外文翻译--价值链理论新发展补充

全球价值链治理外文翻译本科毕业论文外文翻译外文题目:The governance of global value chains出处: Review of International Political Economy作者:Gary Gereffi;John Humphrey;Timothy Sturgeon译文:全球价值链治理简介本文建立了一个理论框架来帮助说明全球价值链的治理模式。

它利用三种理论??交易成本经济学,生产网络,技术能力和企业层面的学习能力,来识别三个在全球价值链是治理和变化中扮演重要角色的变量。

它们是:(1)交易的复杂程度;(2)识别交易的能力;(3)供应能力。

这一理论把全球价值链治理模式分为五种:等级型,领导型,关系型,模块型和市场型??按照合作意愿和权力的不对称性从高向低排列。

本文通过四个简短的工业个案研究强调了动态和重叠全球价值链治理:自行车、服装、园艺和电子产业集中分析了全球价值链治理的动力和重叠的本质。

关键词全球价值链治理网络交易成本价值链模块引言在过去的几十年里,全球经济发生了巨大的变化,尤其在国际贸易和产业组织方面。

当代经济最重要的两个新特征是生产和贸易的全球化,极大地推动了发展中国家生产能力,跨国公司的垂直解体。

跨国公司逐渐把它们的核心竞争力专注于在营销和服务方面的产业创新、产品战略、市场服务的高附加值环节集中,同时大力削减一些非核心的功能如普通服务和批量生产等。

本文的目的是为更好的理解全球价值链治理结构的转变提供理论框架。

我们希望能够为现实世界存在的价值链治理模式的治理提供一些普遍适用的基本原则。

全球范围内生产组织的演变不仅仅影响公司发展和产业结构,而且对国家在全球经济中如何及为何前进与后退都有着极大的影响。

全球价值链的研究和政策制订工作对全球生产和分配体系组织方式及发展中国家提升其在国际市场竞争地位的可能性进行了探讨。

我们的愿望之一就是为各国制订产业升级、经济发展、就业创造、减轻贫困相关政策提供一定的借鉴。

价值链理论研究1.概念提出及解释1985年，哈佛商学院的迈克尔·波特教授在其所著的《竞争优势》一书中首次提出了价值链的概念，他将价值链作为分析竞争优势的工具，指出“每一个企业都是在设计、生产、销售、发送和辅助其产品的过程中进行种种活动的集合体。

所有这些活动都可以用一个价值链来表明。

”在波特看来，要达到价值创造的目的，公司的各种活动都是不可缺少的，但具体到某一项或多项活动是价值创造活动还是成本驱动因素，则要具体分析。

价值链是一个企业在一定产业内的各种活动的组合，比如产品设计、生产、营销、交货等各种对产品起作用的各种行为。

根据迈克尔·波特的观点，将企业价值链根据企业与相应供应方和需求方的关系，分别向其前、后向延伸就形成了产业价值链。

这种产业价值链是基于专业化分工和协作基础之上的不同企业所构成的。

对于某一产业来说，如果其内部的各个企业是处于“分散、孤立的状态，即各企业之间没有形成有效的分工和协作，那么该产业内也就不可能形成有效的产业价值链。

如图1所示，价值活动可分为两大类:基本活动和辅助活动。

基本活动如图底部所示，是涉及产品的生产、销售、交付和售后服务的各种活动。

辅助活动是辅助基本活动，并通过提供外购、技术、人力资源等各种职能以相互支持。

图中的虚线表示：人力资源管理、技术开发和采购都与各种具体的基本活动相联系，并支持整个价值链。

而企业的基本设施虽并不与某种特别的基本活动相联系，但它也支持着整个价值链。

同时，任何一项基本活动、辅助活动又都可以分解成很多分支活动，如图2中，市场销售又可以分解成营销管理、广告、销售队伍管理、销售业务、技术文献和促销等。

价值链是指消费者心目中的价值基础是透过一连串的企业内部物质与技术上的具体价值活动（value activities）与利润（margin）所构成，当你和其它企业竞争时，其实是内部多项活动在做竞争，这才是竞争，而不是整个公司一体的竞争。

透过价值链，你可以知道你在哪些活动占有优势，哪些处于弱势。

全球价值链理论与我国产业发展研究随着全球化的深入发展，全球价值链理论逐渐成为了产业研究的热门话题。

全球价值链理论是由哈佛大学的经济学家迈克尔·波特提出的。

根据波特的定义，全球价值链是指一个商品或服务在全球范围内的生产、流通和销售环节的整合。

在这个链条上，每个环节都会为增加产品的附加值做出贡献，从而形成了全球价值链。

全球价值链理论的出现不仅对全球范围内的产业发展产生了深远的影响，也对我国产业发展提出了新的挑战和机遇。

本文将探讨全球价值链理论对我国产业发展的影响，以及我国如何在全球价值链中找到自己的定位和机遇。

全球价值链理论对我国产业发展的影响体现在以下几个方面：1. 增加了我国对外贸易的依存度。

在全球价值链中，一个产品可能经历了多个国家和地区的生产环节，其中包括原材料的生产、零部件的加工、产品的组装等。

全球价值链的形成使得各个国家的产业联系更加紧密，也使得我国对外贸易的依存度大大增加。

这就意味着我国在全球价值链中的地位更加关键，一旦出现全球经济波动，我国产业将受到更大的影响。

2. 加剧了我国产业结构调整的压力。

全球价值链的形成，使得国际分工更加精细化和复杂化。

一些传统产业可能因为生产环节的分解而受到挑战，而新兴产业则有更大的发展机遇。

我国产业结构调整的压力加大，必须适应全球价值链的要求，通过技术升级和转型升级，推动产业升级，使得我国在全球价值链中有更强的地位。

3. 提升了我国产品的附加值。

通过参与全球价值链，我国不仅可以获得技术和管理经验的进步，还可以提升产品的附加值。

在全球价值链中，我国产业可以根据自身的优势和实力，选择适合自己的环节，从而提高产品的附加值，增强在全球市场的竞争力。

在全球价值链的背景下，我国产业发展面临着新的挑战和机遇。

如何寻找自己的定位，提高附加值，增强在全球市场的竞争力，是摆在我国面前的重要课题。

我国需要加强产业转型升级，发展高附加值的产业。

通过技术创新和管理创新，提升产品和服务的附加值，拓展高端市场，提高在全球价值链中的地位。

全球价值链重构英语英文回答：The global value chain (GVC) is undergoing a period of significant reconfiguration, driven by a number of factors, including technological change, rising labor costs in emerging markets, and changes in consumer demand.One of the most significant trends in GVC reconfiguration is the shift towards regionalization. This is due in part to the rising cost of transportation and the increasing importance of speed and flexibility in the supply chain. Regionalization allows companies to reduce their lead times and costs, and to be more responsive to changes in demand.Another trend in GVC reconfiguration is the move towards vertical integration. This is due in part to the increasing complexity of products and the need for greater coordination between different stages of the productionprocess. Vertical integration allows companies to reduce their costs and improve their quality control.Finally, the GVC is also being reconfigured by the emergence of new technologies, such as 3D printing and artificial intelligence. These technologies are enabling companies to produce goods in new and more efficient ways, and to create new products and services.The reconfiguration of the GVC is having a number of implications for businesses and governments. Businesses need to adapt to the new realities of the GVC by investing in new technologies and by developing new strategies for managing their supply chains. Governments need to develop policies that support the development of new industries and that promote economic growth.中文回答：全球价值链（GVC）正在经历一段重大的重新配置时期，这由许多因素推动，包括技术变革、新兴市场劳动力成本上升和消费者需求的变化。

价值链理论与全球价值链理论异同分析
价值链理论和全球价值链理论是两个关于企业组织和经济运行的理论。

虽然它们都与企业价值的创造和分配有关，但是它们的关注点和分析层次有所不同。

价值链理论是由麦克斯·波特（Michael Porter）提出的，它主要关注企业内部的价值创造和价值分配过程。

价值链被分为主导活动和支持活动两个层次，主导活动包括原材料采购、生产、销售和分销等与产品的直接生产和销售相关的活动，而支持活动则包括技术研发、人力资源管理和基础设施建设等与产品生产和销售间接相关的活动。

价值链理论强调企业通过在这些活动中寻求成本优势和差异化优势来创造和分配价值。

相比之下，全球价值链理论是由乔治·加里森（Gary Gereffi）等人提出的，它更加关注企业在全球范围内的供应链和价值网的组织和运作。

全球价值链理论认为企业的价值创造和价值分配不仅仅依赖于内部活动，还受到外部供应商、合作伙伴和市场的影响。

全球价值链理论认为企业要获得竞争优势，需要在全球范围内寻求资源和市场的最佳配置，通过建立合作关系和整合供应链条来优化价值流动和资源利用。

在方法上，价值链理论主要通过对企业内部活动的分析来揭示企业价值的创造和分配过程，受到企业内部结构和组织的限制。

而全球价值链理论则强调对外部供应链和价值网的分析，更注重企业之间的合作、整合和协调。

全球价值链理论通过对价值链上的不同环节和参与者进行研究，揭示了企业在全球范围内的价值创造和分配的机制和动力。

的价值链理论
价值链理论是20世纪90年代初期由美国经济学家Michael Porter提出的一种
重要的经济分析理论，主要强调公司结构决定组织行为，而改进企业结构则可以改善其行为。

价值链理论认为，企业要在实现盈利的同时，通过强化价值链上多环节的活动来提升其价值，以及提高其服务质量和生产效率，其中最重要的是把客户的满意放到重要的位置。

价值链理论的核心内容是企业传统理论在经济环境变革后进行改良的一种新的理论。

Porter把价值链理论划分为五大类活动，"产品开发"、"制造"、"分销"、"市场
营销"和"客户服务"，同时关注内部与外部活动的相互关系，让企业能够将所有分
析结果合并，得出结论，如何有效地实现企业目标与使命，以及生产出可定价、高质量、具有吸引力的产品和服务。

价值链理论指出，在产品的优化开发、制造、分销以及市场营销各环节，都必须实现“以客户为中心”的概念，客户的需求是企业最根本的经营动力，只有进一步把客户放在重要位置，公司才能确保良好的竞争力。

价值链理论的内容不仅有助于企业实现盈利，而且有助于全面提高产品质量。

所有相关部门应重视价值链理论，然后建立全面有效的行动计划，并实施不断改进，以满足客户的需求，实现企业良好发展和短期业绩改进，同时也为实现企业的长期发展奠定基础。

价值链理论与全球价值链理论异同分析价值链理论和全球价值链理论都是描述产品或服务的生产和分配过程的理论框架，它们的共同点在于都关注着从原材料的获取到最终产品的销售过程中所增加的价值。

价值链理论和全球价值链理论在以下几个方面存在异同。

价值链理论主要关注企业内部的价值创造活动。

它将价值创造过程分解为不同的功能活动，如采购、生产、销售等，以揭示企业内部每一个环节对于最终产品的贡献。

在价值链理论中，企业通常是自给自足的，即所有的活动都在企业内部完成。

相比之下，全球价值链理论更强调企业之间的合作与协同。

全球价值链理论认为，现代产业是一个全球化的过程，企业之间通过分工合作，将价值创造活动分散在不同的国家和地区。

企业通过与供应商、代工厂、分销商等伙伴的合作，形成全球供应链，共同创造产品的价值。

在全球价值链理论中，企业的价值创造不再局限于企业内部，而是通过跨国合作实现的。

价值链理论更加关注竞争优势的来源和构建。

根据价值链理论，企业可以通过在某些环节的优化和创新来实现竞争优势。

通过技术创新提高生产效率，通过供应链管理降低成本，通过市场营销策略提升产品附加值等。

价值链理论强调企业应该不断改进和优化自己的内部活动，以提高产品或服务的质量和效果。

而全球价值链理论则更加关注如何利用全球资源和合作伙伴的优势来构建竞争优势。

全球价值链理论认为，企业可以通过在全球范围内选择最优质的供应商、最低成本的生产地、最广泛的市场等来实现竞争优势。

企业在全球价值链中的地位不仅仅取决于其内部的活动，还取决于其与伙伴之间的合作关系和资源配置。

价值链理论和全球价值链理论在研究的角度上也存在差异。

价值链理论更加注重企业内部的运作和管理，研究的重点是内部活动的效率和效果。

而全球价值链理论更注重跨国合作和全球资源配置，研究的重点是不同国家和地区的产业分工和差异化。

价值链理论与国际贸易的关系分析一、引言国际贸易在全球化背景下越来越受到关注，而价值链理论则是解析国际贸易的重要工具。

本文将探讨价值链理论与国际贸易之间的关系，并分析其对国际贸易的影响。

二、价值链理论的核心观点Michael Porter提出的价值链理论将企业内部的活动归类为主要活动和支持活动，以便分析企业创造价值的过程。

主要活动包括原材料采购、生产制造、营销销售和售后服务等，而支持活动则涵盖公司基础设施、人力资源管理、技术开发和采购等。

三、国际贸易与价值链的关系1. 全球产业分工价值链的一个重要方面是全球产业分工的反映。

在国际贸易中，一国的企业往往参与到全球价值链的某个环节中，如中国的制造业参与了全球生产制造的环节。

国际贸易促进了全球供应链的形成和优化，实现了全球价值的最大化。

2. 产业集群的形成在价值链的环节中，往往形成了产业集群。

例如，在中国的珠三角地区形成了世界上最大的电子产品制造和供应链体系。

这些集群通常由一系列的供应商，制造商和分销商组合而成，形成一个高度依赖和互相支持的体系。

这种产业集群在提升国际竞争力方面起到了积极作用。

3. 价值链整合与创新国际贸易使得企业可以选择全球范围内的供应商和合作伙伴，实现价值链的整合。

通过跨国公司之间的合作与整合，企业可以共享资源、技术和市场，实现效益的最大化。

此外，跨国公司在全球范围内的研发和创新也能够促进价值链的提升。

四、价值链理论对国际贸易的影响1. 增加贸易附加值价值链理论的应用能够帮助企业发现和优化在供应链中的附加值点，提升产品和服务的质量和附加值。

通过提高附加值的比重，企业可以在全球贸易中获取更多的利润。

2. 推动产业升级与转型价值链理论的运用有助于企业找到自身在供应链中的核心竞争力，进而推动产业升级和转型。

通过不断创新和技术进步，企业可以在全球价值链中不断提升地位，提高竞争力。

3. 促进区域经济发展通过对地区内的价值链进行分析和优化，可以促进地区产业的发展和经济的增长。

全球价值链在发展中国家的创新与升级The Global Value Chain In The Innovation And Upgrading of Developing Countries摘要：升级需创新，创新需学习。

升级和创新是增强国家、地区和企业竞争力必不可少的。

在发达国家，创新体系的概念是被用来解释体系和组织之间的系统地相互影响的重要作用。

对于不发达国家，参与GVC是有利于不发达国家的公司,因为它提供了国际性技术资源。

此文就以中国手机开发商和巴西家具及制鞋业为例，对全球价值链在发展中国家的创新及升级展开研究分析。

Abstract：Upgrade needs to innovation, innovation needs to learning . Upgrading and innovation is indispensable for national, regional and enhance the competitiveness of enterprises. In developed countries, the concept of innovation system is used for important role between the system and the organization system to explain the mutual influence. For the least developed countries, to participate in GVC is beneficial for less developed countries of the company, because it provides international technical resources. This paper takes China mobile phone developers and Brazil furniture and footwear industry as an example, on the global value chain in the innovation and upgrades the developing research analysis.关键字：全球价值链创新升级学习技术能力Keywords: Innovation And Global Value Chain Upgrade Learning Skills当今，所有人都相信知识和创新是竞争力的决定因素，甚至是一个地区、国家、企业集群和公司增长的决定因素这一论点。

附录【原文】Upgrading in Global Value ChainsThe aim of this paper is to explore how small-and medium-sized Latin American enterprises(SMEs)may participate in global markets in a way that provides for sustainable growth.This may be defined as the‘‘highroad’’to competitiveness, contrasting with the‘‘low road,’’typical of firms from developing countries,which often compete by squeezing wages and profit margins rather than by improving productivity,wages,and profits.The key difference between the high and the low road to competitiveness is often explained by the different capabilities of firms to ‘‘upgrade.’In this paper,upgrading refers to the capacity of a firm to innovate to increase the value added of its products and processes(Humphrey&Schmitz,2002a; Kaplinsky&Readman,2001;Porter,1990).Capitalizing on one of the most productive areas of the recent literature on SMEs, we restrict our field of research to small enterprises located in clusters.There is now a wealth ofempirical evidence(Humphrey,1995;Nadvi&Schmitz,1999;Rabellotti, 1997)showing that small firms in clusters,both in developed and developing countries,are able to over come some of the major constraints they usually face:lack of specialized skills,difficult access to technology,inputs,market,information,credit, and external services.Nevertheless,the literature on clusters,mainly focused on the local sources of competitiveness coming from intracluster vertical and horizontal relationships generating‘‘collective efficiency’’(Schmitz,1995),has often neglected the increasing importance of external link ages.Due to recent changes in production systems,distribution channels,and financial markets,and to the spread of information technologies,enterprises and clusters are increasingly integrated in value chains that often operate across many different countries.The literature on global value chains (GVCs)(Gereffi,1999;Gereffi&Kaplinsky,2001)calls attention to the opportunities for local producers to learn from the global leaders of the chains that may be buyers orproducers.The internal governance of the value chain has an important effect on the scope of local firms’upgrading(Humphrey&Schmitz,2000).Indeed,extensive evidence on Latin America reveals that both the local and the global dimensions matter,and firms often participate in clusters as well as in value chains(Pietrobelli&Rabellotti,2004).Both forms of organization offer opportunities to foster competitiveness via learning and upgrading.However,they also have remarkable drawbacks,as,for instance,upgrading may be limited in some forms of value chains,and clusters with little developed external economies and joint actions may have no influence on competitiveness.Moreover,both strands of literature were conceived and developed to overcome the sectoral dimension in the analysis of industrial organization and dynamism.On the one hand,studies on clusters,focusing on agglomerations of firms specializing in different stages of the filie′re,moved beyond the traditional units of analysis of industrial economics:the firm and the sector.On the other hand,according to the value chain literature,firms from different sectors may all participate in the same value chain(Gereffi,1994).Nevertheless,SMEs located in clusters and involved in value chains,may undertake a process of upgrading in order to increase and improve their participation in the global economy,especially as the industrial sector plays a role and affects the upgrading prospects of SMEs.The contribution this paper makes is by taking into account all of these dimensions together.Thus,within this general theoretical background,this study aims to investigate the hypothesis that enterprise upgrading is simultaneously affected by firm-specific efforts and actions,and by the environment in which firms operate.The latter is crucially shaped by three characteristics:(i)the collective efficiency of the cluster in which SMEs operate,(ii)the pattern of governance of the value chain in which SMEs participate,and(iii)the peculiar features that characterize learning and innovation patterns in specific sectors.The structure of the paper is the following:in Section2,we briefly review the concepts of clustering and value chains,and focus on their overlaps and complementarities.Section3first discusses the notion of SMEs’upgrading and thenintroduces a categorization of groups of sectors,based on the notions underlying the Pavitt taxonomy,and applied to the present economic reality of Latin America. Section4reports the original empirical evidence on a large sample of Latin American clusters,and shows that the sectoral dimension matters to explain why clustering and participating in global value chains offer different opportunities for upgrading in different groups of sectors.Section5summarizes and concludes.2.CLUSTERS AND VALUE CHAINSDuring the last two decades,the successful performance of industrial districts in the developed world,particularly in Italy,has stimulated new attention to the potential offered by this form of industrial organization for firms of developing countries.The capability of clustered firms to be economically viable and grow has attracted a great deal of interest in development studies.1In developing countries,the sectoral and geographical concentration of SMEs is rather common,and a wide range of cases has since been reported.2Obviously,the existence of acritical mass of specialized and agglomerated activities,in a number of cases with historically strong roots,does not necessarily imply that these clusters share all the stylized facts which identify the Marshall type of district,as firstly defined by Becattini(1987).3Nonetheless,clustering may be considered as a major facilitating factor for a number of subsequent developments(which may or may not occur):division and specialization of labor,the emergence of a wide network of suppliers,the appearance of agents who sell to distant national and international markets,the emergence of specialized producer services,the materialization of a pool of specialized and skilled workers,and the formation of business associations.To capture the positive impacts of these factors on the competitiveness of firms located in clusters,Schmitz(1995)introduced the concept of‘‘collective efficiency’’(CE)defined as the competitive advantage derived from local external economies and joint action.The concept of external economies4was first introduced by Marshall in his Principles of Economics(1920).According to Schmitz(1999a),incidental external economies(EE)are of importance in explaining the competitiveness of industrial clusters,but there is also a deliberate force at work:consciously pursued joint action(JA).Such joint action can be within vertical or horizontal linkages.5The combination of both incidental external economies and the effects of active cooperation defines the degree of collective efficiency of a cluster and,dynamically, its potential for fostering SMEs’upgrading.Both dimensions are crucial:Only incidental,passive external economies may not suffice without joint actions,and the latter hardly develop in the absence of external economies.Thus,our focus is on the role of intracluster vertical and horizontal relationships generating collective efficiency.However,recent changes in production systems,distribution channels and financial markets,accelerated by the globalization of product markets and the spread of information technologies,suggest that more attention needs to be paid to external linkages.6Gereffi’s global value chain approach(Gereffi,1999)helps us to take into account activities taking place outside the cluster and,in particular,to understand the strategic role of the relationships with key external actors.From an analytical point of view,the value chain perspective is useful because (Kaplinsky,2001;Wood,2001)the focus moves from manufacturing only to the other activities involved in the supply of goods and services,including distribution and marketing.All these activities contribute to add value.Moreover,the ability to identify the activities providing higher returns along the value chain is key to understanding the global appropriation of the returns to production.Value chain research focuses on the nature of the relationships among the various actors involved in the chain,and on their implications for development(Humphrey& Schmitz,2002b).To study these relationships,the concept of‘‘governance’’is central to the analysis.At any point in the chain,some degree of governance or coordination is required in order to take decisions not only on‘‘what’’should be,or‘‘how’’something should be,produced but sometimes also‘‘when,’’‘‘how much,’’and even‘‘at what price.’’Coordination may occur through arm’s-length market relations or non market relationships.In the latter case,following Humphrey and Schmitz(2000),we distinguish three possible types of governance:(a)network implying cooperationbetween firms of more or less equal power which share their competencies within the chain;(b)quasi-hierarchy involving relationships between legally independent firms in which one is subordinated to the other,with a leader in the chain defining the rules to which the rest of the actors have to comply;and(c)hierarchy when a firm is owned by an external firm.Also stressed is the role played by GVC leaders,particularly by the buyers,in transferring knowledge along the chains.For small firms in less developed countries (LDCs),participation in value chains is a way to obtain information on the need and mode to gain access to global markets.Yet,although this information has high value for local SMEs,the role played by the leaders of GVCs in fostering and supporting the SMEs’upgrading process is less clear.Gereffi(1999),mainly focusing on East Asia,assumes a rather optimistic view,emphasizing the role of the leaders that almost automatically promote process,product,and functional upgrading among small local producers.Pietrobelli and Rabellotti(2004)present a more differentiated picture for Latin America.In line with the present approach,Humphrey and Schmitz(2000)discuss the prospects of upgrading with respect to the pattern of value chain governance.They conclude that insertion in a quasi-hierarchical chain offers very favorable conditions for process and product upgrading,but hinders functional works offer ideal upgrading conditions,but they are the least likely to occur for developing country producers.In addition,a more dynamic approach suggests that chain governance is not given forever and may change because(Humphrey&Schmitz, 2002b):(a)power relationships may evolve when existing producers,or their spin offs,acquire new capabilities;(b)establishing and maintaining quasi-hierarchical governance is costly for the lead firm and leads to inflexibility because of transaction specific investments;and(c)firms and cluster soften do not operate only in one chain but simultaneously in several types of chains,and they may apply competencies learned in one chain to supply other chains.In sum,both modes of organizing production,that is,the cluster and the value chain,offer interesting opportunities for the upgrading and modernization of localfirms,and are not mutually exclusive alternatives.However,in order to assess their potential contribution to local SMEs’innovation and upgrading,we need to understand their organization of inter firm linkages and their internal governance. Furthermore,as we explain in the following section,the nature of their dominant specialization also plays a role and affects SMEs’upgrading prospects.3.THE SECTORAL DIMENSION OFSMEs’UPGRADING(a)The concept of upgradingThe concept of upgrading—making better products,making them more efficiently, or moving in to more skilled activities—has often been used in studies on competitiveness(Kaplinsky,2001;Porter,1990),and is relevant here.Following this approach,upgrading is decisively related to innovation.Here we define upgrading as innovating to increase value added.7Enterprises achieve this in various ways,such as,for example,by entering higher unit value market niches or new sectors,or by undertaking new productive(or service)functions.The concept of upgrading may be effectively described for enterprises working within a value chain, where four types of upgrading are singled out(Humphrey&Schmitz,2000):—Process upgrading is transforming inputs into outputs more efficiently by reorganizing the production system or introducing superior technology(e.g.,footwear producers in the Sinos Valley;Schmitz,1999b).—Product upgrading is moving into more sophisticated product lines in terms of increased unit values(e.g.,the apparel commodity chain in Asia upgrading from discount chains to department stores;Gereffi,1999).—Functional upgrading is acquiring new,superior functions in the chain,such as design or marketing or abandoning existing low-value added functions to focus on higher value added activities(e.g.,Torreon’s blue jeans industry upgrading from maquila to‘‘full-package’’manufacturing;Bair&Gereffi,2001).—Inter sectoral upgrading is applying the competence acquired in a particular function to move into a new sector.For instance,in Taiwan,competence in producing TVs was used to make monitors and then to move into the computer sector(Guerrieri &Pietrobelli,2004;Humphrey&Schmitz,2002b).In sum,upgrading within a valuechain implies going up on the value ladder,moving away from activities in which competitionis of the‘‘low road’’type and entry barriers are low.Our focus on upgrading requires moving a step forward and away from Ricardo’s static concept of‘‘Comparative Advantage’’(CA).While CA registers ex-post gaps in relative productivity which determine international trade flows,success in firm-level upgrading enables the dynamic acquisition of competitiveness in new market niches,sectors or phases of the productive chain(Lall,2001;Pietrobelli,1997).In sum,the logic goes from innovation,to upgrading,to the acquisition of firm-level competitiveness(i.e.,competitive advantage).8In this paper,we argue that the concept of competitive advantage increasingly matters.In the theory of comparative advantage,what matters is relative productivity, determining different patterns of inter industry specialization.Within such a theoretical approach,with perfectly competitive markets,firms need to target only production efficiency.In fact,this is not enough,and competitive advantage is the relevant concept to analyze SMEs’performance because of(i)the existence of forms of imperfect competition in domestic and international markets and(ii)the presence of different degrees of(dynamic)externalities in different subsect or sand stages of the value chain.More specifically,in non perfectly competitive market rents and niches of‘‘extra-normal’’profits often emerge,and this explains the efforts to enter selectively specific segments rather than simply focusing on efficiency improvements,regardless of the prevailing productive specialization(as advocated by the theory of CA).Moreover, different stages in the value chain offer different scope for dynamic externalities. Thus,for example,in traditional manufacturing,the stages of design,product innovation,marketing,and distribution may all foster competitiveness increases in related activities and sectors.The advantage of functional upgrading is in reducing the fragility and vulnerability of an enterprise’s productive petition from new entrants—i.e.,firms from developing countries with lower production costs, crowding out incumbents—is stronger in the manufacturing phases of the value chain than in other more knowledge and organization-intensive phases(e.g.,product designand innovation,chain management,distribution and retail,etc.).Therefore,functional upgrading may bring about more enduring and solid competitiveness.For all these reasons,the concept of production efficiency is encompassed within the broader concept of competitiveness,and the efforts to upgrade functionally and inter sectorally(and the policies to support these processes)are justified to reap larger rents and externalities emerging in specific stages of the value chain,market niches, or sectors.An additional element that crucially affects the upgrading prospects of firms and clusters is the sectoral dimension.Insofar as we have defined upgrading as innovating to increase value added,then all the factors influencing innovation acquire a new relevance.This dimension is often overlooked in studies on clusters,perhaps due to the fact that most of these studies are not comparative but rather detailed intra industry case studies.In order to take into account such a sectoral dimension,and the effect this may have on the firms’pattern of innovation and learning,we need to introduce the concept of ‘‘tacit knowledge.’’This notion was first introduced by Polanyi(1967)and then discussed in the context of evolutionary economics by Nelson and Winter(1982).It refers to the evidence that some aspects of technological knowledge are well articulated,written down in manuals and papers,and taught.Others are largely tacit, mainly learned through practice and practical examples.In essence,this is knowledge which can be freely used by its owners,but that can not be easily expressed and communicated to anyone else.The tacit component of technological knowledge makes its transfer and application costly and difficult.As a result,the mastery of a technology may require an organization to be active in the earlier stages of its development,and a close and continuous interaction between the user and the producer—or transfer—of such knowledge.Inter firm relationships are especially needed in this context.Tacit knowledge is an essential dimension to define a useful grouping of economic activities.(b)Sectoral specificities in upgrading and innovation:a classification for LatinAmerican countriesThe impact of collective efficiency and patterns of governance on the capacity of SMEs to upgrade may differ across sectors.This claim is based upon the consideration that sectoral groups differ in terms of technological complexity and in the modes and sources of innovation and upgrading.9As shown by innovation studies,in some sectors,vertical relations with suppliers of inputs may be particularly important sources of product and process upgrading(as in the case of textiles and the most traditional manufacturing),while in other sectors,technology users, organizations such as universities or the firms themselves(as,for example,with software or agro industrial products)may provide major stimuli for technical change (Pavitt,1984;Von Hippel,1987).Consistently with this approach,the properties of firm knowledge bases across different sectors(Malerba&Orsenigo,1993)10mayaffect the strategic relevance of collective efficiencyfor the processes of upgrading in clusters.Thus,for example,in traditional manufacturing sectors,technology has important tacit and idiosyncratic elements,and therefore,upgrading strongly depends on the intensity of technological externalities and cooperation among local actors(e.g.,firms,research centers,and technology and quality diffusion centers),in other words,upgrading depends on the degree of collective efficiency.While in other groups(e.g.,complex products or large natural resource-based firms)technology is more codified and the access to external sources of knowledge such as transnational corporations(TNCs,or research laboratories located in developed countries become more critical for upgrading. Furthermore,the differences across sectoral groups raise questions on the role of global buyers in fostering(or hindering)the upgrading in different clusters.Thus,for example,global buyers may be more involved and interested in their providers’upgrading if the technology required is mainly tacit and requires intense interaction. Moreover,in traditional manufacturing industries,characterized by a low degree of technological complexity,firms are likely to be included in GVCs even if they have very low technological capabilities.Therefore,tight supervision and direct support become necessary conditions for global buyers who rely on the competencies of theirlocal suppliers and want to reduce the risk of non compliance(Humphrey&Schmitz, 2002b).The situation is at the opposite extreme in the case of complex products, where technology is often thoroughly codified and the technological complexity requires that firms have already internal technological capabilities to be subcontracted, otherwise large buyers would not contract them at all.In order to take into account the above-mentioned hypotheses,we develop a sectoral classification,adapting existing taxonomies to the Latin American case.11 On the basis of Pavitt’s seminal work(1984),we consider that in Latin America,in-house R&D activities are very low both in domestic and foreign firms(Archibugi& Pietrobelli,2003),domestic inter sectoral linkages have been displaced by trade liberalization(Cimoli&Katz,2002),and university–industry linkages appear to be still relatively weak(Arocena&Sutz,2001).12Furthermore,in the past10years, Latin America has deepened its productive specialization in resource based sectors and has weakened its position in more engineering intensive industries(Katz,2001), reflecting its rich endowment of natural resources,relatively more than human and technical resources(Wood&Berge,1997).Hence,we retain Pavitt’s key notions and identify four main sectoral groups for Latin America on the basis of the way learning and upgrading occur,and on the related industrial organization that most frequently prevails.13The categories are as follows:1.Traditional manufacturing,mainly labor intensive and‘‘traditional’’technology industries such as textiles,footwear,tiles,and furniture;2.Natural resource-based sectors(NRbased),implying the direct exploitation of natural resources,for example,copper,marble,fruit,etc.;plex products industries(COPs),including,among others,automobiles, autocomponents and aircraft industries,ICT and consumer electronics;4.Specialized suppliers,in our LA cases,essentially software.Each of these categories tends to have a predominant learning and innovating behavior,in terms of main sources of technical change,dependence on basic or applied research,modes of in-house innovation(e.g.,‘‘routinized’’versus large R&D laboratories),tacitness or codified nature of knowledge,scale and relevance of R&D activity,and appropriability ofinnovation(Table1).Traditional manufacturing and resource-based sectors are by far the most present in Latin America,and therefore especially relevant toour present aims of assessing SMEs’potential for upgrading within clusters and value chains.Traditional manufacturing is defined as supplier dominated,because major process innovations are introduced by producers of inputs(e.g.,machinery,materials,etc.).Indeed,firm shave room to upgrade their products(and processes)by developing or imitating new products’designs,often interacting with large buyers that increasingly play a role in shaping the design of final products and hence the specificities of the process of production(times,quality standards,and costs).Natural resource-based sectors crucially rely on the advancement of basic and applied science,which,due to low appropriability conditions,is most often undertaken by public research institutes,possibly in connection with producers (farmers,breeders,etc.).14In these sectors,applied research is mainly carried out by input suppliers(i.e.,chemicals,machinery,etc.)which achieve economies of scale and appropriate the results of their research through patents.Complex products are defined as‘‘high cost,engineering-intensive products, subsystems,or constructs supplied by a unit of production’’(Hobday,1998),15 where the local network is normally anchored to one‘‘assembler,’’which operates as a leading firm characterized by high design and technological capabilities.To our aims,the relationships of local suppliers with these‘‘anchors’’may be crucial to foster(or hinder)firms’upgrading through technology and skill transfers(or the lack of them).Scale-intensive firms typically lead complex product sectors(Bell&Pavitt, 1993),where the process of technical change is realized within an architectural set (Henderson&Clark,1990),and it is often incremental and modular.Among the Specialized Suppliers,we only consider software,which is typically client driven.This is an especially promising sector for developing countries’SMEs, due to the low transport and physical capital costs and the high information intensity of the sector,which moderates the importance of proximity to final markets and extends the scope for a deeper international division of labor.Moreover,thedisintegration of some productive cycles,such as for example of telecommunications, opens up new market niches with low entry barriers(Torrisi,2003).However,at the same time,the proximity of the market and of clients may crucially improve the development of design capabilities and thereby foster product/process up grading. Thus,powerful pressures for cluste ring and globalization coexist in this sector.The different learning patterns across these four groups of activities are expected to affect the process of upgrading of clusters in value chains.This paper also aims at analyzing with original empirical evidence whether—and how—the sectoral dimension influences this process in Latin America.4.METHODOLOGY:COLLECTIONAND ANALYSIS OF DATAThis study is based on the collection of original data from12clusters in Latin America that have not hitherto been investigated,and on an extensive review of cluster studies available.The empirical analysis was carried out from September2002 to June2003with the support of the Inter American Development Bank.An international team of12experts in Italy and in four LA countries collected and reviewed the empirical data.Desk and field studies were undertaken following the same methodology,which involved field interviews with local firms,institutions,and observers,interviews with foreign buyers and TNCs involved in the local cluster,and secondary sources such as publications and reports.16Case studies were selected which fulfilled the following conditions:(1)agglomeration:all cases show some degree of geographical SME clustering;17(2)upgrading:the clusters selected have experienced some degree of upgrading,of whatever nature(i.e.,product,process,functional,inter sectoral);and(3) policy lessons:all cases offer relevant policy lessons for future experiences either in terms of successesor failures.A total of40case studies were selected forth is analysis.18The list of cases, albeit incomplete,is—to our knowledge—the largest available on which comparative exercises have been carried out,and provides a good approximation to the reality of clusters and value chains in LA.Thus,although it cannot claim to correspond to the universe of clusters in the region,it represents a database that allows reasonablegeneralizations.The analysis consists of a systematic attempt to quantify on Likert scales,for each of the clusters investigated,the dimensions to be analyzed:the degree of collective efficiency and levels of upgrading.Cluster studies have also been categorized according to the governance pattern of the value chain to which they are connected. To quantify the degree of collective efficiency,a careful evaluation of CE main components—external economies and joint action—has been carried out.Hence,a value ranging from absent(0)to high(3)was attributed to the following components: specialized labor market,local availability of inputs,easy access to information,and market access for external economies;backward and forward vertical linkages, horizontal bilateral and multilateral linkages for joint action.19The same was done with referenceto product,process,functional,and inter sectoral upgrading:a value ranging from absent(0)to high(3)was attributed to each of these types of upgrading. The values were determined during either the original field studies,or,in the cases reviewed from the context and from the specific wording of papers.Finally,we identified the number and mode of governance(market,network,quasi-hierarchy,and hierarchy)of the value chains into which the clusters feed.Whenever the evidence was derived from other published sources,we carefully analyzed the wording of each paper with the collaboration of the team of experts,and tried to minimize the occurrence of bias and misinterpretations complementing and cross referencing information in all possible ways,and testing it with interviews with key informants and local experts.Nevertheless,as with any study of this kind,there may be potential problems on the accuracy of the results,which will therefore call for cautious interpretations.The empirical analysis is inevitably affected by some limitations,due to the lack of reliable data:even when updated firm-level statistics are available,which seldom happens in developing countries,they are usually available at the national or local level,but they are never gathered at the cluster level nor do they take into account the relationships within the same value chain.Therefore,the empirical analysis has to rely on the available quantitative evidence complemented by careful qualitative。

价值链理论与全球价值链理论异同分析
价值链理论和全球价值链理论是两个相关但不完全相同的概念。

价值链理论是由迈克尔·波特（Michael Porter）提出的，用于分析企业内部活动对其竞争力和价值创造的影响。

全球价值链理论则是对企业在全球化背景下的价值创造过程进行分析的一个扩展概
念。

价值链理论和全球价值链理论都关注企业的价值创造过程，但侧重点不同。

价值链理
论重点在于企业内部活动的组成和协调，从原材料采购到最终产品交付给消费者的整个过程。

而全球价值链理论则更加着眼于企业在全球范围内的价值创造过程，包括多国企业间
的协调与合作。

价值链理论主要用于分析企业内部活动的竞争力和价值创造，强调企业内部要素之间
的协调和优化。

全球价值链理论则更加注重企业与供应商、合作伙伴和客户之间的关系，
强调企业在全球范围内不同环节上的竞争优势。

全球价值链理论还涉及到了国际贸易和全球经济格局的问题。

由于全球化的趋势，企
业的价值链活动越来越分散和分散在全球范围内，需要与其他国家的企业进行合作和协调。

全球价值链理论将企业的价值链活动放在了全球经济背景下进行研究，涉及到国家间的比
较优势、跨国公司的运作模式等问题。

价值链理论和全球价值链理论虽然有共同点，但也有一些不同之处。

价值链理论更注
重于企业内部活动的协调和优化，而全球价值链理论则更加强调企业在全球范围内与其他
企业的合作和协调。

全球价值链理论还涉及到了国际贸易和全球经济格局的问题。

两种理
论可以相互补充，为企业的竞争力和价值创造提供更全面的分析框架。

价值链理论与全球价值链理论异同分析价值链理论是由美国学者迈克尔·波特于1985年提出的，用于描述企业内部各个环节对产品或服务增值的过程。

全球价值链理论则是在此基础上发展起来的，强调了跨国公司在全球范围内的价值创造和分配过程。

本文将从定义、结构、特点和影响等方面对两者进行比较和分析。

一、定义及结构分析1. 价值链理论价值链理论是指企业内部各个环节对产品或服务增值的过程。

它包括原材料供应、生产制造、营销销售、物流配送等一系列环节，企业通过优化这些环节的协调配合，最终实现对产品或服务的整体增值。

价值链理论注重企业内部各个环节的合理组织与协作，通过提高各环节的效率与质量来增加产品或服务的价值。

2. 全球价值链理论全球价值链理论是在价值链理论的基础上发展起来的，强调了跨国公司在全球范围内的价值创造和分配过程。

它突出了不同国家和区域之间的资源配置、劳动分工和产业协作。

二、特点比较1. 价值链理论的特点(1) 关注内部环节：价值链理论主要关注企业内部各个环节的协作和增值过程，强调企业内部的资源配置与组织协调。

(2) 依赖外部合作：全球价值链理论认为，跨国公司在全球范围内的价值创造和分配，需要依赖不同国家和地区的资源和市场，强调了企业与供应商、合作伙伴之间的协作和合作。

三、影响分析1. 对企业内部影响(1) 价值链理论对企业内部影响较大，通过优化内部各个环节的协同配合和流程管理，可以提高企业的生产效率和质量水平，增加产品或服务的价值。

2. 对产业发展影响(1) 价值链理论可以帮助企业优化资源配置，提升产品或服务的附加值，促进产业的升级和发展。

(2) 全球价值链理论可以促进国际分工和优势互补，加强国际贸易和合作，推动产业全球化发展。

(3) 全球价值链理论也使得发展中国家有机会通过参与全球价值链来提升其在全球产业中的地位和竞争力。

总结：价值链理论和全球价值链理论在定义、结构、特点和影响等方面存在较大差异。

价值链理论演进及其与相关理论比较摘要：文章系统介绍了价值链理论发展演进中的价值链理论、价值系统理论、价值网理论以及虚拟价值链理论。

在此基础上，文章最后对比分析了价值链理论和供应链理论、价值工程理论、作业成本法的相互关系。

关键词：价值链价值系统价值网虚拟价值链供应链价值工程作业成本法1 价值链理论1.1 价值链价值链的概念是Michael E.Porter于1985年在其所着的《竞争优势》一书中提出的，过去近20年中获得了很大的发展，并被当今管理者广泛采用，已经成为研究竞争优势的有效工具。

价值链是一个企业在一定产业内的各种活动的组合，比如产品设计、生产、营销、交货等各种对产品起作用的各种行为。

这些行为构成企业价值的来源，进而构成竞争优势的来源。

因此我们将这些一环扣一环的企业行为称为价值链。

同一产业内的不同企业具有相似的价值链，但不同的产品线又有不同特征、卖方、地理区域或分销渠道等，因此不同的企业拥有不同的价值链。

企业价值链的不同形式反映了其历史、战略、推行战略的不同途径，从而形成了不同的经济效益来源。

因此同一产业内不同企业间价值链之间的差异是竞争优势的一个关键来源。

它具体分为两种企业活动：基本活动、辅助活动。

（1）基本活动基本活动涉及产品的生产、销售、交付和售后服务等活动，它可划分为五种基本类别：内部后勤、生产作业、外部后勤、市场和销售、服务。

内部后勤：与接收、存储、分配相关的各种活动，如原材料搬运、仓储、库存管理、车辆调度和向供应商退货等。

生产作业：与将原材料投入转化成最终产品相关的各种活动，如加工、包装、组装、设备维护、检测、印刷和各种设施管理。

外部后勤：它与集中、存储和将产品发送给买方有关的各种活动，如产成品库存管理、原材料搬运、送货车辆调度、订单处理和生产进度安排。

市场和销售：与鼓励、方便买方购买有关的各种活动，如广告、促销、销售队伍、报价、渠道选择、渠道关系和定价。

服务：与提供服务、保持或增加产品价值相关的各种活动，如安装、培训、维修、售后零部件供应和产品调整。

价值链研究国内外文献综述一、国内价值链研究（一）早期起步与借鉴国内对价值链的研究起步相对较晚，一开始主要是对国外理论的引进和借鉴。

就像是在学习一门新的武功秘籍，先把人家的招式拿过来看看。

那时候学者们大量翻译和解读国外关于价值链的经典著作，像波特的价值链理论，在国内学术界引起了不小的轰动。

这就好比是打开了一扇新的大门，让大家看到了企业运营和竞争优势分析的新视角。

（二）结合本土企业的发展随着中国经济的快速发展，国内学者开始琢磨怎么把价值链理论用到咱自己的企业身上。

比如说，研究制造业企业如何在全球价值链中找准自己的位置。

中国的制造业那可是相当庞大的，从小小的零件加工厂到大型的设备制造企业，都面临着升级转型的压力。

学者们就通过价值链分析，给企业出谋划策，看看是该往产业链的高端攀升，增加产品附加值呢，还是在成本控制方面继续下功夫。

这就像是给企业当军师，根据不同企业的“体质”和“战局”制定战略。

（三）创新与拓展后来，国内的价值链研究也有了自己的创新。

有学者提出了产业价值链的概念，不仅仅关注单个企业的价值链，还把整个产业上下游的企业看成一个有机的整体。

这就好比是从关注一棵树木，到关注整片森林。

而且在互联网经济蓬勃发展的背景下，又有了关于数字价值链的研究。

比如说电商平台的价值链是怎么构建的，如何通过数据驱动来优化各个环节，就像给电商这个大机器找到更高效的运转方式。

二、国外价值链研究（一）理论奠基者国外价值链研究的老祖宗那得说是波特了。

他提出的价值链理论就像一颗种子，在企业管理和战略研究的土壤里生根发芽。

波特把企业的活动分成基本活动和辅助活动，就像是把一个复杂的机器拆分成不同的零件，让大家清楚地看到每个部分是怎么运作的，以及它们对企业竞争优势的贡献。

这一理论在当时的西方企业界就像一阵春风，吹醒了很多企业管理者，让他们开始重新审视自己企业的运营模式。

（二）全球化视角下的价值链研究随着全球化进程的加速，国外学者开始研究全球价值链（GVC）。

价值链理论与全球价值链理论异同分析价值链理论和全球价值链理论都是经济学领域中非常重要的理论，它们分别从不同的角度来探讨价值的创造和分配。

本文将对这两个理论进行异同分析，帮助读者更加深入地理解它们的内涵和作用。

我们来介绍一下价值链理论。

价值链理论最早由波特在其著名的《竞争优势》一书中提出，它将企业的内部活动划分为一系列的价值创造环节，从原材料采购到产品销售，再到售后服务，每一个环节都有可能为企业创造价值。

企业内部的每一个活动环节都可以被视为一个小的价值链，通过不断优化和提高效率，企业可以在每一个环节创造更多的价值，从而提高整体的竞争力。

价值链理论强调了企业内部活动的重要性，对于企业内部的管理和运营具有非常大的指导意义。

接下来，我们来介绍一下全球价值链理论。

全球价值链理论相对于价值链理论来说，更加注重全球范围内的价值创造和分配。

在全球价值链理论中，企业不再是一个封闭的整体，而是融入了全球范围内的生产网络中。

企业不再仅仅关注自身内部的活动，而是要考虑如何与全球范围内的合作伙伴共同合作，共同创造价值。

全球价值链理论强调了企业间的协同作用和供应链管理的重要性，它提醒企业需要更加关注全球分工和资源配置的优化。

价值链理论和全球价值链理论之间的区别主要体现在以下几个方面：价值链理论更加关注企业内部活动的管理和优化，它将企业的活动划分为一系列的环节，并强调了每一个环节对于整体竞争力的重要性。

而全球价值链理论则更加关注企业与外部合作伙伴的联动，它强调了企业需要与全球范围内的合作伙伴共同合作，共同创造价值。

价值链理论更加注重企业内部的管理和运营，它提醒企业需要不断优化和提高内部活动的效率和效益。

而全球价值链理论则更加注重企业的外部环境和全球资源配置，它提醒企业需要更加关注全球分工和供应链管理。

国际贸易中的价值链理论研究随着全球化的不断深入，国际贸易已经成为现代社会中不可或缺的一部分。

在国际贸易的过程中，价值链理论是一个非常重要的研究领域。

本文将探讨价值链理论在国际贸易中的应用与发展，同时也将深入了解其对国际贸易的影响。

一、什么是价值链理论？价值链理论是由美国著名经济学家麦克斯.韦伯提出的一种经济学理论，其主要关注点是企业中各个环节的价值产生及增加过程。

在决定企业竞争力的过程中，价值链理论是非常重要的。

价值链可以分为生产链、销售链、供应链、建议链等多种类型，其中生产链和供应链比较重要。

在价值链中，一个企业从传统的原材料采购到后期的产品销售，都可以通过价值链来进行控制和优化。

在国际贸易中，价值链理论可以帮助企业将生产中的不同环节进行有效的协调与合作，从而增强企业的竞争力。

同时，在全球化大背景下，价值链理论也可以帮助企业更好地定位自己在全球价值链中的角色，从而决定实施合适的战略。

二、价值链理论在国际贸易中的应用1. 价值链优化以生产环节为例，在国际贸易中，价值链理论可以帮助企业分析生产流程中的瓶颈与不足之处，协调管理人员、生产人员、物流人员等，从而提高企业的生产效率、降低成本，并在全球价值链中与其他企业形成优势互补。

2. 跨国公司的生产区位选择在国际贸易中，价值链理论可以帮助跨国公司选择最适宜的生产区位。

企业可以通过分析不同区域的生产环境、劳动力、物流等因素来确定最优生产地点，从而优化企业的生产流程和降低成本。

3. 供应链管理在国际贸易中，供应链管理是非常关键的。

因此，企业可以通过价值链来进行供应链管理。

企业可以了解到各种供应商的类型、质量和价格，并且可以标准化管理，以保证不同环节的质量和效率。

4. 产品设计在国际贸易中，产品设计是非常重要的。

通过对产品的设计来使其更符合市场需求，更适宜参加全球价值链。

通过对不同市场的调研和分析，企业可以为开发新的产品提供有力支撑。

三、价值链理论在国际贸易中的影响1. 加速企业的竞争力提高在国际贸易中，价值链理论可以帮助企业树立竞争意识。

价值链理论一、概念（什么是价值链？）价值链理论是哈佛大学商学院教授迈克尔·波特于1985年提出的。

波特认为，“每一个企业都是在设计、生产、销售、发送和辅助其产品的过程中进行种种活动的集合体。

所有这些活动可以用一个价值链来表明。

”企业的价值创造是通过一系列活动构成的，这些活动可分为基本活动和辅助活动两类，基本活动包括内部后勤、生产作业、外部后勤、市场和销售、服务等；而辅助活动（支持活动）则包括采购、技术开发、人力资源管理和企业基础设施等。

这些互不相同但又相互关联的生产经营活动，构成了一个创造价值的动态过程，即价值链。

价值链在经济活动中是无处不在的，上下游关联的企业与企业之间存在行业价值链，企业内部各业务单元的联系构成了企业的价值链，企业内部各业务单元之间也存在着价值链联结。

价值链上的每一项价值活动都会对企业最终能够实现多大的价值造成影响。

波特的“价值链”理论揭示，企业与企业的竞争，不只是某个环节的竞争，而是整个价值链的竞争，而整个价值链的综合竞争力决定企业的竞争力。

用波特的话来说：“消费者心目中的价值由一连串企业内部物质与技术上的具体活动与利润所构成，当你和其他企业竞争时，其实是内部多项活动在进行竞争，而不是某一项活动的竞争。

”二、研究历程2.1价值链理论的提出波特于1985年在其所著的《竞争优势》一书中首次提出了价值链的概念,过去近20年中获得了很大的发展,并被当今先进管理思想者所采用,已经成为研究竞争优势的有效工具。

波特的价值链通常被认为是传统意义上的价值链,把企业内外价值增加的活动分为基本活动和支持性活动,基本活动涉及企业生产、销售、进料后勤、发货后勤、售后服务。

支持性活动涉及人事、财务、计划、研究与开发、采购等,基本活动和支持性活动构成了企业的价值链。

不同的企业参与的价值活动中,并不是每个环节都创造价值,实际上只有某些特定的价值活动才真正创造价值,这些真正创造价值的经营活动,就是价值链上的"战略环节。

全球价值链的治理【外文翻译】本科毕业论文外文翻译外文题目：The Governance of Global Value Chains出处：Review of International Political Economy作者：Gary Gereffi, John Humphrey, Timothy Sturgeon译文：全球价值链的治理摘要本文构建了一个理论框架来解释全球价值链的治理模式。

它依据交易成本经济学、生产网络、技术能力和企业层面的学习着三方面的文献，定义了在决定全球价值链的治理和变化中其作用的三个变量。

它们分别是：（1）交易的复杂程度，（2）进行交易的能力，（3）供应基地的容量。

这个理论产生了从高到低不同程度的明确合作和权利不对称的五种类型的全球价值链的治理模式——层级型、领导型、关系型、模块型和市场型。

本文通过对自行车、服装、园艺和电子这四个产业的简单案例的研究，强调了全球价值链治理的动态和重叠的本质。

一、引言在过去的几十年里，世界经济特别是在国际贸易和产业组织领域发生了巨大的变化。

当代经济最重要的两个新特征就是生产和贸易的全球化，以及跨国公司的垂直分工。

前者加速了发展中国家的工业能力的增长，后者使得跨国公司的核心竞争力集中在创新和产品策略、营销、高附加值的制造业和服务业，同时减少其对一般服务和批量生产这些非核心的功能的直接所有权。

这两个变化一方面为各种各样的相邻市场间的网络整理形式奠定了基础，另一方面为大型的垂直一体化公司的产生提供了条件。

本文的目的在于构建一个理论框架，为了更好地理解在全球市场的生产中治理结构的转变，这个结构指的是“全球价值链”。

我们的目的在于为已知领域的各种各样的网络形式提供秩序。

全球规模的产业组织的改革不仅仅对企业命运和产业结构产生影响，而且影响了国家如何以及为什么会在全球经济中前进或者停滞不前。

对全球价值链的研究和政策工作检验了全球生产和分工系统一体化的不同方式，以及发展中国家的企业在全球市场上提高地位的能力。