{"title":"Firm Heterogeneity and Asymmetric Liberalization Drive Differential Utilization of FTAs among Firms in Production Networks","authors":"Antonio Postigo","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqaf038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Firms in production networks often favor liberalization through free trade agreements (FTAs) over multilateral liberalization because of its potential discriminatory effects against firms outside the FTA, but also, as this article explores, relative to competing firms within the FTA area. The selectivity and flexibility inherent in FTA liberalization accommodate heterogeneity among firms in trade preferences, incentivizing them to lobby individually for specific FTA design configurations aligned with their particular production organizations. This article theorizes how the interaction between two variables—(1) inter-firm heterogeneity in production organization and (2) asymmetric liberalization through FTA design configurations—determines heterogeneity in FTA utilization among firms, favoring some over others within the trade area. These arguments are examined in the context of the Thai automotive industry and the FTAs signed by Thailand with other Southeast Asian countries, Japan, India, and Australia, drawing on interviews and administrative records. The empirical evidence supports the explanatory power of these variables in accounting for inter-firm heterogeneity in trade preferences, lobbying patterns, and FTA utilization. Automakers lobbied for FTA configurations that selectively liberalize their trade flows relative to competitors within the trade area, primarily using FTAs for hierarchical and captive cross-border input trade with subsidiaries and long-term suppliers.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"91 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Studies Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaf038","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Firms in production networks often favor liberalization through free trade agreements (FTAs) over multilateral liberalization because of its potential discriminatory effects against firms outside the FTA, but also, as this article explores, relative to competing firms within the FTA area. The selectivity and flexibility inherent in FTA liberalization accommodate heterogeneity among firms in trade preferences, incentivizing them to lobby individually for specific FTA design configurations aligned with their particular production organizations. This article theorizes how the interaction between two variables—(1) inter-firm heterogeneity in production organization and (2) asymmetric liberalization through FTA design configurations—determines heterogeneity in FTA utilization among firms, favoring some over others within the trade area. These arguments are examined in the context of the Thai automotive industry and the FTAs signed by Thailand with other Southeast Asian countries, Japan, India, and Australia, drawing on interviews and administrative records. The empirical evidence supports the explanatory power of these variables in accounting for inter-firm heterogeneity in trade preferences, lobbying patterns, and FTA utilization. Automakers lobbied for FTA configurations that selectively liberalize their trade flows relative to competitors within the trade area, primarily using FTAs for hierarchical and captive cross-border input trade with subsidiaries and long-term suppliers.
期刊介绍:
International Studies Quarterly, the official journal of the International Studies Association, seeks to acquaint a broad audience of readers with the best work being done in the variety of intellectual traditions included under the rubric of international studies. Therefore, the editors welcome all submissions addressing this community"s theoretical, empirical, and normative concerns. First preference will continue to be given to articles that address and contribute to important disciplinary and interdisciplinary questions and controversies.