Search results

The concept of the “global production network” (GPN) has emerged as a framework for analyzing the intricate connections between a dominant or pivotal firm and its suppliers across various countries. ¹ The expansion of GPNs signifies that trade encompasses not only the final products but also the parts and components (P&C) involved in their production. The reduction of tariff barriers and advancements in transportation and communication technology have facilitated the fragmentation of production processes across different countries. This has led to a significant transformation in the nature and structure of global trade. This chapter aims to synthesize and present this literature. By identifying the key drivers, determinants, and consequences of fragmentation trade through a literature-based approach, this study aids in assessing the opportunities and challenges those lagging countries, like India, encounter in terms of increased participation in GPNs.

Asia has emerged as the fastest growing economic region in the world at present. The region is endowed with 60% of global population with a huge market size, making the region an attractive destination for trade to the countries around the world. In 2017, almost 38% of global import was made solely by this region. Among the Asian countries, India has been able to establish itself as a consistent performer in trade during last three decades. The volume of its global trade (export + import) has increased remarkably by more than 32 times (from 33.22 billion USD in 1988 to 1,081.36 billion USD in 2017) within this period. India's trade with its major Asian partners has gone through a considerable change in its volume, direction, nature, and composition in the period of trade liberalization. Both export and import have increased manifold during this period with a faster increment in imports over its exports, resulting a huge trade deficit of 109.36 billion USD in 2017. Undoubtedly, it is a matter of concern for India. The present study is an attempt to evaluate the changes in pattern of India's trade, volume of export and import, and balance of trade with other Asian countries in the context of changes in trade policy, tariff rates, exchange rates, FDI, and economic growth during 1988 to 2017.

In particular, it is worth mentoring new and more efficient solutions that can meet the increasingly specific needs of each company, especially in food management. A business intelligence (BI) solution can help your food company better understand and manage business processes more effectively. Management information is essential for all levels of an organisation to make quick and correct decisions. However, what exactly is BI, and what can it mean for a food company?

The PRISMA stands for (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and content analysis strategy used the SLR (systematic literature review) methodology to examine 151 papers published in peer-reviewed academic journals and industry reports between 2016 and 2023.

The findings show that artificial intelligence and digitalisation are linked to the UN 2030 Agenda. BI management ranks first (66%), followed by crop and land mapping systems (40%), agricultural machinery monitoring tools (39%) and decision support systems (31%). The road to digital transformation remains extended, with the main impediments being more compatibility between enterprise systems and a shortage of expertise.

The section relating to methodological perspective adopts the PRISMA methodology for systematic review. Interoperability is easily managed by assigning qualified teams to projects. The added value of a consulting firm with extensive project management experience in the food industry is closely related to the results achieved.

BI: What exactly is it, and why a data-driven culture is essential in the food and beverage industry?

This paper is a proposal to provide for the poor – those earning insufficient incomes to satisfy their needs and the unemployed – by enabling them to acquire dividend-paying (and voting) shares in the companies that produce the goods and services consumed in society. It will be accomplished by: (1) establishing a mortgage loan at birth for every newborn child; (2) the loans will be taken out by each of the major producing companies (plus start-ups) in the names of the children as firms do their annual planning; (3) the amount of the loan will be increased annually when the companies plan for succeeding years; (4) a portfolio of new assets – stocks and bonds – in the companies will be purchased with the funds from the mortgage loan; (5) the loan will be repaid over a period of years from the dividends paid by the companies. Once redeemed, the assets, and their future earnings, will belong to the person in whose name the mortgage loan was established. Should the program include all newborns, rich and poor in the name of fairness, when today's cohort reaches maturity, every member of society will be a shareholder in a variety of wealth producing companies that pay regular dividends. The proposal will not require funds from the government and no additional taxes will have to be raised.

Globalization of agriculture via the evergreen revolution (which encompasses large-scale production-collection-cleaning-processing-packaging-transportation-storage-distribution-sale of high-value cereals-fruits-flowers-vegetables-agrofuel-feedstock through technology-intensive global value chains) has opened the door to corporate capital involvement in agriculture. While the mainstream perspectives and international organizations have optimistically viewed this as a catalyst for inclusive growth, this article seeks to unveil the concealed hegemony of capital underlying the ostensibly beneficial façade of the evergreen revolution. It underscores the concerns regarding the immiseration of asset-poor farmers, petty nonfarm entrepreneurs and labourers resulting from the globalization of agriculture. Furthermore, it explores the implications for micro and macro food security in this context.

The liberalization initiative commenced in India from 1991 onwards, replacing the four-decade long import substitution policy. The primary objective was to enhance the role of foreign and private investment, in line with the newly embraced outward-oriented growth model. The government had undertaken several policy initiatives since then, especially to strengthen the manufacturing sector which plays an important role in the economic development of any country. The current study evaluates the effects of the liberalization policy in India on industrial outcomes. Recent studies have found that when firm heterogeneity is present in trade models, reforms will lead to a decrease in the number of firms and a rise in their average size (Melitz, 2003). A dataset of 24 manufacturing industries had been used in the current study. We test empirically whether liberalization had led to a rise in the average size of establishments as stated in the literature. We also attempt to analyze the magnitude of trade costs in terms of the impact of reforms on wages and prices. The empirical analysis based on the difference-in-difference (DID) estimation method shows that on average, trade reforms do not lead to an increase in the real wages and average size of establishments. In addition, prices appear to increase in the long run due to liberalization, with potential ramifications.