
handle: 10419/282557
AbstractGeo‐political tensions and disruptions to global value chains have led policymakers to re‐evaluate their approach to globalisation. Many countries are considering friendshoring – trading primarily with countries sharing similar values – as a way of minimising exposure to weaponisation of trade and securing access to critical inputs. If followed through, this process has the potential to reverse global economic integration of recent decades. This article estimates the economic costs of friendshoring using a quantitative model incorporating inter‐country inter‐industry linkages. The results suggest that friendshoring may lead to real GDP losses of up to 4.7% of GDP in some economies. Thus, although friendshoring may provide insurance against extreme disruptions and increase the security of supply of vital inputs, it would come at a substantial cost.
330, ddc:330, F15, global trade and production network, R15, friend-shoring, F60, General Earth and Planetary Sciences, regionalisation, F51, General Environmental Science, international I-O linkages
330, ddc:330, F15, global trade and production network, R15, friend-shoring, F60, General Earth and Planetary Sciences, regionalisation, F51, General Environmental Science, international I-O linkages
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 66 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% |
