外文资料翻译--全球工业的商品产业链分析

Institute of Develompment Studies, 1999, 12(2): 1-8.
A Commodity Chains of Framework for Analyzing Global Industries
Gary Gereffi
Duke University
Abstrast : In this paper, we fouce on the "producer-driven" and "buyer-driven" global commodity chains, which is under the development of industrial and
commercial capital. And then analyze their features and the relationship with
development strategies.
Keywords: Globalization; Commodity Chains; development strategies
Background
In global capitalism, economic activity is not only international in scope, it is also global in organization. "Internationalization" refers to the geographic spread of economic activities across national boundaries. As such, it is not a new phenomenon. Indeed, it has been a prominent feature of the world economy since at least the seventeenth century when colonial empires began to carve up the globe in search of raw materials and new markets for their manufactured exports. "Globalization" is much more recent than internationalization because it implies functional integration between internationally dispersed activities (Dicken, 1998: 5).
Types of globalization
Industrial and commercial capital have promoted globalization by establishing two distinct types of international economic networks, which can be called "producer-driven" and "buyer-driven" global commodity chains, respectively (Gereffi, 1994; 1999). A commodity chain refers to the whole range of activities involved in the design, production, and marketing of a product (see Gereffi and Korzeniewicz, 1994 for an overview of this framework). Producer-driven commodity chains are those in which large, usually transnational, manufacturers play the central roles in coordinating production networks (including their backward and forward linkages). This is characteristic of capital- and technology-intensive industries such as automobiles, aircraft, computers, semiconductors, and heavy machinery. The automobile industry offers a classic illustration of a producer-driven chain, with multilayered production systems that involve thousands of firms (including parents, subsidiaries, and subcontractors). In the 1980s, the average
Japanese automaker's production system, for example, contained 170 first-tier, 4,700 second-tier, and 31,600 third-tier subcontractors (Hill 1989: 466). Florida and Kenney (1991) found that Japanese automobile manufacturers actually reconstituted many aspects of their home-country supplier networks in North America. Doner (1991) extended this framework to highlight the complex forces that drive Japanese automakers to create regional production schemes for the supply of auto parts in a half-dozen nations in East and Southeast Asia. Henderson (1989) and Borrus (1997) also support the notion that producer-driven commodity chains have established an East Asian division of labor in their studies of the internationalization of the U.S. and Japanese semiconductor industries.
Buyer-driven commodity chains refer to those industries in which large retailers, marketers, and branded manufacturers play the pivotal roles in setting up decentralized production networks in a variety of exporting countries, typically located in the third world. This pattern of trade-led industrialization has become common in labor-intensive, consumer goods industries such as garments, footwear, toys, housewares, consumer electronics, and a variety of handicrafts. Production is generally carried out by tiered networks of third world contractors that make finished goods for foreign buyers. The specifications are supplied by the large retailers or marketers that order the goods.
Features
One of the main characteristics of the firms that fit the buyer-driven model, including retailers like Wal-Mart, Sears Roebuck, and J.C. Penney, athletic footwear companies like Nike and Reebok, and fashion-oriented apparel companies like Liz Claiborne and The Limited, is that these companies design and/or market—but do not make—the branded products they order. They are part of a new breed of "manufacturers without factories"that separate the physical production of goods from the design and marketing stages of the production process. Profits in buyer-driven chains derive not from scale, volume, and technological advances as in producer-driven chains, but rather from unique combinations of high-value research, design, sales, marketing, and financial services that allow the retailers, designers, and marketers to act as strategic brokers in linking overseas factories and traders with evolving product niches in their main consumer markets (Gereffi, 1994).
Profitability is greatest in the relatively concentrated segments of global commodity chains characterized by high barriers to the entry of new firms. In producer-driven chains, manufacturers making advanced products like aircraft, automobiles, and computers are the key economic agents not only in terms of their earnings, but also in their ability to exert
control over backward linkages with raw material and component suppliers, and forward linkages into distribution and retailing. The lead firms in producer-driven chains usually belong to global oligopolies. Buyer-driven commodity chains, by contrast, are characterized by highly competitive and globally decentralized factory systems. The Main Characteristics of Producer-Driven and Buyer-Driven
companies that develop and sell brand-named products exert substantial control over how, when, and where manufacturing will take place, and how much profit accrues at each stage of the chain. Thus, whereas producer-driven commodity chains are controlled by large manufacturers at the point of production, the main leverage in buyer-driven industries is exercised by retailers and marketers at the distribution and retail end of the chain.
The main features of producer-driven and buyer-driven commodity chains are highlighted in Table 1. Producer-driven and buyer-driven chains are rooted in distinct industrial sectors, they are led by different types of transnational capital (industrial and commercial, respectively), and they vary in their core competencies (at the firm level) and their entry barriers (at the sectoral level). The finished goods in producer-driven chains tend to be supplied by core country transnationals, while the goods in buyer-driven chains are generally made by locally owned firms in developing countries. Whereas transnational corporations establish investment-based vertical networks, the retailers, designers, and trading companies in buyer-driven chains set up and coordinate trade-based horizontal networks.
Commodity chains and development strategies
There is an affinity between commodity chains and development strategies. The import- substituting industrialization (ISI) development strategy, which prevailed in Latin America for nearly five decades until the 1970s, was based on producer-driven commodity chains. Transnational corporations, which have actively tapped Latin America's oil, mineral, and agricultural resources since the nineteenth century, were invited to establish more advanced manufacturing industries in the region, beginning with automobile assembly plants in large countries like Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina in the 1920s. By the 1950s and 1960s, a range of advanced ISI factories were spread throughout the region in diverse industries such as petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, automobiles, electrical and non-electrical machinery, and computers (Gereffi and Wyman, 1990). Output was mainly destined for the domestic market, although in the 1970s more attention was given to manufactured exports to offset the costly import bills associated with ISI deepening. Buyer-driven commodity chains, by contrast, have been virtually ignored in Latin America since the transnational firms that established ISI were primarily interested in Latin America's domestic markets, not exports. This allowed the local exporters in the East Asian NIEs that pursued export-oriented industrialization (EOI) to gain the lion's share of U.S. and European markets for the profitable consumer goods that are only supplied via buyer-driven chains.
Both buyer-driven and producer-driven commodity chains are useful in analyzing and evaluating global industries. As with traditional supply-chain perspectives, the commodity chains framework is based on the flow of goods involved in the production and distribution of apparel products. However, the global commodity chains approach differs in at least four respects from related concepts, such as the "pipeline"(AAMA, 1984) or "value chain"(Porter 1990) approaches. The global commodity chain framework:
1) incorporates an explicit international dimension into the analysis;
2) focuses on the power exercised by the lead firms in different segments of the commodity chain, and it illustrates how power shifts over time;
3) views the coordination of the entire chain as a key source of competitive advantage that requires using networks as a strategic asset; and
4) looks at organizational learning as one of the critical mechanisms by which firms try to improve or consolidate their positions within the chain.
One of the major hypotheses of the global commodity chains approach is that
development requires linking up with the most significant "lead firms"in an industry. These lead firms are not necessarily the traditional vertically integrated manufacturers, nor do they even need to be involved in making finished products. They can be located upstream or downstream from manufacturing (such as the fashion designers or private label retailers in apparel), or they can be involved in the supply of critical components (such as microprocessor companies like Intel and software firms like Microsoft in the computer industry). What distinguishes lead firms from their followers or subordinates is that they control access to major resources (such as product design, new technologies, brand names, or consumer demand) that generate the most profitable returns in the industry.
NOTES
AAMA (American Apparel Manufacturers Association) (1984), Apparel Manufacturing Strategies, Arlington, VA.
Birnbaum, David (1993), Importing Garments Through Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Third Horizon Press. Borrus, Michael (1997), "Left for dead: Asian production networks and the revival of U.S. electronics,"pp. 139-163 in: Barry Naughton (ed.), The China Circle: Economics and Technology in the PRC, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, Washington, D.C., Brookings Institution Press.
Dicken, Peter (1998), Global Shift: Transforming the World Economy, 3 edition, New York, Guilford Press.
Dickerson, Kitty G. (1995), Textiles and Apparel in the Global Economy, 2 edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.
Doner, Richard F. (1991), Driving a Bargain: Automobile Industrialization and Japanese Firms in Southeast Asia, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press.
Dyer, Jeffrey H. (1996), "How Chrysler created an American keiretsu," Harvard Business Review (July-August).
Fine, Charles H. (1998), Clockspeed: Winning Industry Control in the Age of Temporary Advantage, Reading, MA, Perseus Books.
Florida, Richard and Martin Kenney (1991), "Transplanted organizations: The transfer of Japanese industrial organization to the United States," American Sociological Review 56, 3: 381-398.
Institute of Develompment Studies, 1999, 12(2): 1-8.
全球工业的商品产业链分析
Gary Gereffi
Duke University
摘要本文介绍了在全球化条件下，工业资本与商业资本各自形成的商品链，即“生产者主导的全球商品链”和“购买者主导的全球商品链”。

指出它们的各自特点，并对它们与国家发展战略间的联系经行分析。

最后提出全球供应链的理论突破。

关键词全球化；商品链；发展战略
一、背景
在全球资本主义盛行的背景下，经济的“全球化”不仅表现在经济活动的地理范围上，也表现在公司的组织形式上。

“国际化”（Internationalization）指的是经济活动在地理上超越一国国界。

这种“国际化”并不是什么新鲜事了。

事实上自从十七世纪殖民主义国家开始在全世界范围内寻找原材料供给地和产品市场时，“国际化”就已经成为世界经济的一个重要特征了。

但是。

“全球化”（Globalizationg）却是一个新鲜的事物，因为它的内涵，是将分散在全球各地的各种单一功能进行整合。

二、来源及分类
工业资本和商业资本分别通过两种不同的形式推动了全球化的发展，即“生产者主导的全球商品链”和“购买者主导的全球商品链”。

商品链指的是包括设计、制造、市场营销在内的整个活动过程。

生产者主导的商品链是指在生产网络中由那些大型的跨国公司的制造商占据主导地位的商品链。

它的特点是资本密集型或技术密集型。

比如汽车、飞机、计算机、半导体和重型机械等。

购买者主导的商品链则是指那些由大型零售商、市场商人或成品制造者在建立的分散制造网络中占据主导地位的产业。

他们通常出现于出口主导型的第三世界国家中。

这种由贸易带动的工业化在劳动力密集型的消费品行业中相当普遍。

比如服装、鞋、玩具、家用品、日用电器和一系列手工艺品等。

这些产品的生产由位于第三世界国家面向国外市场的生产者进行。

而产品的规格是由那些大零售商或市场商人提供。

购买者主导型公司的一个重要特点是这种公司只是设计产品、进行销售，但却不生产他们的产品。

比如War-Mart，Sears Roebuck，J.C.Penney，和运动品牌Nike和Reebok，以及市场品牌公司Liz Claiborne和The Limited。

这种方式被称为“无工厂制造”，即将商品的实体生产与设计营销分离开来。

在购买者主导的产业链中，利润的来源不是规模经济或技术进步，而是来源于将高价值的设计、销售、营销和金融服务以一种最好的方式结合起来。

因为这些零售商、市场商人可以通过掌握主要消费市场的方式控制海外工厂和交易商。

二、各自特点
在那些行业进入障碍大并且相对集中的全球产业链中，企业的获利能力是最高的。

在生产者主导的产业链中，那些制造高级产品如飞机、汽车、计算机的制造商们成为了核心的经济单位。

他们的核心地位不仅体现在利润上，还体现在对向前联系（即与原材料提供商和零件供应商的联系上）和向后联系（即在分销和零售环节）上具有很强的控制能力。

这些主导企业一般为国际寡头企业。

相比之下，购买者主导的商品链更具有竞争性和全球分散性。

这些设计并销售自己品牌的公司，控制着加工环节以什么样的方式，在什么时间，在哪个地方进行，并且控制着生产链中各个环节的利润。

因此，尽管加工商在生产环节上具有决定性作用，但是营销商们利用分销和零售达到了控制整个商品链的作用。

关于“生产者主导”和“购买者主导”的商品链的主要特征在下表中列出：
三、商品链与发展战略
在商品链与发展战略之间存在着一种密切联系。

进口替代发展战略——在20世纪20年代到70年达之间盛行与拉美国家——是建立在生产者主导的产业链上的。

那些从十九世纪就开始急切开发拉丁美洲的石油、矿产和农业资源的跨国公司，在那个
时间里被邀请进入，以建立高级的生产工业。

比如在墨西哥和巴西建立汽车整车工业。

到二十世纪50到60年代时，一系列进口替代工厂在拉丁美洲的各个行业中扩散开来。

虽然在20世纪70年代人们更关注通过这些工厂的产品出口以弥补由于进口替代产生的巨额赤字，但实际上大部分产品还是用于满足生产国的国内需要。

相比之下，由于那些建立国内替代的跨国公司主要致力于开发拉丁美洲国家的国内市场，“购买者商品链”在这些国家中基本上都被忽略了。

这就促使了东亚国家的出口商们在美国市场和欧洲市场有利可图的商品中占据很大份额。

三、全球商品链的突破
“购买者主导”模型和“生产者主导”模型在分析和评价全球行业时发挥了重要作用。

在传统的供应链中，商品的流动是建立在商品链的结构基础之上的。

但是，全球商品链却至少从四点区别于之前理论。

这种全球商品链结构：
①将国际视角引入分析之中；
②关注那些在不同商品链中占据主导地位的公司，并且指出这些公司的市场支配力量是如何随时间吧变化而变化的；
③认为整个生产链的协作是其相对优势的关键；
④将组织的学习看成企业在产业链中提高和发挥作用的关键机制。

关于全球产业链的一个假设是：发展的必备条件是将某个产业内绝大多数主导公司联系起来。

这些主导企业不必是传统的垂直加工整合企业，也不是必须参加最终产品的生产，他们可以位于商品链的上游或下游，或者只参与对核心中间品的供给。

将主导企业与非主导企业区分开来的因素是：主导企业控制着那些能够带来巨额利润的关键资源。

参考文献：
AAMA (American Apparel Manufacturers Association) (1984), Apparel Manufacturing Strategies, Arlington, VA.
Birnbaum, David (1993), Importing Garments Through Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Third Horizon Press. Borrus, Michael (1997), "Left for dead: Asian production networks and the revival of U.S. electronics,"pp. 139-163 in: Barry Naughton (ed.), The China Circle: Economics and Technology in the PRC, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, Washington, D.C., Brookings Institution Press.
Dicken, Peter (1998), Global Shift: Transforming the World Economy, 3 edition, New York, Guilford Press.
Dickerson, Kitty G. (1995), Textiles and Apparel in the Global Economy, 2 edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.
Doner, Richard F. (1991), Driving a Bargain: Automobile Industrialization and Japanese Firms in Southeast Asia, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press.
Dyer, Jeffrey H. (1996), "How Chrysler created an American keiretsu," Harvard Business Review (July-August).
Fine, Charles H. (1998), Clockspeed: Winning Industry Control in the Age of Temporary Advantage, Reading, MA, Perseus Books.
Florida, Richard and Martin Kenney (1991), "Transplanted organizations: The transfer of Japanese industrial organization to the United States," American Sociological Review 56, 3: 381-398.。