• Agenda
  • Initiatives
  • Reports
  • Events
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Leadership and Governance
    • Our Members and Partners
    • Communities
    • History
    • Klaus Schwab
    • Media
    • Contact Us
    • Careers
    • World Economic Forum USA
    • Privacy and Terms of Use
  • EN ES FR 日本語 中文
  • Login to TopLink

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. By using our website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our updated Cookie Notice.

I accept
    Hamburger
  • World Economic Forum Logo
  • Agenda
  • Initiatives
  • Reports
  • Events
  • About
  • TopLink
  • Search Cancel

Report Home

<Previous Next>
  • Introduction
  • Project Methodology
  • Executive Summary
  • – VOLUME ONE –
  • Globally Competitive Policy
  • CEO Policy Recommendations for Emerging Economy Nations
  • China
  • India
  • Brazil
  • CEO Policy Recommendations for Developed Economy Nations
  • United States
  • Germany
  • Japan
  • Country Policy Comparisons Framework
  • Going Deep on Critical Policy Issues
  • Energy as a Competitive Advantage
  • – VOLUME TWO –
  • Partnering for Competitiveness
  • Common Best Practices across Public-Private Partnership Organizations
  • Leading Examples of Public-Private Partnerships around the World
  • Agency for Science, Technology and Research - Singapore
  • Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa) - Brazil
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Future Manufacturing Flagship - Australia
  • Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft - Germany
  • FFI – Strategic Vehicle Research and Innovation (Programme of VINNOVA) - Sweden
  • Innovation Network Corporation of Japan - Japan
  • Industry Technology Research Institute - Taiwan
  • The Manufacturing Institute - United States
  • National Research Council Canada - Canada
  • National Skills Development Corporation - India
  • SkillsUSA - United States
  • Company-sponsored Partnerships
  • Leading Examples of Cross-border Public-Private Partnerships
  • Other Leading Examples of Public-Private Partnerships
  • – VOLUME THREE –
  • Manufacturing Value Chains Driving Growth
  • Why the World Suddenly Cares about Global Supply Chains
  • Aerospace Industry Overview
  • Aerospace Industry Infographics
  • Automotive Industry Overview
  • Automotive Industry Infographics
  • Chemicals Industry Overview
  • Chemicals Industry Infographics
  • – ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS –
  • CEO Recommendations
  • Project Consultative Group
  • Acknowledgements
Manufacturing for Growth - Strategies for Driving Growth and Employment Home Previous Next
  • Report Home
  • Introduction
  • Project Methodology
  • Executive Summary
  • – VOLUME ONE –

  • Globally Competitive Policy
  • CEO Policy Recommendations for Emerging Economy Nations

  • China
  • India
  • Brazil
  • CEO Policy Recommendations for Developed Economy Nations

  • United States
  • Germany
  • Japan
  • Country Policy Comparisons Framework
  • Going Deep on Critical Policy Issues
  • Energy as a Competitive Advantage
  • – VOLUME TWO –

  • Partnering for Competitiveness
  • Common Best Practices across Public-Private Partnership Organizations
  • Leading Examples of Public-Private Partnerships around the World

  • Agency for Science, Technology and Research - Singapore
  • Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa) - Brazil
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Future Manufacturing Flagship - Australia
  • Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft - Germany
  • FFI – Strategic Vehicle Research and Innovation (Programme of VINNOVA) - Sweden
  • Innovation Network Corporation of Japan - Japan
  • Industry Technology Research Institute - Taiwan
  • The Manufacturing Institute - United States
  • National Research Council Canada - Canada
  • National Skills Development Corporation - India
  • SkillsUSA - United States
  • Company-sponsored Partnerships
  • Leading Examples of Cross-border Public-Private Partnerships
  • Other Leading Examples of Public-Private Partnerships
  • – VOLUME THREE –

  • Manufacturing Value Chains Driving Growth
  • Why the World Suddenly Cares about Global Supply Chains
  • Aerospace Industry Overview
  • Aerospace Industry Infographics
  • Automotive Industry Overview
  • Automotive Industry Infographics
  • Chemicals Industry Overview
  • Chemicals Industry Infographics
  • – ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS –

  • CEO Recommendations
  • Project Consultative Group
  • Acknowledgements

Automotive Industry Overview

14_Img750x250

Automotive Industry Overview

Advanced Manufacturing Value-added Paradox (AMVAP) 

Economic Development Considerations for Policy-Makers

Figure 13: Advanced Manufacturing Value-added Paradox (AMVAP) Model

Source: © Giffi, Roth, Holdowsky, Gangula, Chaudhuri; The Advanced Manufacturing Value-added Paradox Model; DTTI Working Paper Series, 2012) 

The path to economic prosperity for a nation is tied to the robustness of its manufacturing sector, and the ability to accumulate productive knowledge and skills resulting in innovative products that can be competitively traded in global markets. This premise was convincingly argued by Ricardo Hausmann and Cesar Hidalgo in the Atlas of Economic Complexity:36 “Our most prosperous modern societies…hold a diversity of knowhow and…are able to recombine it to create a larger variety of smarter and better products.” The more advanced the product sets a nation can produce – and the more advanced the manufacturing processes employed – the greater the prosperity of the nation. 

For policy-makers keen on creating high-value jobs for its citizens, the answer then seems straightforward. Seek out and attract investment from the most advanced manufacturing organizations for the most advanced facilities possible. Indeed, competition to attract manufacturing investment and foreign direct investment between nations and between individual geographic regions within nations is increasing.37 The economic benefit or value-added to the nation – and the specific geographic region – can be significant due to the strong multiplier effect of advanced manufacturing through the economy. 

But do the most advanced manufacturing facilities truly have greater economic benefit or value-added when the focus is on a geographic region versus the nation as a whole? Should local policy-makers seek out the most advanced research and production facilities to locate in their community, or would they be better off with medium- or low-tech manufacturing?

Based on preliminary analysis, the answer is at best complicated – and suggests that while advanced manufacturing at its highest level may be exactly what a nation must pursue to achieve greater prosperity, the local value-added of a geographic region may be better served with manufacturing that lends itself to the creation of geographic clusters of like companies and suppliers in close proximity.

Low-tech manufacturing is easily trumped in terms of value-added to a geographic region by medium- and high-tech manufacturing because of the higher level of skills required and wages paid, as well as the overall level of business and public investment made into the region, which is typically much greater. Additionally, the multiplier effect of medium- and high-tech manufacturing can be greater as robust supplier networks often co-locate in the region to further enable just-in-time (JIT) manufacturing processes, as in the automotive industry. 

But as the product becomes increasingly sophisticated and complex, requiring unique or specialized suppliers contributing complex subsystems and access to advanced global supply networks, as occurs in the aerospace industry, the close proximity of supplier to manufacturing or final assembly facility location often gives way. The critical requirement of access to specialized suppliers and unique global supply networks – not located in close geographic proximity – takes priority. The value-added to the geographic region may actually be less, if clusters of like companies and their supply base are not formed in the region as a result of the need to access highly specialized and advanced suppliers in other parts of the world. 

While a linear relationship was expected between the economic value-added for a region and a higher level of advanced manufacturing, the research instead found more of an “inverted U” parabola. This suggests that there is some level of optimal advanced manufacturing facility for a region, after which a diminishing benefit accrues. This most likely varies considerably, depending on a number of factors including the maturity, vitality and competitiveness of the region’s underlying manufacturing supply network and the degree to which similar manufacturing organizations and public infrastructure – such as research universities and technology centres – are present in the region. 

36
36 “The Future of Manufacturing: Opportunities to Drive Economic Growth”, World Economic Forum, April 2012.
37
37 Ibid.
Back to Top
Subscribe for updates
A weekly update of what’s on the Global Agenda
Follow Us
About
Our Mission
Leadership and Governance
Our Members and Partners
The Fourth Industrial Revolution
Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution
Communities
History
Klaus Schwab
Our Impact
Media
Pictures
A Global Platform for Geostrategic Collaboration
Careers
Open Forum
Contact Us
Mapping Global Transformations
Code of Conduct
World Economic Forum LLC
Sustainability
World Economic Forum Privacy Policy
Media
News
Accreditation
Subscribe to our news
Members & Partners
Member login to TopLink
Strategic Partners' area
Partner Institutes' area
Global sites
Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution
Open Forum
Global Shapers
Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship
EN ES FR 日本語 中文
© 2022 World Economic Forum
Privacy Policy & Terms of Service