Search results

With competitive rivalry eroding traditional product differentiation, legally protected brands have gradually become one of the most prized assets of multinational corporations. The defense of domestic brand shares and the expansion of well-known brands into new foreign markets have become important tasks of corporate managers. Yet, to date, there is no clear recognition of this increasing role of brands in the economic theory of international trade. This paper explores the implications of strong brands for intra-industry trade, for Vernon’s product-cycle model and for international trade overall. On balance, the ascent of global brands is shown to raise trade in standardized products, exacerbate the shift toward intra-firm trade, and sustain the dominance by large centralized multinationals.

International trade is a long-standing issue for the development of any country. In the traditional theory of trade exports or trade pattern arises because of supply side differences between countries such as technological or factor endowment differences. Such theories predict inter-industry trade but not intra-industry trade (IIT). But in contrary, the simultaneous export and import of products of the same sector was led after the industrialization of developed countries from the 1960s onwards, which was described as “IIT” by [Balassa, B. (1986). Oxford Economic Papers, 38, 220–233]. In this study, India's bilateral IIT with major Asian trading partners was analyzed and the trends in IIT level for horizontal and vertical IIT were observed separately, along with gravity model for the year 2009–2018. This study examined the geographic component in knowledge flows, which could be found at the international level and whether or not an exchange of knowledge is related to foreign trade, particularly IIT. To measure the IIT level for investigating trade patterns between India and member countries of major Asian trading partners, IIT index will be used, known as Grubel-Lloyd index.

Many of the emerging and transition economies in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) have been building their economies largely on the infrastructure inherited from Communist times. It is widely recognized that much of the infrastructure in both the private and public sectors must be replaced if those economies are to achieve acceptable rates of economic growth and participate successfully within the broader European Union (EU) economic zone (The Economist, 2003). Upgrading infrastructure includes the likely importation of technology and management expertise, as well as substantial financial commitments. In this regard, inward foreign direct investment (FDI) is a particularly important potential source of capital for the emerging and transition European economies (ETEEs). FDI usually entails the importation of financial and human capital by the host economy with measurable and positive spillover impacts on host countries’ productivity levels (Holland & Pain, 1998a). The ability of ETEEs to attract and benefit from inward FDI should therefore be seen as an important issue within the broader policy context of how these countries can improve and expand their capital infrastructure, given relatively undeveloped domestic capital markets and scarce human capital.