National Academies Press: OpenBook

Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalization Measurement: Proceedings of a Workshop (2022)

Chapter: 15 Lessons from the Workshop: A Panel Discussion

« Previous: 14 Global Value Chain Measurement Methodology: Challenges and Prospects
Suggested Citation:"15 Lessons from the Workshop: A Panel Discussion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalization Measurement: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26477.
×

15

Lessons from the Workshop: A Panel Discussion

Susan Helper (Frank Tracy Carlton professor of economics, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, and workshop cochair) said she was pleased to introduce the closing panel of this workshop on innovation in global value chains (GVCs)—Rebecca Riley (professor of practice in economics, King’s Business School, King’s College London), William Powers (chief economist and director of the Office of Economics, U.S. International Trade Commission),1 Maria Borga (deputy division chief, Balance of Payments Division, International Monetary Fund), and Nadim Ahmad (deputy director, Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs, Regions and Cities, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]). Each panelist was asked to think about key takeaways from the workshop (see Box 15-1).

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM

Riley noted the complexities of the challenges facing national statistics agencies in producing the information needed by decision makers for understanding GVCs. She made points on policy needs, data sources and access, and collaboration.

Policy Needs

Riley emphasized the importance and demand for the types of analytical outputs produced and discussed in this workshop for informing policy. The

___________________

1 Powers’ views expressed here are solely his. His comments in this chapter are not meant to represent in any way the views of the International Trade Commission or any of its individual commissioners.

Suggested Citation:"15 Lessons from the Workshop: A Panel Discussion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalization Measurement: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26477.
×

outputs are not necessarily what the United Kingdom calls national statistics, which have a special status and are produced according to a code of practice. The United Kingdom would describe the outputs as experimental and investigative. She provided several examples.

As Riley pointed out, the United Kingdom is a relatively small and open economy compared with the United States. A lot of its research and development (R&D) is undertaken by foreign firms, and one of its biggest services exports is education. The United Kingdom has also just parted from its biggest and nearest trading partner following the vote to leave the European Union in 2016, which will have implications for labor mobility and trade frictions. In this context, it is hard to overestimate the importance of the trade and value-added data produced by the OECD. But there is, of course, always a demand for more detail. The United Kingdom has used detailed customs data for this purpose, despite the potential flaws in this approach. She and her collaborators were able to produce estimates of direct domestic value added in exports by detailed manufacturing sectors. This is very hard to do for services, but they also looked at financial services with data from the Bank of England.

Basically, Riley said, she and her collaborators produced an important analytical output product. These microdata are not national statistics, but they do provide information on the value added of exports in specific manufacturing industries (~200 groupings) and where jobs are likely to be affected by changing trade patterns. So policy makers had an indication, not only as to the dependency of particular industries on imports in their production processes, but also where there might be economic impact.

Policy makers also want to understand the local effects of changing trade arrangements in the United Kingdom and the implications of these changes in value added for different parts of the country. Riley and her collaborators looked at this with colleagues in Groningen, basically attempting to map estimates by industry back onto the country, but the results were mixed. A key weakness is the lack of data, not only on networks internationally, but also on domestic networks

Suggested Citation:"15 Lessons from the Workshop: A Panel Discussion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalization Measurement: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26477.
×

because the fragmentation in production is taking place at many levels. Their recommendation was to create better supply-use tables among the different areas of the United Kingdom.

According to Riley, another area of intense policy interest is around productivity growth, or increasingly, its lack of growth. The slowdown is very unevenly spread, and it has huge implications for living standards across the United Kingdom. Interest in these issues has led to a significant investment in a productivity institute and also in John Van Reenen’s innovation and diffusion program to help address these productivity puzzles specifically. Riley was very interested to see Van Reenen’s findings using Belgian data on diffusion of good practice or innovation to suppliers of superstar companies (see Amiti et al., Chapter 8), and also Surana’s paper on the importance of innovation among affiliated small- and medium-sized enterprises (Surana et al., Chapter 6). Networks of innovation need to be better understood to address the productivity puzzle.

Data Sources and Access

Riley commented on the huge amount of data work that went into several of the papers in the workshop. There are many novel applications, and there has been investment in developing extensive microdata. There are also examples of looking to alternative data sources to inform what is going on in GVCs.

Riley wanted to highlight some of the potential uses of new data sources (e.g., web scraping) for illustrating the connectivity among companies and understanding their spatial allocation, and for understanding the extent of factoryless manufacturing in the United Kingdom, such as in work by Coyle and Nguyen (2020).2 Unlike the United States, the United Kingdom does not have survey data on factoryless manufacturing, and Riley would like to see questions on the topic added to surveys, given the growth in this phenomenon.

Riley stressed the need for effective data access and sharing mechanisms. The United Kingdom passed the Digital Economy Act in 2017, with the idea that it would facilitate sharing of microdatabases across government departments and with academics. A recent change in legislation has made it easier to access trade data because of policy changes resulting from the break with the European Union. Riley said these changes in legislation have been useful but more dedicated resources are needed, given that the investments required for data linkage and analysis are significant.

Collaboration

Riley highlighted the need for collaboration between academics and statistical agencies to produce useful analytic outputs, which in turn requires data sharing. Many of the insights the United Kingdom has been able to share about

___________________

2 Factoryless manufacturing is when a company contracts with another firm for manufacturing.

Suggested Citation:"15 Lessons from the Workshop: A Panel Discussion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalization Measurement: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26477.
×

trade in the current environment have only been possible because of data sharing across statistical agencies.

PERSPECTIVE FROM AN INTERNATIONAL TRADE ECONOMIST

William Powers indicated that, while his views are his own and he is not acting in an official capacity, his remarks are informed by interactions with stakeholders at the International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC does not make policy, but when requested, it provides trade policy advice and support to both the U.S. Congress and the executive branch.

Powers said the ITC has seen a big focus on GVCs and firm strategies within them, and the papers at the workshop have commendably sought to dig closely into those strategies and motivations. Powers appreciated that the organizers and panelists focused on new work, which led to a robust discussion of methodology and data sources for which perhaps there is no clear consensus yet as to the right approaches to measurement. Powers thought he could usefully talk about areas worthy of more exploration.

First, Powers said that academics tend to think of the effects of policy on firms and the location of innovation, but it is equally important to think about how firms, at least in the aggregate, affect policy. To give examples, consider the U.S.–China Phase 1 deal nailed down in 2020. The portions that generated a lot of press play and media attention were agriculture and expansion of trade. These provisions were actually prompted by intellectual property and technology transfer issues. If one looks at the agreement itself—it is relatively short, about 60 pages—quite a lot of text is devoted to intellectual property.

Another example Powers gave is the American Jobs Plan that came out about in April 2021 from the Biden administration, which focused on much of what the workshop has discussed: revitalizing manufacturing, securing supply chains, investing in R&D, and training Americans for jobs. The plan has a definite goal to focus on both innovation and manufacturing and production within the United States. Powers asserted that it was important to communicate insights from the workshop to policy makers, just as Riley suggested connecting with national statistical agencies. Powers has seen that policy makers and other stakeholders have a real appetite right now for empirical analysis—certainly, on trade policy and likely for supply chains for innovation policy. If analysis is accessible, they are interested in it, and they are asking for it, so researchers should think about communication with policy makers as a venue for getting one’s work out there.

Lastly, if an informed group, such as the participants in this workshop, does not share their work, Powers stated that other people would. He said it was important to disseminate solid analysis. The issue of restoring American competitiveness has been around since at least the 2008–2009 global downturn. The analyses presented at this workshop are providing some real answers.

Powers noted the clear documentation of retrenchment and plateauing of international GVCs after 2011 and further retrenchment since 2014, despite the rise at the same time of domestic GVCs—that is, domestic outsourcing and not

Suggested Citation:"15 Lessons from the Workshop: A Panel Discussion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalization Measurement: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26477.
×

offshoring (see Wang et al., Chapter 3). Powers said his own work clearly shows retrenchment in internationalization of GVCs. He wondered if the same phenomenon is also happening in innovation and whether the two are connected and worth considering.

PERSPECTIVE FROM AN INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL ORGANIZATION

Maria Borga said she would like to focus—as a main takeaway—on the update of international statistical standards. Her organization, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), launched a process for updating both the System of National Accounts (SNA) and the balance of payments in 2020. At this stage there are task teams working on developing recommendations, organized around such themes as globalization or digitalization, as well as for specific parts of the accounts, such as the current account or direct investment. These task teams include representatives of countries and international organizations. Some have proposals that are being discussed, while other teams need to do more work.

The first thing that struck Borga was the need for more information on multinational enterprises (MNEs). This need, fortunately, is well recognized by most statistical agencies and countries, and recommendations have been put forward that are on track. One recommendation is for the SNA to include, in the institutional-sector accounts, additional breakdowns of financial and nonfinancial corporations among foreign-controlled firms, domestic MNEs, and other domestic firms. Borga observed that there has not been support for the whole extended supply-use tables framework because it was considered too burdensome, but there is no reason that countries cannot continue to do this work, given its extraordinary payoff.

Borga wanted to highlight a proposal for the balance of payments—namely, presentation of the balance of payments current account by enterprise characteristics. It would take the trade in goods measured on a balance-of-payments basis and break it down between the categories of foreign-controlled, domestic MNE, and other domestic enterprise, as well as by firm size. It would also provide additional details on the top trading partners, industries, and products. There would be a similar breakdown, not only for services, but also for receipts and payments of investment income. Firm characteristics would also be available. Borga believes this proposal responds to some of the issues raised in the workshop, such as implicit payments, especially for things like intellectual property that happen through direct investment income rather than through explicit service payments.

Borga said her second takeaway was related to MNEs—namely, looking at the nationality of firms not only in terms of ownership but also in terms of location. Fundamental to the way accounts are done is residency, domestic or foreign. Additional information on nationality or ownership could be very helpful.

Borga talked about a specific proposal for compilation of data for foreign direct investment (FDI) statistics, which are close to her heart. The statistics

Suggested Citation:"15 Lessons from the Workshop: A Panel Discussion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalization Measurement: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26477.
×

reflect when there are direct links between firms in two countries; but when there are chains of ownership, there need to be supplemental statistics on the ultimate investing economy and the ultimate host economy. In developing these statistics, one issue often unrecognized is the need for consolidation. She was surprised by a comment by James Hines (University of Michigan, the discussant for Accoto et al., Chapter 4) about people not realizing that the income from tax havens could reflect income from further down the chain, because that is so well-known among the FDI statistics community. The FDI statistics proposal includes a way to identify the direct investment assets and liabilities in the host country versus those held further down the chain, and similarly for income payments generated in the host economy versus income that was just passing through that economy. These kinds of statistics would address the double counting issue.

Borga noted that people often believe it to be simple to identify the nationality of MNEs. In her view, such identification is becoming more and more difficult. The prominent example is something like a corporate inversion, in which a U.S. company, for example, will end up moving its headquarters to Ireland. Is it now suddenly an Irish MNE or is it still an American MNE? The IMF is working on that issue.

Borga said her last key takeaway had to do with the location of intellectual property, or intangible capital (see, e.g., Accoto et al., Chapter 4). Even when tax avoidance is not extensive, there is evidence of a large amount of intangible capital residing in tax havens. This phenomenon raises the question of whether there is really economic ownership of that intangible capital or just tax convenience.

Borga said there have been proposals to address this problem. For example, some say the intangible capital should be attributed to the parent firm because that firm ultimately owns the intellectual property, bears the risks, and reaps the rewards. Others say the intangible capital should be credited to where it was produced and no cognizance taken of its being in a tax haven. There are conceptual issues with this approach, which would treat intangible capital differently from physical capital, and there are practical issues as well. However, the workshop discussions have made clear that the increasing globalization of R&D calls into question the attribution to the parent, and cross-border collaboration also calls into question where intangible capital is developed and how it is assigned. More work is needed in this area, according to Borga.

Borga concluded by giving a nod of approval to the paper on customs records (Krizan et al., Chapter 11). That work should be very helpful to the IMF.

PERSPECTIVE FROM OECD

Nadim Ahmad said that a key takeaway for him was the need for more quantity and granularity of data to tackle many of the issues involved in understanding globalization. There is also enormous potential to capitalize on existing data and bring them to bear. He believes it is important to build on these types of initiatives to mainstream them into official statistics and analyses. Even

Suggested Citation:"15 Lessons from the Workshop: A Panel Discussion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalization Measurement: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26477.
×

if that is not achievable, mechanisms are needed to prevent others having to reinvent the initiatives by workshop presenters. These initiatives should be turned into long-lived assets. They themselves become R&D and sources of innovation from which others can draw.

Ahmad reported on efforts under way internationally. OECD, for probably two decades now, has been trying to obtain microdata, which are the only means to answer many questions about globalization. There are challenges, of course. Official microdata are only available under severe confidentiality restrictions. But there has been a lot of progress over the last 10–20 years, driven by events such as this conference, coupled with the realization that existing data could be used in a much better way. There is now momentum within OECD to develop a microdata laboratory. The idea is that countries would give OECD a whole range of microdata that could be stored safely in the laboratory. This asset would allow OECD to link microdata across different domains to study, for example, innovation within trade, or trade in the national accounts, and of course the MNE perspective.

Ahmad stated that OECD wants to go yet further to tackle issues not yet studied. Ahmad echoed a point Riley made about the critical importance of location for understanding trade and the backlash to trade in some regions in the past few years and the retrenchment of globalization as a consequence. OECD refers to “geographies of discontent” for this phenomenon. Ahmad said one of the principal needs is to build location into national accounts. To be serious about understanding how trade manifests itself through systems and how it impacts people requires a granular place-based approach. Business registers within countries are place-based, and some countries have firm-to-firm identifiers. It is possible to use value-added tax (VAT) records, for example, to match transactions in the system, which in theory would enable one to create very detailed supply-use tables.

With that information, Ahmad continued, a lot of the questions generated by workshop discussions would be much easier to answer, including the ability to adopt a firm-to-firm perspective and distinguish between MNEs and non-MNEs and large and smaller firms. Ahmad stressed that bringing microdata into the system has to be a primary goal to allow the granularity needed for policy work. As Sturgeon has noted on many occasions, the granularity within conventional estimates for trade in value added (TiVA) provides a nice view of what is going on but is insufficient for much policy analysis.

Ahmad’s last point, in terms of painting a roadmap for what is needed, is to recognize the growing momentum behind responsible business conduct and corporate social responsibility. These things are going to be increasingly important as global supply chains become more driven to ensure that suppliers are abiding by corporate social responsibility rules.

Ahmad thought it could be useful to embody responsible business conduct in official statistics, in order to motivate its uptake by all firms. At least, there could be some type of international mechanism allowing every firm to report how it is upholding responsible business chains. Ahmad also said it is important

Suggested Citation:"15 Lessons from the Workshop: A Panel Discussion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalization Measurement: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26477.
×

to understand how responsible business conduct impacts productivity—the notion, for example, that corporate social responsibility can be a way of improving and introducing efficiencies in the production process.

DISCUSSION

Helper posed a question, noting the variety of datasets and countries represented in the workshop. She asked if the panelists thought there was a particular country’s approach or data series within the collective of financial statistical agencies that seemed promising. Her particular interest in constructing GVCs is understanding the flows from firm to firm. Input-output tables delineate the flows from industry to industry, but it is much harder to see firm-to-firm flows. This dynamic can be seen to some extent in the international trade data in the United States, when products cross country borders, but there is nothing comparable for flows within the United States. Countries that have VAT systems can generate that data.

Ahmad did not want to single out particular countries, but he thought that many of the Scandinavian countries exemplified good practice because of their general openness with data and recording of information in their statistical systems. In fact, many Nordic countries provide considerable amounts of publicly accessible data, such as individual salaries. Such data facilitate linked datasets, making it much quicker to proceed from a research idea to a new statistic, compared with the 20 years cited by Sturgeon. Two examples are estimates of TiVA and trader/buyer characteristics.

Ahmad stated that national statistical organizations recognize that they ought to be much quicker to deliver needed information. Because of powerful systems that allow tapping into and integrating relevant data, they are able to deliver in a way they were not before.

In terms of countries that are producing relevant data on the firm-to-firm level, Ahmad said, Costa Rica, Chile, and Belgium deserve plaudits because they have been able to link relevant information in a very powerful way. Lemmers, who is now chair of an OECD expert group on extended supply-use tables, is also looking at firm-to-firm measurement.

Powers said that Fort pioneered using information in the U.S. system to analyze domestic outsourcing as opposed to foreign offshoring (Fort et al., Chapter 13). There is no public dataset to support exploration along these lines. Powers has been disappointed not to see more work of this kind.

Borga supported the idea of case studies of big firms, especially when it comes to understanding something like FDI. The harder step with which the field is still struggling is cross-country comparisons and enabling statistical agencies to compare what a company tells country A versus country B. There are some global initiatives trying to profile MNEs in an open way so people can have access to the same information about the company.

Riley completely agreed that cross-country comparability is crucial, so the microdata laboratory at OECD sounds very interesting. There is huge potential

Suggested Citation:"15 Lessons from the Workshop: A Panel Discussion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalization Measurement: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26477.
×

in firm-level data and in linking with data on employees and all sorts of surveys. Orbis data on companies around the globe are used in many of these types of studies, but Orbis has a lot of missing data partly because the data are not designed to be used by researchers.3

If everyone is using these data and developing code to be able to use them in comparable ways, there could be a case for having a code-sharing facility that is quite broad in its nature. Riley wondered if OECD could consider compiling some of these international commercial databases themselves so that their value as a public good could be fully realized.

Ahmad responded that OECD had thought about this idea. The difficulty is the proprietary nature of the datasets, which makes that a real challenge. Even if OECD, World Bank, IMF, and other organizations were to put together an international consortium to acquire the data to be a common resource, the restrictions that each organization has on using the data means that sharing would be a challenge.

Ahmad continued that the other challenge is dissemination. OECD and other international organizations are allowed to use these data for their analyses, but it is difficult to disseminate firm-level information back to users. This situation is exactly why a microdata laboratory, which used public information collected as a public good by national statistical offices, would be a better approach.

Ahmad said that OECD’s goal is to bring government and commercial information together within OECD and make it available, certainly in the first instance to all OECD staff. There are real hurdles to overcome in terms of getting broader access to microdata. OECD hopes it will be able to prove that it can be a trusted partner in terms of making and keeping private-sector data safe and allowing others in the public sector to access data in the laboratory. That is basically the plan.

Ahmad shared that one way OECD is trying to motivate the idea of a microdata laboratory is to allow national statistical organizations themselves to see that they, too, could benefit from this process. A very simple benefit would be reconciliation of trade data, with the availability of firm identities supporting data linkage of exports by one firm and imports by another firm. Ahmad said OECD at present is trying to balance international trade in goods and services using available data, which comes with a certain degree of aggregation, which means that there are some assumptions and some shortcuts. OECD believes it is doing the best that can be done, but could do better if there were access to microdata.

Helper relayed two questions from workshop participants, one quite detailed and one quite broad. The first question was about special purpose entities (SPEs). Some artificial subsidiaries inside countries act similar to SPEs across borders of states or provinces. The SNA mandates consolidation of these at the national level. How does that affect research on innovation of GVCs? The second question was about (1) how to handle the challenge of protecting confidentiality;

___________________

3 See Orbis, Compare Private Company Data, Bureau van Dijk (https://www.bvdinfo.com/en-gb/our-products/data/international/orbis).

Suggested Citation:"15 Lessons from the Workshop: A Panel Discussion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalization Measurement: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26477.
×

and (2) how to handle the loss of identification of most transactions resulting from the organization of firms into GVCs.

Ahmad agreed that confidentiality is a critical issue. OECD hopes to be able to acquire data under circumstances that allow for data sharing and reuse. Also, Ahmad agreed that the way SPEs are defined in the system creates difficulties. If the SPE is a resident unit, the activities recorded there will show up in GDP. But some countries, such as the Netherlands, provide estimates without SPEs, and Ahmad believes that is a good approach.

Ahmad wanted to respond to a question from Sturgeon about the utility of a global register. Ahmad agreed completely that having a global register would help address a number of questions—for example, the importance of MNEs, which is currently overlooked. Right now, statistics are developed around national accounts, but increasingly there is a need to recognize the international concept and to ascertain the footprint of the MNE.

Ahmad explained how OECD was using web-scraping tools to develop a database called ADIMA (the analytical database of individual multinationals and their affiliates), which so far has profiles for 500 MNEs. OECD hopes this database will be the launch pad for a global register at some stage.

Returning to the question of confidentiality, Borga spoke from her experience at a national statistical agency, saying that it is very important and is key to getting firms to provide information. She agreed, however, that there is a need to modernize views of confidentiality. A few years ago, Statistics Canada changed how it approached confidentiality, resulting in the release of much more granular detail. Borga said confidential information is shared for tax purposes. It would be great if there was recognition that sharing business data among statistical agencies could be done in a way that would not harm the companies.

Borga said a global register and more information on very large multinationals would be very helpful to statistical agencies. Work in this area has been under way for a long time, but progress has been accelerating.

Powers wanted to respond to the comment that because of the organization of GVCs, identification of most transactions is lost. Powers said the challenge is even tougher because of acquisitions of firms in one country by domestic companies in another country. It would be difficult to capture these kinds of organizational relationships in a global register.

Powers said the good news, at least in the United States, is the uptick in the appetite for empirical information and using that information to make policy. Correspondingly, there is recognition that data gaps and data siloing make providing timely input to policy makers more difficult.

Riley said she agreed that confidentiality is important but would also argue that the case for public good is often quite strong. When arrangements are in place in which researchers have absolutely no incentive to breach confidentiality rules, it is perfectly compatible to use data for research for the purpose of public good and to maintain confidentiality. As an example, Riley pointed to a huge increase in data sharing during the pandemic because there was suddenly a very strong imperative to get needed information and to relate

Suggested Citation:"15 Lessons from the Workshop: A Panel Discussion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalization Measurement: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26477.
×

databases in order to understand what was happening. There is a very good case for public good in that instance. Riley expressed hope that these types of sharing arrangements can be maintained going forward. She also supported a global register.

CLOSING REMARKS

Wolfgang Keller (University of Colorado Boulder and workshop cochair) observed in closing the workshop that, when thinking about globalization, certain waves are often distinguished. There was the emergence of large-scale international trade in the late 19th century; then FDI starting in the 1970s; and, most recently, complex production networks, GVCs, and innovation networks emerging around the year 2000. It is easy to overstate the implications of the most recent developments. For example, as early as the 19th century, Jardine Matheson—a British trading company out of Hong Kong that was founded in the 1830s—already had complex networks with vertical specialization connecting Europe, British India, China, and Japan. On the other hand, it is clear from the papers at the workshop that the rising importance of intangibles and the knowledge economy gives rise to important new questions.

Keller stated that one of the jobs of economists is to provide to the world’s central bank chiefs estimates of the rate of innovation or productivity growth so they can target the correct level of money supply. To take another example, the world’s treasury secretaries need input on what should be the rate of taxation on global companies. Key to getting these numbers right is relying on good data and measurement, which is why investing in statistical agencies and fostering exchanges with researchers are important. Keller hoped the workshop contributed to this needed effort.

Suggested Citation:"15 Lessons from the Workshop: A Panel Discussion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalization Measurement: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26477.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"15 Lessons from the Workshop: A Panel Discussion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalization Measurement: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26477.
×
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"15 Lessons from the Workshop: A Panel Discussion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalization Measurement: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26477.
×
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"15 Lessons from the Workshop: A Panel Discussion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalization Measurement: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26477.
×
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"15 Lessons from the Workshop: A Panel Discussion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalization Measurement: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26477.
×
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"15 Lessons from the Workshop: A Panel Discussion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalization Measurement: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26477.
×
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"15 Lessons from the Workshop: A Panel Discussion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalization Measurement: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26477.
×
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"15 Lessons from the Workshop: A Panel Discussion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalization Measurement: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26477.
×
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"15 Lessons from the Workshop: A Panel Discussion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalization Measurement: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26477.
×
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"15 Lessons from the Workshop: A Panel Discussion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalization Measurement: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26477.
×
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"15 Lessons from the Workshop: A Panel Discussion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalization Measurement: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26477.
×
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"15 Lessons from the Workshop: A Panel Discussion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalization Measurement: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26477.
×
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"15 Lessons from the Workshop: A Panel Discussion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalization Measurement: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26477.
×
Page 136
Next: References »
Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalization Measurement: Proceedings of a Workshop Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $26.00 Buy Ebook | $20.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

In recent decades, production processes of intermediate and final products have been increasingly fragmented across countries in what are called global value chains (GVCs). GVCs may involve companies in one country outsourcing stages of production to unrelated entities in other countries, multinational enterprises (MNEs) offshoring stages of production to units of the MNE overseas, or both. GVCs can also involve completely independent companies merely sourcing their parts from whichever upstream company may be the most competitive, with no control arrangement necessarily involved. The changing global trade environment and the changes in firms' behavior have raised new and more complicated issues for policy makers and have made it difficult for them to understand the extent and operations of GVCs and their spillover effects on national and local economies.

To improve the understanding, measurement, and valuation of GVCs, the Innovation Policy Forum at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened a workshop, "Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalization Measurement" May 5-7, 2021. This proceedings has been prepared by the workshop rapporteurs as a factual summary of what occurred at the workshop.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!