2017-09-20, Hallward-Driemeier, Mary, Nayyar, Gaurav

Globalization and new technologies are impacting the desirability and feasibility of what has historically been the most successful development strategy. Manufacturing has been seen as special, promising both productivity gains and job creation. But trade is slowing. Global value chains (GVC) are maturing. Robotics, artificial intelligence, 3D printing, and the Internet of things are shifting what makes locations attractive for production and threatening significant disruptions in employment. There is a risk of increased polarization, within countries and across countries. Shifting the attention from high-income countries, this report takes the perspective of developing countries to ask: -- If new technologies reduce the importance of low-wage labor, how can developing countries compete? -- Do countries need to industrialize to develop? -- How can countries at different levels of development take advantage of new opportunities? Development strategies need to broaden. Different manufacturing sub-sectors can still provide productivity growth or jobs; fewer can deliver both. Many of the pro-development characteristics traditionally associated with manufacturing--tradability, scale, innovation, learning-by-doing--are increasingly features of services. With faster diffusion of technology, it will be all the more important for countries to improve the enabling environment, remain open to trade, and support capabilities of firms and workers to ensure future prosperity is shared.

2019-12, Hallward-Driemeier, Mary, Nayyar, Gaurav

For decades, manufacturers around the world have outsourced production to countries with lower labor costs. However, there is a concern that robotization in high-income countries will challenge this shifting international division of labor known as the "flying geese" paradigm. Greenfield foreign direct investment decisions constitute a forward-looking indicator of where production is expected, rather than trade flows that reflect past investment decisions. Exploiting differences across countries and industries, the intensity of robot use in high-income countries has a positive impact on foreign direct investment growth from high-income countries to low- and middle-income countries over 2004-15. Past a threshold, however, increased robotization in high-income countries has a negative impact on foreign direct investment growth. Only 3 percent of the sample exceeds the threshold level beyond which further automation results in negative foreign direct investment growth and is consistent with re-shoring. For another 25 percent of the sample, the impact of robotization on the growth of foreign direct investment is positive, but at a rate that is declining. So, although these are early warning signs, automation in high-income countries has resulted in growing foreign direct investment for more than two-thirds of the sample under consideration. Some geese may be slowing, but for now, most continue to fly.