Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Global Value Chains and EU–East Asia Trade: An Antidote for Geo-Economic Competition?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
A Geo-Economic Turn in Trade Policy?

Part of the book series: The European Union in International Affairs ((EUIA))

Abstract

In light of this volume’s overall ambition to study to what extent the European Union’s trade agreements with East Asia are driven by geo-economic interests, this chapter discusses the impact of the rise of global value chains on the desire and ability of the EU to use these trade agreements for geo-economic purposes. According to the dominant liberal thesis on the relationship between global value chains and trade policy, the rise of global value chains will lead the EU to pursue more liberal, deep and comprehensive trade agreements and make it less willing to subordinate economic to foreign policy objectives. However, two alternative views challenge this hypothesis. According to a geo-economic perspective, global value chains stimulate security concerns and international rivalry resulting in a more strategic trade policy agenda. While a fair-trade perspective states that global value chains lead to stronger calls for integrating sustainable development goals in trade policy and empower the EU to use trade agreements for these purposes. This chapter first lays out the liberal thesis before discussing its challengers. It ends with some considerations about how specific analyses can differentiate geo-economic from liberal and fair-trade interests in EU-East Asia trade agreements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Different concepts are used to refer to similar phenomena as global value chains, including “fragmented production”, “vertical specialization”, “trade in tasks”, “global supply chains”, “global production networks”, “transnational value chains”, “offshoring” or “outsourcing” (Park et al., 2013: 12).

  2. 2.

    An illustration of the importance of global value chains to international political economy is that the list of the most read and most cited articles in the Review of International Political Economy, one of the flagship journals of the discipline, are topped by publications on global value chains.

  3. 3.

    Alternative concepts are used to refer to this perspective. For example, Dür, Eckhardt and Poletti (2019) in their research agenda on EU trade policy refer to this perspective as “the globalization backlash”, while Nicolas Lamp (2020) in his review of different perspectives about the winners and losers of globalization calls this “the critical narrative”.

References

  • Baldwin, R. (2013). Global supply chains: Why they emerged, why they matter, and where they are going. In D. K. Elms & P. Low (Eds.), Global value chains in a changing world (pp. 13–60). WTO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, E., Bown, C. P., & Johnson, R. C. (2016). Global supply chains and trade policy, NBER Working Paper Series, Working paper 21883.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campling, L., Harrison, J., Richardson, B., Smith, A., & Barbu, M. (2019). South Korea’s automotive labour regime, Hyunday Motors’ global production network and trade-based integration with the European Union. British Journal of Industrial Relations. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damro, C. (2012). Market power Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(5), 682–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durand, C., & Milberg, W. (2020). Intellectual monopoly in global value chains. Review of International Political Economy, 27(2), 404–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dür, A. (2007). EU trade policy as protection for exporters: The agreements with Mexico and Chile. Journal of Common Market Study, 45(4), 833–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dür, A., Eckhardt, J., & Poletti, A. (2019). Global value chains, the anti-globalization backlash, and EU trade policy: A research agenda. Journal of European Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2019.1619802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckhardt, J. (2011). Firm lobbying and EU trade policymaking: Reflections on the anti-dumping case against Chinese and Vietnamese shoes (2005–2011). Journal of World Trade, 5, 965–991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckhardt, J. (2013). EU unilateral trade policy-making: What role for import-dependent firms? Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(6), 989–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckhardt, J., & Poletti, A. (2016). The politics of global value chains: Import-dependent firms and EU-Asia trade agreements. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(10), 1543–1562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckhardt, J., & Lee, K. (2018). Global value chains, firm preferences and the design of preferential trade agreements. Global Policy, 9(S2), 58–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estevadeordal, A., Blyde, J., Harris, J., & Volpe, C. (2013). Global value chains and rules of origin. ICTSD and World Economic Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2006). Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Global Europe: Competing in the World. Brussels, 4 October, COM(2006) 567 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2010). Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Trade, Growth and World Affairs. Brussels, 9 November, COM(2010) 612 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2015). Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Trade for all: Towards a More Responsible Trade and Investment Policy. Brussels, 14 October, COM(2015) 497 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2021). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Trade policy review—An open, sustainable and assertive trade policy. Brussels, 18 February, COM(2021) 66 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2019). Weaponized interdependence: How global economic networks shape state coercion. International Security, 44(1), 42–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelpi, C. F., & Grieco, J. M. (2008). Democracy, interdependence and the sources of the liberal peace. Journal of Peace Research, 45(1), 17–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geraets, D., Carroll, C., & Willems, A. R. (2015). Reconciling rules of origin and global value chains: The case for reform. Journal of International Economic Law, 18(2), 287–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy, 12(1), 78–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gereffi, G., & Kaplinsky, R. (2001). Introduction: Globalisation, value chains and development. IDS Bulletin, 32(3), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, J., & Schmitz, H. (2002). How does insertion in global value chains affect upgrading in industrial clusters? Regional Studies, 36(9), 1017–1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, J. B., Quinn, D. P., & Weymouth, S. (2015). The influence of firm global supply chains and foreign currency undervaluations on US trade disputes. International Organization, 69(4), 913–947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. C., & Noguera, G. (2012). Fragmentation and trade in value added over four decades, NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper 18186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerremans, B. (2022). US trade policy: Japan vs. China, from politically economic to existential. In J. Adriaensen & E. Postnikov (Eds.), A geo-economic turn in trade policy? EU trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. B. (2022). Rules of Origin: Bridging Regions to Withstand Turbulent Times. In J. Adriaensen & E. Postnikov (Eds.), A geo-economic turn in trade policy? EU trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S., Milner, H. V., Bernauer, T., Osgood, I., Spilker, G., & Tingley, D. (2019). Firms and global value chains: Identifying firms’ multidimensional trade preferences. International Studies Quarterly, 63(1), 153–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamp, N. (2020). How should we think about the winners and losers from Globalization? Three narratives and their implications for the redesign of international economic agreements. The European Journal of International Law, 30(4), 1359–1397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamy, P. (2010). Lamy says more and more products are “Made in the World”. World Trade Organization, https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl174_e.htm

  • Meunier, S., & Nicolaïdis, K. (2019). The geopoliticization of European trade and investment policy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 57(S1), 103–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oatley, T. (2011). The reductionist gamble: Open economy politics in the global economy. International Organization, 65(2), 311–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2013). Trade policy implications of global value chains. https://OECD.com.

  • Orefice, G., & Rocha, N. (2011). Deep integration and production networks: An empirical analysis. World Trade Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, A., Nayyar, G., & Low, P. (2013). Supply chain perspectives and issues: A literature review. WTO Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ravenhill, J. (2014). Global value chains and development. Review of International Political Economy, 21(1), 264–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrik, D. (2018). What do trade agreements really do? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(2), 73–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Assche, A., & Gangnes, B. (2019). Global value chains and the fragmentation of trade policy coalitions. Transnational Corporations: Investment and Development, 26(1), 31–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, M. (2017). Historicising Ricardo’s comparative advantage theory: Challenging the normative foundations of liberal International Political Economy. New Political Economy, 22(3), 257–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yi, K.-M. (2010). Can multistage production explain home bias in trade. American Economic Review, 100(1), 364–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ghent Institute for European and International Studies, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Ferdi De Ville

Authors
  1. Ferdi De Ville
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ferdi De Ville .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands

    Johan Adriaensen

  2. School of Social & Political Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Evgeny Postnikov

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

De Ville, F. (2022). Global Value Chains and EU–East Asia Trade: An Antidote for Geo-Economic Competition?. In: Adriaensen, J., Postnikov, E. (eds) A Geo-Economic Turn in Trade Policy?. The European Union in International Affairs. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81281-2_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation