Fragmented Globalization and Vietnam's Automotive Value Chains
Overview
This completed study examines Vietnam's post-2018 automotive expansion through participation, value capture, functional upgrading, and supply-chain dependence. It introduces “intermediary industrialization” as a bounded interpretation of production growth that outpaces domestic capability formation.
Research Question
Has deeper integration into regional automotive production networks translated into industrial upgrading and greater domestic value capture?
Economic or Technical Motivation
Export growth can reflect relocated downstream assembly while technology, high-value components, and supplier ecosystems remain concentrated elsewhere. The study therefore looks beyond gross trade flows to domestic value added, localization, sourcing, and supplier depth.
Data
The analysis focuses primarily on 2015–2023 and combines UN Comtrade, OECD TiVA, WTO, IMF DOTS, UNCTAD, VAMA, GSO, MoIT, Vietnam Customs, and industry reports. Product evidence covers automotive parts, vehicles, and batteries, including HS8708, HS8703, and HS8507.
Methodology
The paper uses comparative value-chain analysis, trade and production indicators, domestic-versus-foreign value-added comparisons, localization and supplier benchmarks, HHI sourcing concentration, supply-chain mapping, and qualitative process tracing. It does not claim causal identification.
Main Findings
Vietnam's manufacturing participation and automotive-related exports expanded after 2018. Yet domestic value added in automotive exports was about 16.7% in 2021, below Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand in the cited TiVA comparison. Localization remained approximately 15%, and China's share of HS8708 imports exceeded 20% by 2022–2023. Sourcing concentration declined modestly, indicating additional suppliers rather than a fundamental removal of upstream dependence.
Robustness, Validation, or Model Assessment
The argument is triangulated across trade, value-added, localization, supplier-ecosystem, and investment evidence. Alternative explanations—including trade agreements, domestic industrial policy, and post-pandemic recovery—are discussed rather than treated as excluded causes.
Tools and Technologies
Python-based trade-data preparation, HHI concentration measures, comparative value-chain analysis, source synthesis, and LaTeX are directly evidenced.
Limitations
The design is a qualitative, single-country political-economy analysis. Several indicators come from heterogeneous sources and reporting conventions, and the evidence does not identify the causal effect of post-2018 fragmentation.
Deliverables
- Complete research paper and LaTeX source
- Six analytical figures
- Product-level import and export data extracts
- Comparative value-added and supplier-capability evidence