbourhood?The EU’s impact on Georgia.Europe-Asia

Studies,63(8):1377–1398.

Stehrer,R.(2012).Trade in value added and value added in trade.WIIW Working

Paper ,81..

Stiglitz,J.E.(1996).Some lessons from the East Asian miracle.World Bank Research

Observer,11(2):151–177.

Suder,G.(2011).Globalisation,really,is a regional FTA .Chiba:JETRO-IDE.

Tang,H.K.(1996).Hollowing-out or international division of labour?Perspective from

the consumer electronics industry and Singapore.International Journal of Technol-ogy Management,12:231–241.

Tsay,C.-L.(1993).Industrial restructuring and international competition in Taiwan.

Environment and Planning,25:111–120.

UNCTAD (2007).Trade and development report,UNCTAD/TDR/2007.Geneva:United

Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

UNCTAD/Investment Report (2009).Transnational corporation,agricultural production

and development,Investment report 2009.Geneva:United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

Verbeke,A.,&Kano,L.(2012).An internalization theory rationale for MNE regional

strategy.Multinational Business Review,20(2):135–152.

Vernon,R.(1966).International investment and international trade in the product

cycle.Quarterly Journal of Economics,80:190–207.

Vernon,R.(1974).The location of economic activity.In J.H.Dunning (Ed.),

Economic analysis and the multinational enterprise (pp.89–114).London:Allen and Unwin.

Wakasugi,R.(2007).Vertical intra-industry trade and economic integration in East

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b018564067.html,n Economic Papers,6(1):26–39.

Wells,L.T.(Ed.).(1972).The product life cycle and international trade .Cambridge,MA:

Harvard University Press.

Widodo,T.(2009).Dynamics and convergence of trade specialization in East https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b018564067.html,

Paci?c Journal of Economics &Business,13(1):31–75.

World Bank (2012).China 2030report .Washington,DC:World Bank.

WTO-IDE (2011).Trade patterns and global value chains in East Asia:From trade in goods

to trade in tasks .Printed by the WTO Secretariat.

Xing,Y.,&Detert,N.(2010).How the iPhone widens the United States trade de?cit with

the People’s Republic of China.ADBI Working Paper ,257..

Zaheer,S.(1995).Overcoming the liability of foreignness.Academy of Management

Journal,38(2):341–363.

G.Suder et al./Journal of World Business xxx (2014)xxx–xxx

英美概况(英国篇1：英国的国土与人民 )

I. Different Names for Britain and its Parts 英国的不同名称及其各组成部分 1.Geographical names: the British Isles, Great Britain and England. 地理名称：不列颠群岛，大不列颠和英格兰。 2.Official name: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 官方正式名称：大不列颠及北爱尔兰联合王国。 3.The British Isles are made up of two large islands-Great Britain (the larger one) and Ireland, and hundreds of small ones. 不列颠群岛由两个大岛-大不列颠岛（较大的一个）和爱尔兰岛，及成千上万个小岛组成。 4.Three political divisions on the island of Great Britain: England, Scotland and Wales. 大不列颠岛上有三个政治区：英格兰、苏格兰和威尔士。 (1) England is in the southern part of Great Britain. It is the largest, most populous section. 英格兰位于大不列颠岛南部，是最大，人口最稠密的地区。 (2) Scotland is in the north of Great Britain. It has three natural zones (the Highlands in the north; the Central lowlands; the south Uplands) Capital: Edinburgh 苏格兰位于大不列颠的北部。它有三大自然区：北部高地，中部低地及南部山陵。首府：爱丁堡。 (3) Wales is in the west of Great Britain. Capital: Cardiff 威尔士位于大不列颠的西部。首府：加的夫 (4) Northern Ireland is the fourth region of the UK. Capital: Belfast. 北爱尔兰是英国第四个区域。首府：贝尔法斯特。 5.The Commonwealth (of nations) is a free association of independent countries that were once colonies of Britain. It was founded in 1931, and has 50 member countries until 1991. 英联邦是曾为英国殖民地的、但现已独立国家所构成的自由联合体。它成立于1931年，至1990年止已有50个成员国。 II. Geographical Features 英国的地理特征 1.Geographical position of Britain: 英国的地理位置： Britain is an island country surrounded by the sea. It lies in the North Atlantic Ocean off the north coast of Europe. It is separated from the rest of Europe by the English Channel in the south and the North Sea in the east. 英国是一个岛国。它位于大西洋北部，与欧洲大陆的北海岸隔海相望。南面的英吉利海峡和东面的北海将它与欧洲其它部分隔开。 2.The north and west of Britain are mainly highlands; and the east and southeast are mostly lowlands. 英国的西部和北部主要是高地，东部和东南部主要是低地。 III. Rivers and Lakes 河流与湖泊

英美概况考试重点复习材料(英国部分)

英美概况考试重点复习材料（英国部分）英美概况考试重点复习材料（英国部分） Chapter 1第一章 Land and People 英国的国土与人民 I. Different Names for Britain and its Parts 英国的不同名称及其各组成部分 1.Geographical names: the British Isles, Great Britain and England. 地理名称：不列颠群岛，大不列颠和英格兰。 2. Official name: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 官方正式名称：大不列颠及北爱尔兰联合王国。 3. The British Isles are made up of two large islands-Great Britain (the larger one) and Ireland, and hundreds of small ones.不列颠群岛由两个大岛—大不列颠岛（较大的一个）和爱尔兰岛，及成千上万个小岛组成。 4. Three political divisions on the island of Great Britain: England, Scotland and Wale大不列颠岛上有三个政治区：英格兰、苏格兰和威尔士。

(1) England is in the southern part of Great Britain. It is the largest, most populous section.英格兰位于大不列颠岛南部，是最大，人口最稠密的地区。 (2) Scotland is in the north of Great Britain. It has three natural zones (the Highlands in the north; the Central lowlands; the south Uplands) Capital: Edinburgh 苏格兰位于大不列颠的北部。它有三大自然区：北部高地，中部低地及南部山陵。首府：爱丁堡。 (3) Wales is in the west of Great Britain. Capital: Cardiff 威尔士位于大不列颠的西部。首府：加的夫 (4) Northern Ireland is the fourth region of the UK. Capital: Belfast.北爱尔兰是英国第四个区域。首府：贝尔法斯特。 5. The monwealth (of nations) is a free association of independent countries that were once colonies of Britain. It was founded in 1931, and has about 50 member countries until 1991. 英联邦是独立的前英国殖民地组成的自由联合体。它成立于1931 年，至1990年止已有约50个成员国。 Chapter 2 第二章 The Origins of a Nation (5000BC-1066)英国的起源（公元前5000年—1066年）

人文知识英国地理(含图片详解)

人文知识英国：概述简称：UK，Britain（英国，不列颠）, United Kingdom （联合王国）; 全称: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland(大不列颠及北爱尔兰联合王国) . 地理位置：位于欧洲大陆临近西北海岸线的国家 a state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe ; surrounded by （被…包围）the Atlantic Ocean(大西洋)，the North Sea(北海)，the English Channel（英吉利海峡）and the Irish Sea(爱尔兰海)。 Four parts: England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland 与爱尔兰共和国（The Republic of Ireland）接壤：the only part of UK that shares a land border with another sovereign state. 国旗（National Flag）: Union Flag, Union Jack. Made up of the individual Flags of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. 国歌（National Anthem）: God Save the Queen/King(天佑女王/吾王) A patriotic song first performed in 1745; became known as the National Anthem from the beginning of the nineteenth century. 国庆日（National Day）: 无正式国庆日；the Queen’s Official Birthday(the second Saturday of June)英女王的官方诞辰即6月第二个星期六。（6 2 6）

英国旅游资源介绍

世界旅游地理

英国旅游资源介绍 ( xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx学院 xx级xxxxxxxx班 xxxxxxxx xxxxx ) 摘要：英国是个旅游资源丰富的国家，文物古迹比比皆是，自然风景秀色可餐，还有着独特的社会风情，旅游资源十分丰富。本论文将从英国的自然环境、人文概况、社会风情、著名景点四个方面来分析英国得天独厚的旅游资源。关键词：英国景点旅游资源一、自然环境英国是欧洲西部、大西洋中的岛国，由大不列颠岛、爱尔兰岛东北部及附近的一些小岛组成。英国属于典型的温带海洋性气候，多云雾。英国受盛行西风控制，全年温和湿润，四季寒暑变化不大。每年二月至三月最为干燥，十月至来年一月最为湿润。塞文河、泰晤士河为境内主要河流，湖泊众多。东南部的田园风光有“英格兰花园”之誉，“花园”中一座四季如春的小城坎特伯雷是英国基督教圣地;西南拥有全国最温暖的海滨和历史名城巴斯；北部奔宁山西侧是山清水秀、风光迤逦的大片湖区；南部的埃夫伯里及巨石阵遗址世界闻名；苏格兰地区山高谷深、林草茂密，其迷人的自然风光和尼斯湖水怪吸引了世界各地的游客；南部的爱丁堡是著名的文化名城，其峭壁嶙峋的死火山、冰川侵蚀的山谷、巍峨的宫殿教堂和丰富的收藏以及古风犹存的建筑使爱丁堡赢得了“欧洲最美丽的城市”及“北方雅典”的美誉。二、人文概况英国是个有着深厚文化底蕴的国家，文物古迹众多，人文资源丰富。许多城市，如“万城之花”伦敦、“北方雅典”爱丁堡、大学城牛津、剑桥、古色古香的约克城、莎翁故乡斯特拉特福都是享有世界声誉的旅游名城。伦敦从古代罗马帝国以来一直保持着自己的悠久传统，这里的每一个角落都有历史遗痕在诉说过去，这里的大街小巷都流露着历尽霜雪的风采。如果到伦敦塔或威斯敏斯特大教堂去探寻游览，一刹那间，你会觉得似乎又回到了数百年前，而为迎接千禧年而建造的英航“伦敦眼”则会令你为之一振。而伯明翰呈现出来的则是另一番景象。这里只有少数的高楼大厦，大部分建筑都是维多利亚式的二层楼房，古朴典雅。伯明翰是英国近年来发展迅速的文化

英美概况(英国篇5大英帝国的兴衰_)

英美概况（英国篇5:大英帝国的兴衰 ) I. Whigs and Tories 辉格党人和托利党人 These two party names originated with the Glorious Revolution (1688). 这两个政党名称皆起源于1688年的光荣革命。 The Whig were those who opposed absolute monarchy and supported the right to religious freedom for Nonconformists. The Whig were to form a coalition with dissident Tories in the mid-19th century and become the Liberal Party. 辉格党人是指那些反对绝对王权，支持新教徒宗教自由权利的人。辉格党人在 19世纪中叶与持不同意见的托利党人组盟组成自由党。 The Tories were those who supported hereditary monarchy and were reluctant to remove kings. The Tories were the forerunners of the Conservative Party. 托利党人是指那些支持世袭王权、不愿去除国王的人。托利党是保守党的前身。 I. Agricultural Changes in the Late 18th Century 18世纪末的农业革命 During the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the "open-field" system ended when the Enclosure Act was passed. The movement lasted for centuries. Agricultural enclosure had good as well as bad results: 18世纪末、19世纪初的农业革命期间，随着《圈地法》的颁布，传统的"开放田地"制结束。圈地运动持续了将近一个多世纪。农业圈地运动的利弊共存：（1） Farms became bigger and bigger units as the great bought up the small; 由于大农场兼并了小农场，农场成为越来越在的生产单位；（2） More vegetables, more milk and more dairy produce were consumed, and diet became more varied; 人们消费的蔬菜，牛奶及奶制品越来越多，饮食种类愈加丰富；（3） Enclosure was a disaster for the tenants evicted from their lands by the enclosures. These peasant farmers were forced to look for work in towns. Enclosure led to mass emigration, particularly to the New World; 圈地对佃家而言是场灾难，他们被赶出土地，被迫到城镇找工作。圈地运动导致了大规模的移民，尤其是移民至新大陆。（4） A new class hostility was introduced into rural relationships. 农村关系中产生了新的阶级对立。 II. The Industrial Revolution (1780-1830) 工业革命（1780-1830） 1．The industrial Revolution refers to the mechanization of industry and the consequent changes in social and economic organization in Britain in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. 工业革命指的是17世纪末、18世纪初英国工业的机械化，以及因此而导致的社会结构和经济结构的变化。

英美概况-英国地理小结

●Great Britain ●Geographical features and the People 1.The British Isles are situated in the northwest part of the Europe. 2.Britain ruled an empire that had 1/4 of the world’s people and 1/4 of the world’s land area. It had colonies in North America, Asia, Africa and Australia. 3.The empire maintains links through a loose organization—Commonwealth of Nations英联邦. 4.Official name: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 5.大不列颠和英国的关系：Great Britain【England+Scotland+Wales(英伦三岛)】 +Northern Ireland=The UK 6.The UK—Capital:London Scotland is in the north of Great Britain. --Capital: Edinburgh. Wales is in the west of Great Britain. -- Capital: Cardiff 7.Northern Ireland is the fourth region of the UK. --- Capital: Belfast. 8.英国地势：-- Rising in North-West causes highlands -- Sinking in South-East causes lowlands 9.英国地势优点Advantage: No part of Britain is very far from the coast and it provides a valuable resource. The British coast is long and has good, deep harbors. Sea routes extend far inland, providing cheap transportation. 10.最重要河流：The Thames – the best-known 最长河：The Severn – the longest river 最高山：Ben Nevis(位于Scotland)-the highest mountain 最大山脉：Pennines奔宁山脉(位于England) Pennines: the backbone of England 11.Scotland：Capital--Edinburgh 1)the 2nd largest of the 4 nations 2)famous for its great castle 3)尼斯湖水怪(Loch Ness-Nessie) 12.Wales：Capital:--Cardiff 威尔士人是凯尔特人(Celt)的后裔，会讲Celtic(凯尔特语). 13.英国气候:maritime climate海洋性气候 14.London:世界第四大城市，世界三大经融中心之一，政治经济文化中心标志性建筑：Buckingham Palace,Big Ben,London Eye,Tower of London,Tower Bridge 15.The United Kingdom has been a member of European Union since 1973 Britain is now a Multiracial society which produces a population of which 1 in 20 are of non-European ethnicity. London plays a significant role in Britain’s economic and cultural life. It’s not only the financial center of the nation, but also one of the three major international financial centers in the world.

完整word版,英美概况括考前知识点总结,推荐文档

英国概况 1，英国名称：The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) 2，地理位置：Great Britain is the largest island of the British Isles, the largest island in Europe and the eighth-largest island in the world. It lies to the northwest of Continental Europe, with Ireland to the west, and makes up the largest part of the territory of the state known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is surrounded by over 1,000[citation needed] smaller islands and islets. 或者回答British mainland western Europe from Great Britain and Ireland, north-east and many nearby islands， She east by the North Sea, the Atlantic Ocean to the west, up to the North Atlantic off Iceland, Yugoslavia and the European continent, separated only by a strip of water, the English Channel 3, 英国首都：London 4,组成部分：England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland 5,民族：England Welsh、Scotch、Irish 6, 英国国旗：the Union Flag英国国歌：God Save The Queen 天佑女7，三次外族入侵：ⅠRoman Conquest；43AD, the roman empire

英美概况内容及翻译

英美概况复习此为大学英语专业考试内容，下文含翻译。 USA I. Geography 1. Geographic Features 1.1 The Eastern Highlands Formed by the Appalachian Range.? 1. An average elevation of 800 meters above the sea level.? 2. The highest peak:? Mount Mitchell (1856 m)：the highest peak of the Appalachian Range ? 3. East: the narrow Atlantic Coast plain 1.2 The Central Plains 1. Vast plains between the Appalachian Mountains and the Rocky Mountains? 2. Drained by the Mississippi River and its tributaries? 3. Usually divided into two regions:? 1) the Great Plains in the west: vast treeless prairies in the west and agricultural areas in the east? 2) the Central Lowland in the east: from the five Great Lakes to central Texas 1.3 The Western Mountains High plateaus and mountainous country? 1. The Rocky Mountains: over 3,000 meters above the sea level? The continental divide of the United States ? 2. West of the Rockies:? the Columbia Plateau in the north ? the Colorado Plateau in the south Grand Canyon,the Great Basin in between? The Pacific Mountain System consists of three regions: The Cascade Range, the Sierra-Nevada, and the Pacific Coast Range.? The Sierras contain Mount Whitney (4421m), the highest peak in the US outside Alaska.? Death Valley in eastern California, 85 meters below sea level 2. Climate The United States has a large size and a wide range of geographic features. Every type of climate is represented in the country: The climate is temperate in most areas, tropical in Hawaii and southern Florida, polar in Alaska, semi-arid in the Great Plains west of the 100th meridian, desert in the Southwest, Mediterranean in Coastal California, arid in the Great Basin? Extreme weather is common: the states bordering the Gulf of Mexico are prone to hurricanes, and most of the world's tornadoes occur within the continental United States, primarily in the Midwest.

英语国家概况

《英语国家概况》教学大纲一、课程基本信息课程编码：B170832223 课程类别：专业基础课课程名称：英语国家概况课程性质：必修适用专业：翻译开课学期：第三学期总学分：2 总学时：32 先行课程：英语语法、英语口语、英语听力、英汉翻译课程简介：本课程属于翻译专业教学课程体系中的专业基础课。该课程旨培养学生实际运用语言的能力，帮助学生打下坚实的专业基础，达到专业四级水平；同时培养学生良好学习作风和正确学习方法，培养学生逻辑思维能力和独立工作能力，丰富学生社会文化知识，增强学生对文化差异的敏感性。推荐教材：王恩铭. 英语国家概况[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2013 参考书目： [1] 来安方. 英美概况[M]. 河南: 河南人民出版社, 2007 [2] 余志远. 英语国家概况主编[M]. 北京: 外语教学与研究出版社, 2000 [3] 朱永涛. 英国社会与文化[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2003 二、课程总目标以《英语国家概况》（王恩铭著）为蓝本。本课程主要是为了使英语专业学生了解主要英语国家的地理、历史、经济、政治等方面的概况，了解主要英语国家的文化传统，风俗习惯和社会生活的其他情况。本课程是一门实用性很强的文化知识课。一方面通过英语阅读主要英语国家的背景材料扩大知识面，另一方面通过学习文化知识进行语言基本功的训练，巩固和提高英语水平。三、教学指南课程重点：本课程教学的重点使英语专业学生了解主要英语国家的地理、历史、经济、政治等方面的概况，了解主要英语国家的文化传统，风俗习惯和社会生活的其他情况。课程难点：在使学生了解英语国家主要的地理、历史、经济和政治等方面的概况同时，还要培养学生良好学习作风和正确学习方法，培养学生逻辑思维能力和独立工作能力，丰富学生社会文化知识，增强学生对文化差异的敏感性。教学方法和手段：讲授+讨论+练习

英美概况(英国篇5大英帝国的兴衰 )

I.Whigs and Tories 辉格党人和托利党人 These two party names originated with the Glorious Revolution (1688). 这两个政党名称皆起源于1688年的光荣革命。 The Whig were those who opposed absolute monarchy and supported the right to religious freedom for Nonconformists. The Whig were to form a coalition with dissident Tories in the mid-19th century and become the Liberal Party. 辉格党人是指那些反对绝对王权，支持新教徒宗教自由权利的人。辉格党人在19世纪中叶与持不同意见的托利党人组盟组成自由党。 The Tories were those who supported hereditary monarchy and were reluctant to remove kings. The Tories were the forerunners of the Conservative Party. 托利党人是指那些支持世袭王权、不愿去除国王的人。托利党是保守党的前身。 I. Agricultural Changes in the Late 18th Century 18世纪末的农业革命 During the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the "open-field" system ended when the Enclosure Act was passed. The movement lasted for centuries. Agricultural enclosure had good as well as bad results: 18世纪末、19世纪初的农业革命期间，随着《圈地法》的颁布，传统的"开放田地" 制结束。圈地运动持续了将近一个多世纪。农业圈地运动的利弊共存：（1）Farms became bigger and bigger units as the great bought up the small; 由于大农场兼并了小农场，农场成为越来越在的生产单位；（2）More vegetables, more milk and more dairy produce were consumed, and diet became more varied; 人们消费的蔬菜，牛奶及奶制品越来越多，饮食种类愈加丰富；（3）Enclosure was a disaster for the tenants evicted from their lands by the enclosures. These peasant farmers were forced to look for work in towns. Enclosure led to mass emigration, particularly to the New World; 圈地对佃家而言是场灾难，他们被赶出土地，被迫到城镇找工作。圈地运动导致了大规模的移民，尤其是移民至新大陆。（4）A new class hostility was introduced into rural relationships. 农村关系中产生了新的阶级对立。 II. The Industrial Revolution (1780-1830) 工业革命（1780-1830） 1．The industrial Revolution refers to the mechanisation of industry and the consequent changes in social and economic organization in Britain in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. 工业革命指的是17世纪末、18世纪初英国工业的机械化，以及因此而导致的社会结构和经济结构的变化。 2．Britain was the first country to industrialize because of the following factors: 英国成为第一个工业化的国家，原因如下： (1) Favourable geopraphical location. Britain was well placed geographically to participate in European and world trade;

英国概况地理和历史部分

Chapter 1 第一章 Land and People 英国的国土与人民 I. Different Names for Britain and its Parts 英国的不同名称及其各组成部分 1.Geographical names：the British Isles，Great Britain and England. 地理名称：不列颠群岛，大不列颠和英格兰。 2.Official name：the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 官方正式名称：大不列颠及北爱尔兰联合王国。 3.The British Isles are made up of two large islands-Great Britain （the larger one）and Ireland，and hundreds of small ones. 不列颠群岛由两个大岛—大不列颠岛（较大的一个）和爱尔兰岛，及成千上万个小岛组成。 4.Three political divisions on the island of Great Britain：England，Scotland and Wales. 大不列颠岛上有三个政治区：英格兰、苏格兰和威尔士。（1）England is in the southern part of Great Britain. It is the largest，most populous section. 英格兰位于大不列颠岛南部，是最大，人口最稠密的地区。（2）Scotland is in the north of Great Britain. It has three natural zones （the Highlands in the north；the Central lowlands；the south Uplands）Capital：Edinburgh 苏格兰位于大不列颠的北部。它有三大自然区：北部高地，中部低地及南部山陵。首府：爱丁堡。 Ben Nevis is the highest mountain in Britain （1，343m）。本尼维斯山为苏格兰，也是英国最高峰，海拔1，343米。

英美概况英国部分

Chapter One British Section one :the country and its people https://www.wendangku.net/doc/b018564067.html, and position : name : The United kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (U.K) position：To the west and off the European Continent, containing the Great Britain and the northern part of Ireland. Territory proportion: approximately 240,000 square km. Population : 62.262million Three political parts: England, Wales and Scotland England (capital city: London):the biggest ,the most developed as well as the most populated country in the U.K (capital city: London) Scotland (capital city:Edinburgh): Wales :smallest part Ireland :Henry VIII was the first king to bring Ireland under control; gain its independence in 1927. 2.Geographic Features:

英美概况--英国地理

Chapter 1 General Introduction to Physiographical Features of the UK ?The Locations of the UK ?The Physiographical Features of the UK ?Rivers and Mountains ?Climate and weather ?Population ?The Major Cities ?Exercises and Answers Focus questions ?What is the full name of the British state? ?What countries does it consist of? ?What is the total population of the United Kingdom? Where do most British people live? What is the most densely populated area of Britain? What is the least populated? ?What are the major cities in Britain? Three terms The complicated full name of the UK The location of the UK ?Britain is situated in western Europe and is separated from the European continent by the North Sea, the Strait of Dover and the English Channel. ?It is an insular country. Its coastline runs 12,429 km, It is one of the countries with longest coastline. ?To the west of it lies the Atlantic Ocean, across and beyond it is America. The Physiographical Features of the UK ?Varied landscape ?Flatlands in England ?Mountains in Scoltland and Wales

英国国家概况及英国文化

英国国家概况及英国文化、教育简介国名：大不列颠及北爱尔兰联合王国 ( The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) 国旗：呈横长方形，长与宽之比为２∶１。为“米”字旗，由深蓝底色和红、白色“米”字组成。旗中带白边的红色正十字代表英格兰守护神圣乔治，白色交叉十字代表苏格兰守护神圣安德鲁，红色交叉十字代表爱尔兰守护神圣帕特里克。此旗产生于１８０１年，是由原英格兰的白地红色正十旗、苏格兰的蓝地白色交叉十字旗和爱尔兰的白地红色交叉十字旗重叠而成。国徽：即英王徽。中心图案为一枚盾徽，盾面上左上角和右下角为红地上三只金狮，象征英格兰；右上角为金地上半站立的红狮，象征苏格兰；左下角为蓝地上金黄色竖琴，象征爱尔兰。盾徽两侧各由一只头戴王冠、代表英格兰的狮子和一只代表苏格兰的独角兽支扶着。盾徽周围用法文写着一句格言，意为“恶有恶报”；下端悬挂着嘉德勋章，饰带上写着“天有上帝，我有权利”。盾徽上端为镶有珠宝的金银色头盔、帝国王冠和头戴王冠的狮子。国歌：《上帝保佑女王》 "god save the queen"（如在位的是男性君主，国歌改为"god save the king"）国花：玫瑰花国鸟：红胸鸽国石：钻石科学节：１８３１年开始，一年举办一次科学周：１９９４年开始，在每年的３月举办自然地理：２４．４１万平方公里（包括内陆水域），英格兰地区１３.０４万平方公里，苏格兰７. ８８万平方公里，威尔士２. ０８万平方公里，北爱尔兰１. ４１万平方公里。位于欧洲西部的岛国。由大不列颠岛（包括英格兰、苏格兰、威尔士）、爱尔兰岛东北部和周围一些小岛组成。隔北海、多佛尔海峡、英吉利海峡与欧洲大陆相望。它的陆界与爱尔兰共和国接壤。海岸线总长１１４５０公里。全境分为四部分：英格兰东南部平原、中西部山区、苏格兰山区、北爱尔兰高原和山区。主要河流有塞文河（３５４公里）和泰晤士河（３４６公里）。北爱尔兰的讷湖（３９６平方公里）面积居全国之首。属海洋性温带阔叶林气候，终年温和湿润。通常最高气温不超过３２℃，最低气温不低于－１０℃，平均气温１月４～７℃，７月１３～１７℃。多雨雾，秋冬尤甚。年平均降水量约１０００毫米。北部和西部山区的年降水量超过１６００毫米，中部和东部则少于８００毫米。每年三月至六月最为干燥，九月至来年一月最为湿润。人口：５８８３万（２０００年７月），其中英格兰人４９３０万，苏格兰人５１０万，威尔士人２９０万，北爱尔兰人１７０万。官方和通用语均为英语。威尔士北部还使用威尔士语，苏格兰西北高地及北爱尔兰通用盖尔语。居民多信奉基督教新教，主要分英格兰教会（也称英国国教圣公会，其成员约占英成人的６０％）和苏格兰教会（也称长老会，有成年教徒６６万）。另有天主教会和印度教、犹太教及伊斯兰教等较大的宗教社团。首都：伦敦(london)；人口：７２８．５万（１９９９年）。最热月份为７月，一般气温在１３℃－２２℃；最冷月份为１月，一般气温在２℃－６℃。行政区划：分英格兰、威尔士、苏格兰和北爱尔兰四部分。英格兰划分为４３个郡，苏格兰下设２９个区和３个特别管辖区，北爱尔兰下设２６个区，威尔士下设２２个区。苏格兰、威尔士议会及其行政机构全面负责地方事务，外交、国防、总体经济和货币政策、就业政策以及社会保障等仍由中央政府控制。伦敦称“大伦敦”(Greater London)，下设独立的３２个城区(London boroughs) 和１个“金融城”(City of London)。各区议会负责各区主要事务，但与大伦敦市长及议会协同处理涉及整个伦敦的事务。此外，英国还有１２个属地。

The evolving geography of production hubs

英美概况(英国篇1：英国的国土与人民 )

英美概况考试重点复习材料(英国部分)

人文知识 英国地理(含图片详解)

英国旅游资源介绍

英美概况(英国篇5大英帝国的兴衰_)

英美概况-英国地理小结

完整word版,英美概况括考前知识点总结,推荐文档

英美概况内容及翻译

英语国家概况

英美概况(英国篇5大英帝国的兴衰 )

英国概况地理和历史部分

英美概况英国部分

英美概况--英国地理

英国国家概况及英国文化

人文知识英国地理(含图片详解)