• Global value chains: yesterday, today and tomorrow


    Made in Spain, Made in the USA and even Made in China labels make less and less sense in today’s world. Since firms decided to fragment their production processes and move them to other countries, the label Made in the World probably better represents the nature of most of the manufactured goods we consume. In this article we review the past, present and future of global value chains at a time when pandemic-induced restrictions on travel and supply disruptions have brought them back into the spotlight.



    Pre Titulo
    Área geográfica
    The creation of global value chains

    he 1990s saw the beginning of a far-reaching optimisation of production processes beyond the borders of a single country. Companies decided to fragment these processes and carry them out in as many countries (in order to make the most of each country’s advantages of specialisation), giving rise to what are known as global value chains (GVCs). Several factors helped to encourage the creation of GVCs but first and foremost were the advances made in information and communication technologies (ICTs), which enabled the different production stages to be coordinated perfectly. A second factor was the reduction in trade costs, helped by the important free trade agreements reached during that decade,11 as well as by improvements in transportation, especially by air.

    In fact, GVCs have boosted international trade flows to values that were unthinkable a few decades ago: exports of goods and services as a percentage of GDP rose from around 18% in the early 1990s to levels close to 30% just before the pandemic, while the relative weight of GVCs in total trade flows went from around 40% to just over 50% in the same period (see the chart below).12 

    • 11. 1994 saw the conclusion of the largest round of multilateral trade negotiations (the Uruguay Round), in which 123 countries took part. Also in 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was concluded. Both agreements led to a substantial reduction in tariffs worldwide: from levels of around 16% in the early 1990s to 5% today (according to World Bank data, simple averages).
    • 12. The development of GVCs was particularly dynamic between 1990 and the early 2000s, just before the outbreak of the global financial crisis. Since then, the relative importance of these chains in trade seems to have stagnated.

    The importance of global value chains in trade flows

    Last actualization: 04 May 2022 - 09:16
    The pandemic: present impact and future approaches to GVCs

    The COVID crisis has raised many doubts regarding the high degree of globalisation achieved, as well as the adequacy of GVCs. At first, in countries such as Spain, we became aware of the high external dependence (beyond the EU’s borders) of goods which, at that time, were essential.

    In a second phase, with the strong recovery in demand focusing particularly on durable goods and the disruptions in some factories due to the effects of COVID,13 we have been faced with a global supply shortage problem we had not experienced since GVCs were created. And, in this world of global manufacturing, disruption in one stage of the production chain leads to major disruptions throughout the entire process. The longer the GVC, the greater the impact (the bullwhip effect).

    Such disruptions will undoubtedly change people’s minds about GVCs. Although it is still too early to know what changes the future holds, we can suggest some strategic rethinks company directors are likely to pursue in order to increase the robustness of the production chain.

    First, the chains will probably be shorter to avoid the amplifying effect of disruptions. Secondly, they will be more redundant in key components. In other words, there will be alternatives to the production of these components. Thirdly, they will be equipped with new digital technologies that will enable them to detect chain failures early on. And, in terms of logistics, investment in inventories is likely to increase: from just in time to just in case, as stated in a recent article by the Financial Times14 (see the chart below).

    • 13. See the article «Bottlenecks: from the causes to how long they will last» in the Monthly Report of December 2021.
    • 14. See the Financial Times (December 2021). «Supply chains: companies shift from ’just in time’ to ’just in case’».

    Global value chains are likely to be shorter in order to avoid the amplifying effect of disruptions.


    However, it should be noted that these possible strategic changes, if they occur at all, may be more gradual and less far-reaching than we might have assumed after the shock of the pandemic. One of the reasons is that such changes would entail an increase in costs, with the evident impact on prices consumers would have to pay. In a globalised world, this could mean a significant loss of competitiveness compared with other countries and/or companies. Furthermore, as Harvard professor Pol Antràs has noted, the configuration of GVCs forces companies to incur large sunk costs, which leads to them being extremely rigid regarding strategic production changes.15 

    In other words, the COVID shock will indeed bring about a change in our approach to the configuration of new GVCs and may certainly lead to some rethinking of the existing chains. But, in the latter case, this rethinking might be less radical and rapid than some are predicting.

    • 15. See Antràs, P. (2020). «De-Globalisation? Global Value Chains in the Post-COVID-19 Age». National Bureau of Economic Research, no. w28115.
    The future of GVCs: plus and minus factors

    In addition to the impact of the pandemic, other factors (mostly new technologies) have the capacity to reshape GVCs and we present a brief review (see the diagram below).16


    Automation and 3D printing

    Although automation is a process that has been going on for centuries, today’s robots, equipped with artificial intelligence and at a cost that has decreased substantially over the past few decades, represent a full-fledged revolution. The improved productivity of these new robots may result in some of the manufacturing processes which had been moved to emerging countries in order to take advantage of low labour costs now returning to advanced countries. In other words, we would be shifting from an offshoring to a reshoring trend, which would entail a certain reversal in the globalisation of supply chains.

    On the other hand, 3D printing is a technology that could result in GVCs becoming shorter and, along with this, to the reshoring of part of the manufacturing activity. In fact, with this technology, it is not necessary to send physical products; all that’s required are the computer files to manufacture them! However, there is still no clear evidence in this respect. In fact, a paper published by the World Bank shows a strong increase in trade flows following the adoption of 3D technology in hearing aid production, something we would not expect with a shortening of GVCs.17 Although this is a very specific case, it does reveal some interesting effects that need to be considered. In particular, the hearing aid sector adopted 3D printing for almost all its parts when this became technologically feasible (about 10 years ago) and, since then, trade flows linked to the sector have increased by 60%. The main reason for this growth is that 3D printing has led to a huge reduction in the production cost of hearing aids and an improvement in terms of quality, resulting in a sharp increase in demand for the product. And with greater demand, international trade in hearing aids has intensified.

    • 16. Based partly on Canals, C. (2020). «Revolución tecnológica y comercio internacional 4.0». Geopolítica y Comercio en tiempos de cambio. Published by CIDOB.
    • 17. See Freund, C. L, Mulabdic, A. and Ruta, M. (2020). «Is 3D Printing a Threat to Global Trade? The Trade Effects You Didn’t Hear About». World Development Report.

    The electric car

    Another case that also warrants particular attention is that of electric cars, which have the potential to alter some of the most relevant GVCs (those of the automotive sector), as well as to considerably reduce international trade. The reason is that classic combustion-engine cars require a large variety of parts and gears that are often manufactured in different countries to maximize the competitive advantages of each location. In fact, the automotive sector is responsible for a substantial part of the world’s trade flows of intermediate goods. However, the electric car, with its much simpler mechanics (far fewer parts that are also less subject to wear and tear) could lead to a reduction in these classic intermediate flows and, consequently, to a radical change in the structure of automotive GVCs.

    The production of batteries, a key component for the new electric vehicles, will also determine the future of numerous trade flows, which in this case will focus on raw materials such as lithium, nickel and cobalt.


    Digital technologies and the emergence of new services

    The continuous evolution of ICT, hand in hand with 5G and blockchain technology, will continue to push down logistics costs and, with it, boost the trade flows of goods and services and participation in GVCs. For instance, 5G will support the development of the Internet of Things, which will enable faster and more secure tracking of shipments in the case of goods, and better connections in the exchange of services. Likewise, blockchain has the potential to greatly facilitate international payments.

    On the other hand, these digital technologies will also encourage the emergence of new products, especially services, whose organisation could be decentralised and located in different countries, creating new GVCs in the image and likeness of the chains already established for the production of manufactured goods.


    History reminds us that technological development and international trade are not independent of geopolitical developments.


    Finally, it should not be forgotten that geopolitics has always played an essential role in international trade. In this respect, the USA’s intention to «decouple» from China, especially in the field of technology, could bring about a very significant change in world trade and in how GVCs are managed, especially in the technology sector. Even more so because the US is not alone in wanting to put more distance between itself and other economies. For instance, Europe also seems willing to reduce its external dependence in some technology segments, such as semiconductors, with the European Chips Act.

    In summary, although we do not expect any radical or abrupt change in the form taken by GVCs since they tend to be relatively stable over time, we might see a change in trend in the next few years due to the various 4.0 technologies. In addition to these ongoing trends, factors such as the Coronavirus crisis will further exacerbate certain technological dynamics. However, history reminds us that technological development and international trade are not independent of geopolitical developments. And in this respect, trade-technology tensions between the US and China will play a decisive role.

    Destacado Economia y Mercados
    Destacado Analisis Sectorial
    Destacado Área Geográfica

The causes of the illiberal shift of economic policy: shedding some light on an open debate

Content available in
Álvaro Leandro
Àlex Ruiz
January 16th, 2020

In the previous articles of the Dossier, we have described the phenomenon of the illiberal shift of economic policy in a significant sample of countries. Now it is time to understand the causes. This is an ambitious exercise which is the subject of a broad academic and public debate, to which this article seeks to contribute an enriching analytical overview.

The great debate: are the causes solely economic in nature?

Let us recapitulate the main conclusions of the first two articles of the Dossier, as they set the starting point for what follows herein. In the article «Illiberal forms of economic policy: evolution or radical change from the existing consensus?» we define what we call the liberal consensus on economic policy, justifying the need to find a quantitative measure that approximates the hypothesis of the recent departure from that consensus. This measurement exercise is performed in the second article of the Dossier, in which it is concluded that there are notable differences between different spheres of economic policy, such that in some spheres the shift is highly noticeable, while in others it is less so. The challenge is therefore to try to determine whether there are elements that are common to all the spheres. If there are not, there is a risk of falling into an almost never-ending list of reasons affecting economic policy «in sphere z of country j». Making progress on this issue requires a telescope more than a microscope, but first we need to know where to point it.

Among the many possible intellectual fishing grounds, the authors of this Dossier consider the most promising one to be the academic debate, as well as the public debate, around the root causes of political polarisation. This phenomenon is defined as a greater divergence between the proposals of the major political parties. The measure used here to approximate the illiberal shift is related to the preferences of political parties and, therefore, whether they have become more extreme and antagonistic. In this regard, it is quite plausible that the illiberal shift led by many political parties is closely related to political polarisation and can therefore be placed within the framework of this widely documented political phenomenon. In other words, the illiberal shift could be a specific manifestation of a wider political trend: polarisation. In this same publication, we previously explored the root causes of the increase in political polarisation (i.e. the disparity in preferences). In particular, in two articles that focused on the structural and contextual outlook, respectively, Ruiz (2019) and Canals (2019) noted that the «usual suspects» in both the theoretical and the empirical literature were the economic effects of major crises, the increase in inequality (a major root cause of which was technological change) and the increase in migration flows.1

However, these types of causes, which we can broadly label socio-economic, do not exhaust all the possibilities. In the vast literature on populism – one of the specific forms that the increase in polarisation can take – it is noted that there are also institutional and cultural factors involved. It is within this line of thought, for instance, that the whole debate around what is known as «cultural backslash» is framed, which has been argued in the theses of authors such as Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart. The aforementioned article by Ruiz (2019) set out the hypothesis that secular changes in western societies, such as tertiarisation, have led to a double effect: that which could be called economic insecurity and that which presents itself as an increase in diversity. Combined with a shift in previous decades towards post-materialist and socially progressive values, these effects have generated a movement in the opposite direction by the socially more conservative segments of western countries, thus contributing to an increase in ideologically more polarised positions.

A multi-causal approximation of the illiberal shift: an empirical exercise

Do the available data confirm that the illiberal shift – that special form of polarisation of preferences that we are studying – is caused by different kinds of factors? To answer this question, we have chosen a series of variables that cover the aforementioned theoretical spectrum and have grouped them into four different categories. First are the strictly economic causes, which primarily measure the direct effect of the Great Recession through the evolution of GDP per capita and the unemployment rate. A second block is comprised of social variables, such as inequality and migration flows. A third group consists of institutional variables and, more specifically, the rule of law and the degree of control over corruption. A fourth and final category encompasses cultural and ideological variables, such as secularity, the liberality of society (for details of the definition, see the charts) and the position of parties on the left-right axis.

When the relative weight of these blocks of variables is quantified in seeking to explain the change in the degree of aggregate illiberalism, as defined in article «The illiberal shift in economic policy: let the data speak!», the results are quite enlightening. A first conclusion when analysing which factors are more related to each of the different areas of economic policy is that, generally speaking, the main determining factors are in an economic nature. This is not surprising, since the policies we are dealing with are, precisely, economic ones.

Nevertheless – and this would be a second major conclusion –, when assessing the different areas, it becomes apparent that both the cultural and the institutional elements have a non-negligible influence on the illiberal shift. As is clear from the charts, this is the case in areas such as trade policy, which are dominated by institutional factors, and in cultural areas, which play an important role in migration policy. In contrast, the social elements, at least as they have been defined, appear to play a less important role. The exception to this is the field of immigration policy, in which social factors do appear to explain a large part of the shift towards illiberalism.

At this point in the analysis, it is worth considering whether any conclusions can be drawn for the cases of Spain and Portugal. Although data for the variable in question (the degree of illiberalism) are not available for Spain and Portugal, the above exploration of the causes allows us to make a first attempt at approximating the level of pressure that exists for these countries to become more or less illiberal. When we analyse the trend in the different explanatory variables, it becomes clear that in both countries, albeit more so in Spain, the dynamics of several of these variables before and after the financial crisis indicate growing pressure towards a greater degree of illiberalism. Specifically, the trend in the blocks of economic and social variables (especially the fall in GDP as a result of the crisis, as well as a higher unemployment rate and level of inequality than the average for the sample between 2008 and 2013) indicates potential pressure in areas that are more sensitive to these factors (it should be noted, however, that in both the institutional and the cultural sphere Spain and Portugal show trends in line with other countries).

Finally, the exercise conducted here leads us to the same main conclusion as other similar exercises in the social science literature conducted on other areas of polarisation or on the change in preferences in general. Specifically, single-cause explanations do not tie in well with the available data, and while economic factors play a bigger role, social, institutional, cultural and ideological factors are also relevant. To the extent that the world will evolve in the direction that most economists and analysts predict, the pressures in all areas in many of the most important countries in the world to diverge from the liberal consensus will persist, or even increase. After all, it is hard to picture major improvements materialising in long-term growth, in inequality reduction, in changes in migration flows or in institutional regeneration. In this context, we need to explore the effects that this illiberal shift could have: an exercise that we undertake in the fourth and final article of the Dossier.

Álvaro Leandro and Àlex Ruiz

1. See the Dossier «The causes of polarisation» in the MR05/2019.



Álvaro Leandro
Àlex Ruiz
    Long-term trends


    We analyse the major geopolitical trends and how they influence the financial markets and economy.