Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Cloth without a weaver: power, emergence and institutions across global value chains

2014; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 43; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/03085147.2014.881595

1469-5766

Mark Dallas,

China's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance

AbstractIn studies of the fragmentation and internationalization of production, most value chain approaches consider the inter-firm balance of power as the critical dynamic in development. With the firm as the primary unit of analysis, research long held out two promises: first, bridging the 'micro-macro gap' in development theory, meaning making valid inferences from micro-level actors (firms) to macro-sociological outcomes; and second, reconciling its firm-level organizational approach with institutionalism. This paper argues, first, that the literature is artificially constrained in bridging the micro-macro gap due to its delimited conceptualization of 'power', based on the 'agentic-strategic' behaviour of firms. It argues for broadening the notion of power to bridge the levels of analysis, based on the concept of 'emergence'. Second, while institutional critics are correct in criticizing value chain scholarship for its neglect, this paper finds that the effects of institutions are not as consistent or determinative as suggested, and hence it seeks to expand the scope for incorporating institutionalism. These points are illustrated through an intra-industry comparative study of three textile agro-industries in China.Keywords: global value chainsgovernancepowerinstitutionsdevelopmentChina AcknowledgementsI thank Kiren Aziz Chaudhry, Tom Gold and Kevin O'Brien. For able research assistance, I thank Justin Bogardus.FundingThis work was supported by the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation; Fulbright-IIE; the Harvard-Yenching Institute; and Union College.Notes1 For a small sample of foundational works and overviews across disciplines, see Arndt & Kierzkowski, Citation2001; Bair, Citation2005, Citation2009; Berger & MIT Performance Center, Citation2005; Borrus, Ernst & Haggard, Citation2000; Feenstra, Citation1998; Gereffi, Korzeniewicz & Korzeniewicz, Citation1994; Krugman, Citation1995; Sturgeon, Citation2002.2 This differs from the multi-scalar territoriality of economic geographers (e.g. Dicken et al., Citation2001).3 See Kaplinsky & Morris (Citation2001) for a useful handbook on value chains, rents and measurement issues.4 As discussed in Feenstra & Hamilton (Citation2006; based on Hayek, Citation1967, pp. 96–105).5 For exceptions, see Breznitz & Murphree, Citation2011; Steinfeld, Citation2004, Citation2010.6 The ending of quotas opened new opportunities, presumably allowing less sophisticated domestic firms to enter export markets (see Yoffie, Citation1983; for an application to China, see Moore, Citation2002).7 I analysed the Guidances for 1995, 1997, 2002, 2004 and 2007.Additional informationFundingFunding: This work was supported by the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation; Fulbright-IIE; the Harvard-Yenching Institute; and Union College.Notes on contributorsMark P. DallasMark Dallas is an Assistant Professor of Political Science and Asian Studies at Union College in New York, and is currently an An Wang Postdoctoral Fellow at the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies at Harvard University.