经济金融企业管理外文翻译外文文献英文文献

1、附录 原文】 Upgrading in Global Value Chains The aim of this paper is to explore how small- and medium-sized Latin American enterprises ( SMEs) may participate in global markets in a way that provides for sustainable growth. This may be defined as the highroad to competitiveness, contrasting with the low

2、 road, typical of firms from developing cooftuentries, which compete by squeezing wages and profit margins rather than by improving productivity, wages, and profits. The key difference between the high and the low road to competitiveness is often explained by the different capabilities of firms to u

3、pgrade. In this paper, upgrading refers to the capacity of a firm to innovate to increase the value added of its products and processesH(umphrey Kaplinsky Porter, 199)0. Capitalizing on one of the most productive areas of the recent literature on SMEs, we restrict our field of research to small ente

4、rprises located in clusters. There is now a wealth ofempirical evidence (Humphrey, 1995; Nadvi Rabellotti, 1997) showing that small firms in clusters, both in developed and developing countries, are able to over come some of the major constraints they usually face: lack of specialized skills, diffic

5、ult access to technology, inputs, market, information, credit, and external services. Nevertheless, the literature on clusters, mainly focused on the local sources of competitiveness coming from intracluster vertical and horizontal relationships generating collective efficienc(ySchmitz,1995), has of

6、ten neglected the increasing importance of external link ages. Due to recent changes in production systems,distribution channels,and financial markets, and to the spread of information technologies, enterprises and clusters are increasingly integrated in value chains that often operate across many d

7、ifferent countries. The literature on global value chains (GVCs) (Gereffi, 1999; Gereffi Wood, 2001) the focus moves from manufacturing only to the other activities involved in the supply of goods and services, including distribution and marketing. All these activities contribute to add value. Moreo

8、ver, the ability to identify the activities providing higher returns along the value chain is key to understanding the global appropriation of the returns to production. Value chain research focuses on the nature of the relationships among the various actors involved in the chain, and on their impli

9、cations for development (Humphrey (b) quasi-hierarchy involving relationships between legally independent firms in which one is subordinated to the other, with a leader in the chain defining the rules to which the rest of the actors have to comply; and (c) hierarchy when a firm is owned by an extern

10、al firm. Also stressed is the role played by GVC leaders, particularly by the buyers, in transferring knowledge along the chains. For small firms in less developed countries (LDCs), participation in value chains is a way to obtain information on the need and mode to gain accessto global markets. Yet

11、, although this information has high value for local SMEs, the role played by the leaders of GVCs in fostering and supporting the SMEs upgrading process is less clear. Gereffi (1999), mainly focusing on East Asia, assumesa rather optimistic view, emphasizing the role of the leaders that almost autom

12、atically promote process, product, and functional upgrading among small local producers. Pietrobelli and Rabellotti (2004) present a more differentiated picture for Latin America. In line with the present approach, Humphrey and Schmitz (2000) discuss the prospects of upgrading with respect to the pa

13、ttern of value chain governance. They conclude that insertion in a quasi-hierarchical chain offers very favorable conditions for processand product upgrading, but hinders functional upgrading. Networks offer ideal upgrading conditions, but they are the least likely to occur for developing country pr

14、oducers. In addition, a more dynamic approach suggests that chain governance is not given forever and may change becausHe(umphrey (b) establishing and maintaining quasi-hierarchical governance is costly for the lead firm and leads to inflexibility because of transaction specific investments; and (c)

15、 firms and cluster soften do not operate only in one chain but simultaneously in several types of chains, and they may apply competencies learned in one chain to supply other chains. In sum, both modes of organizing production, that is, the cluster and the value chain, offer interesting opportunitie

16、s for the upgrading and modernization of local 5 5 / 24 firms, and are not mutually exclusive alternatives. However, in order to assesstheir potential contribution to local SME s innovation and upgrading, we need to understand their organization of inter firm linkages and their internal governance.

17、Furthermore, as we explain in the following section, the nature of their dominant specialization also plays a role and affecStsMEs upgrading prospects. 3. THE SECTORAL DIMENSION OFSMEs UPGRADING (a) The concept of upgrading The concept of upgradingmaking better products, making them more efficiently

18、, or moving in to more skilled activities has often been used in studies on competitiveness K( aplinsky,2001; Porter, 1990), and is relevant here. Following this approach, upgrading is decisively related to innovation. Here we define upgrading as innovating to increase value added. 7 Enterprises ach

19、ieve this in various ways, such as, for example, by entering higher unit value market niches or new sectors, or by undertaking new productive (or service) functions. The concept of upgrading may be effectively described for enterprisesworking within a value chain, where four types of upgrading are s

20、ingled ouHtu(mphrey chmitz, 1999b). Product upgrading is moving into more sophisticated product lines in terms of increased unit values (e.g., the apparel commodity chain in Asia upgrading from discount chains to department storeGs;ereffi,1999). Functional upgrading is acquiring new, superior functi

21、ons in the chain, such as design or marketing or abandoning existing low-value added functions to focus on higher value added activities (e.g., Torreon s blue jeans industry mupagqruaidlaintgo from -fpuallckage manufactuBrianirg&; Gereffi, 2001). Inter sectoral upgrading is applying the competence a

22、cquired in a particular function to move into a new sector. For instance, in Taiwan, competencein producing TVs was used to make monitors and then to move into the computer sector (Guerrieri Humphrey Pietrobelli, 1997 ). In sum, the logic goes from innovation, to upgrading, to the acquisition of fir

23、m-level competitiveness(i.e., competitive advantage). 8 In this paper, we argue that the concept of competitive advantage increasingly matters. In the theory of comparative advantage,what matters is relative productivity, determining different patterns of inter industry specialization. Within such a

24、 theoretical approach, with perfectly competitive markets, firms need to target only production efficiency. In fact, this is not enough, and competitive advantage is the relevant concept to analyze SMEs performance becauseof (i) the existence of forms of imperfect competition in domestic and interna

25、tional markets and (ii) the presence of different degrees of (dynamic) externalities in different subsect or sand stages of the value chain. More specifically, in non perfectly competitive market rents and niches of ex- tra normal profits often emerge, and tehxisplains the efforts to enter selective

26、ly specific segments rather than simply focusing on efficiency improvements, regardless of the prevailing productive specialization (as advocated by the theory of CA). Moreover, different stages in the value chain offer different scope for dynamic externalities. Thus, for example, in traditional man

27、ufacturing, the stages of design, product innovation, marketing, and distribution may all foster competitiveness increases in related activities and sectors.The advantageof functional upgrading is in reducing the fragility and vulnerability of an enterprise prosductive specialization. Competition fr

28、om new entrantsi.e., firms from developing countries with lower production costs, crowding out incumbentsis stronger in the manufacturing phasesof the value chain than in other more knowledge and organization-intensive phases (e.g., product design 10 7 / 24 and innovation, chain management, distribu

29、tion and retail, etc.).Therefore, functional upgrading may bring about more enduring and solid competitiveness. For all these reasons, the concept of production efficiency is encompassed within the broader concept of competitiveness, and the efforts to upgrade functionally and inter sectorally (and

30、the policies to support these processes) are justified to reap larger rents and externalities emerging in specific stages of the value chain, market niches, or sectors. An additional element that crucially affects the upgrading prospects of firms and clusters is the sectoral dimension. Insofar as we

31、 have defined upgrading as innovatintog increase value added, then all the factors influencing innovation acquire a new relevance. This dimension is often overlooked in studies on clusters, perhaps due to the fact that most of these studies are not comparative but rather detailed intra industry case

32、 studies. In order to take into account such a sectoral dimension, and the effect this may have on the firms pattern of innovation and learning, we need to introduce the concept of knowledge. This notion was first introducePdolabnyyi(1967) and then discussed in the context of evolutionary economics

33、by Nelson and Winter(1982). It refers to the evidence that some aspects of technological knowledge are well articulated, written down in manuals and papers, and taught. Others are largely tacit, mainly learned through practice and practical examples. In essence, this is knowlewdhgiech can be freely

34、used by its owners, but that can not be easily expressed and communicated to anyone else. The tacit component of technological knowledge makes its transfer and application costly and difficult. As a result, the mastery of a technology may require an organization to be active in the earlier stages of

35、 its development, and a close and continuous interaction between the user and the produceror transferof such knowledge. Inter firm relationships are especially needed in this context. Tacit knowledge is an essential dimension to define a useful grouping of economic activities. (b) Sectoral specifici

36、ties in upgrading and innovation: a classification for Latin 8 American countries The impact of collective efficiency and patterns of governance on the capacity of SMEs to upgrade may differ across sectors. This claim is based upon the consideration that sectoral groups differ in terms of technologi

37、cal complexity and in the modes and sources of innovation and upgrading. 9 As shown by innovation studies, in some sectors, vertical relations with suppliers of inputs may be particularly important sources of product and process upgrading (as in the case of textiles and the most traditional manufact

38、uring), while in other sectors, technology users, organizations such as universities or the firms themselves (as, for example, with software or agro industrial products) may provide major stimuli for technical change (Pavitt,1984; Von Hippel, 1987). Consistently with this approach, the properties of

39、 firm knowledge bases across different sectors (Malerba 2. Natural resource-based sectors (NRbased),implying the direct exploitation of natural resources, for example, copper, marble, fruit, etc.; 3. Complex products industries (COPs), including, among others, automobiles, autocomponentsand aircraft

40、 industries, ICT and consumer electronics;4. Specialized suppliers, in our LA cases,essentially software.Eachof these categoriestends to have a predominant learning and innovating behavior, in terms of main sourcesof technical change, dependenceon basic or applied research,modes of in-house innovati

41、on (e.g., routinized lavregresuRs 17 (2) upgrading: the clusters selected have experienced some degree of upgrading, of whatever nature (i.e., product, process, functional, inter sectoral); and (3) policy lessons: all cases offer relevant policy lessons for future experiences either in terms of succ

42、essesor failures. A total of 40 case studies were selected forth is analysis. 18 The list of cases, albeit incomplete, isto our knowledge the largest available on which comparative exercises have been carried out, and provides a good approximation to the reality of clusters and value chains in LA. T

43、hus, although it cannot claim to correspond to the universe of clusters in the region, it represents a database that allows reasonable generalizations. The analysis consists of a systematic attempt to quantify on Likert scales, for each of the clusters investigated, the dimensions to be analyzed: th

44、e degree of collective efficiency and levels of upgrading. Cluster studies have also been categorized according to the governance pattern of the value chain to which they are connected. To quantify the degree of collective efficiency, a careful evaluation of CE main componentsexternal economies and

45、joint actionhas been carried out. Hence, a value ranging from absent (0) to high (3) was attributed to the following components: specialized labor market, local availability of inputs, easy accessto information, and market access for external economies; backward and forward vertical linkages, horizo

46、ntal bilateral and multilateral linkages for joint action. 19 The same was done with referenceto product, process, functional, and inter sectoral upgrading: a value ranging from absent(0)to high (3) was attributed to each of these types of upgrading. The values were determined during either the orig

47、inal field studies, or, in the cases reviewed from the context and from the specific wording of papers. Finally, we identified the number and mode of governance(market, network, quasi-hierarchy,and hierarchy) of the value chains into which the clusters feed. Whenever the evidence was derived from ot

48、her published sources, we carefully analyzed the wording of each paper with the collaboration of the team of experts, and tried to minimize the occurrence of bias and misinterpretations complementing and cross referencing information in all possible ways, and testing it with interviews with key info

49、rmants and local experts. Nevertheless, as with any study of this kind, there may be potential problems on the accuracy of the results, which will therefore call for cautious interpretations. The empirical analysis is inevitably affected by some limitations, due to the lack of reliable data: even wh

50、en updated firm-level statistics are available, which seldom happens in developing countries, they are usually available at the national or local level, but they are never gatheredat the cluster level nor do they take into account the relationships within the same value chain. Therefore, the empiric

51、al analysis has to rely on the available quantitative evidence complemented by careful qualitative assessments. Given its qualitative content, the aim of this study is not to identify causal relationships but rather to explore the hypotheses presented above with rich, newly gathered empirical eviden

52、ce on Latin American clustered SMEs. The next section presents a synthesis of the main results. Fuller details and analyosfes additional complementary issues are addressed in a longer study, where summarized descriptions of the case studies undertaken in the project are included (Pietrobelli & Rabel

53、lotti, 2004). 译文】 13 14 / 24 全球价值链下产业升级 企业的生产经营活动， 本质上是价值创造的动态过程。 每个企 业都是在设 计 、 生产、 销售、 发送和辅助其产品的过程中进行种 种活动的一个集合体，而所有这 些活动可以用一个价值链 (value chain) 来表明 。 随着国际外包业务日益增多，全球价值链 (global value chain ， GVC) 的概 念应运而生。全球价值链是指全球性跨企业网络组织 在原料采集和运输、产品的 生产和分销、直至最终消费和回收 处理的过程中进行的价值创造活动。杰瑞菲 (Gary Gereffi) 通 过研究不同环节之间相

54、互联系的分布在世界各国的生产体系 后 发现，全球价值链往往由一个或几个领导者支配、协调；领导 者通常占据价值 链的战略环节，他决定着价值链的基本特征。 根据领导者的角色， 全球价值链可以分为生产者驱动型价值链 (producer- value chain) driven value chain) 和购买者驱动型价值链 (buyer-driven 23 / 24 产者驱动型价值链是指在生产进入壁垒高的行业， 价值链由处在 制造商控制 全球价值链的领导公司通常是国际巨头， 他们后向 件供应商，前向与分销零售商密切联系 这种价值链在汽车、 导体及重型机械等资本、 技术密集行业中很典型。 购买者驱动型

55、 产进入壁垒较低的行业， 价值链由销售渠道拥有者和品牌拥有者 立销售网络的基础上， 建立散布于各个国家 (一般是第三世界国家 并控制着这 2 个网络， 成为价值链的领导者 而在第三世界的制 商和经销商提供的产品规格和品牌进行生产和销售。 这种以贸易 在劳动密集型的日用消费品中很常见，如服装、鞋、 玩具、手工 等。 1 购买者驱动的服装价值链 服装价值链包括原料处理、 产品设计、 纺织品生产、 成衣制造 据测算， 服装价值链上的利润分配： 设计占 40 ，营销占 50 ， 工 处 于 即大型的服装零 牌 营 销 他们构建营销网络的 全 球 配 10 很明显，在全球服装价值链中，设计和营销处于价值

56、链的高端， 而生产加 价值链的低端。 服装价值链是购买者驱动型的， 售商、品 商、 品牌制造商是服装价值链的领导厂商。 同时，在 置服装生产网络，并通过订单的全球化推动生产的全球化。他 们控制服装价值链 15 中增值率高、利润份额多的设计、品牌、营销环节，而把增值 率低、利润份额少 的加工环节配置在劳动力密集、工资低廉的 国家和地区。例如，亚洲早先的新兴 工业化国家（地区 ）以及后 来的中国内地、越南等地。近些年来，全球服装价值链 已延伸 到非洲、中美洲的一些国家，但重心仍在亚洲。 发达国家在服装加工失去比较优势后，无一例外地都转向服 装价值链高端 实现服装产业的升级。例如：意大利已经形成了纺

57、织品、服装服 饰以及高档时 品牌集团如 LizC1aiborne 的设计、加工、销售一条龙的运作体系，构成了完整的产业链， 并成为时尚潮 的源头，不乏全球顶级品牌；日本服装企业自行开发、设计，将 订单下到劳动 便宜的发展中国家，成品打上自己的品牌，在国内销售；美国 大批世界知 Lord&Taylor 等控制了本国甚至世界市场， 中很 或在零售集团中有专卖 们拥有 然后再由他们经 他们 多是设计和销售公司，有自己的专卖店， 柜 台 ， 他 品牌，产品设计好后委托发展中国家贴牌加工， 2 中国服装业在全球价值链中的地位 中国服装在世界市场占有率达17 ，但以贴牌生产 （OEM） 、加 工贸易为主，

58、 在国际市场上自有品牌凤毛麟角，服装产品的出口 价格只相当于法国和意大利的1 4，赚取的利润极其有限，处于 全球价值链低端。 “中国服装产品的尴尬在于：在品牌端你没有话 语权，在技术端你又说不上话，最后发现， 你只能在这产业链的 前后两端之间苦苦挣扎 挣一些血汗钱。 ” 国内有一些品牌生产商（OBM），如美特斯 邦威、森马等，开 始在国内市场控制服装价值链，但这些品牌基本上还没有进入国际市场，脱 离全球价值链。 戈尔、杉杉等也均以国内中高档男装市场为主，基本上与全球 价值链无关。如 他们从事出口，目前大部分也以贴牌为主，自有品牌还难以在 国际市场立足。 在全球价值链中，领导者居于价值链高端并控

59、制着价值链； 而居于价值链 端的生产企业处于被动地位，对价值链几乎没有控制力。价值 链 领 导 者 总 在 寻 新的更便宜的供应来源。我国的劳动力成本相对于美国、日本、 欧盟来说有绝 优势，与墨西哥相比优势已经不十分明显，与印度、缅甸和孟 加拉等发展中国 相比已没有优势。随着我国经济的快速发展，劳动力成本优势 会逐渐减弱，国 订单有可能流向其他国家和地区，服装生产大国的地位因此受 到威胁。服装生 中心转移最基本的原因是：领导厂商总是力图将服装价值链中 劳动密集程度最高 雅 果 低 找 对 家 外 产 16 的环节，即加工环节，配置在劳动工资水平最低的国家 或地区来完成。 3 全球价值链下的产业

60、升级 全球价值链下产业升级的途径是逐步移向价值链高端。具体途径有： 1）过程升级 即内部过程的优化，比自己的竞争对手做得 更 好 （ 如 降 低 库 存成本或损耗 ）；或者改进价值链内部的关联（ 如多次而小量的及 时送货 ） 。 2）产品升级 即产品性能价格比的改进和更灵敏地应对市 场 （ 如比竞争对手更快推出新产品 ） 3）功能改进 通过改变内部活动结构来提升增加值。 如在购 买者驱动型价 值链中加工者逐步涉足设计、创建品牌、构建营销 网络等。 4）链条升级 从原有价值链移向新的、价值量高的相关价值 链。比如台湾 从生产半导体收音机依次转向生产计算器、电视机、电脑监视器、 笔记本电 脑 杰瑞