Affiliation:
1. 1 Munich Business School; and Bundeswehr University Munich , Neubiberg , Germany .
2. 2 ifo Institute, Munich; and University of Applied Management , Ismaning , Germany .
Abstract
Abstract
In the current economic policy debate, there are often calls to reverse advanced developments in globalisation and the international division of labour. Reasons such as greater business resilience, political independence and, from a climate perspective, less harmful production argue for not abolishing trade, but at least bundling a larger part of the value chain locally. However, such considerations are de facto made from the perspective of a highly developed and globally networked industrialised country. In contrast, this paper argues that trade activities can never be considered from the perspective of only one partner, but must always take into account the needs of all stakeholders, which in turn depend on the respective level of development.
Subject
Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous),Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous)
Reference26 articles.
1. Babu, M. S. (2020, 20 January), Why ‘Make in India’ Has Failed, The Hindu.
2. Balassa, B. (1965), Trade Liberalisation and ‘Revealed’ Comparative Advantage, The Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, 33(2), 99-123.
3. Blomqvist, H. (1995), Intraregional Foreign Investment in East Asia, ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 11(3), 280-297.
4. Chichilnisky, G. (1994), North-South Trade and the Global Environment, American Economic Review, 84(4), 851-874.
5. Choi, J. P. and C. Davidson (2004), Strategic Second Sourcing by Multinationals, International Economic Review, 45(2), 579-600.