Measurement and spatiotemporal evolution of geo-economic relationships in China’s sporting goods manufacturing industry
-
Author(s)Zhijiang YuLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1087-9106
,
Viktoriia MedvidLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2257-6276
,
Yuzhong LeLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2974-4375
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/im.17(1).2021.05
-
Article InfoVolume 17 2021, Issue #1, pp. 53-65
- 856 Views
-
341 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
In recent years, continuous changes in geo-economics and environment, especially the rise in global trade protectionism, have severely impacted China’s sporting goods manufacturing industry, which is dominant in international trade. Therefore, this paper attempts to examine the geo-economic environment and influence factors of China’s sporting goods manufacturing industry, and puts forward strategies to improve the competitiveness of China’s sporting goods manufacturing industry and promote its high-quality development.
This paper selects indicators that can reflect the geo-economic relationships of competition and complementarity, including household final consumption expenditure (% of GDP), sporting goods import and export trade volumes (% of GDP), FDI (% of GDP) and R&D (% of GDP) from 2013 to 2018. Using the standardized Euclidean distance method, the geo-economic relationship of sporting goods manufacturing industry between China and each One Belt and One Road Initiative (BRI) country is obtained. Statistic results show that the geo-economic relationship of the sporting goods manufacturing industry between China and other BRI countries is more competitive than complementary. Meanwhile, a map generated by the ARCGIS10.0 platform shows that competition between China and the BRI countries increased from 2013 to 2018. According to the analysis of statistical data regarding the aspects of the industrial structure of China’s sporting goods manufacturing industry, geo-economics and geopolitics, respectively, several proposals are put forward for the high-quality development of the sporting goods manufacturing industry in China.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)C02, F62, L67, Z21
-
References39
-
Tables5
-
Figures1
-
- Figure 1. The evolution of geo-economic relationships of China’s sporting goods industry with those of the BRI countries from 2013 to 2018
-
- Table 1. Weighting of geographical distances between China and other countries
- Table 2. The value of the geo-economic relationship between China and the BRI countries from 2013 to 2018
- Table 3. Types of geo-economic relations between the sporting goods industry in China and those in the BRI countries
- Table A1. Standardized values of the indicators for the BRI countries
- Table B1. Indicators for the Euclidean distance between China and the BRI countries in 2018
-
- Aalto, P., & Forsberg, T. (2015). The structuration of Russia’s geo-economy under economic sanctions. Asia Europe Journal, 14(2), 221-237.
- Andreff, M., & Andreff, W. (2009). Global trade in sports goods: International specialisation of major trading countrics. European Sport Management Quarterly, 9(3), 36.
- Baracuhy, B. (2014). The evolving geo-economics of world trade. Power shifts and new blocs in the global trading system edited by sanjaya baru and suvi dogra, 54(450), 18.
- Beath, J., & Katsoulacos, Y. (1991). The economic theory of product differentiation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Brzezinski, Z. (1997). The grand chessboard: American primacy and its geostrategic imperatives. New York: Basic Books.
- Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
- Coccia, M. (2007). Spatial mobility of knowledge transfer and absorptive capacity: Analysis and measurement of the impact within the geoeconomic space. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 18.
- Cowen, D., & Smith, N. (2009). After geopolitics? From the geopolitical social to geoeconomics. Antipode, 41(1), 22-48.
- Deng, C. (2009). An matching analysis on the space economic contact and geo-economic relationship of the inter-city group – case study of building the country’s major economic center in the PRD. Urban Development Research, 16(8), 8.
- Du, C., & Liu, K. (2016). Measurement and spatial-temporal evolution of beijing s service inter-regional economic relationship. Journal of Capital Normal University (Natural Science Edition), 37(5), 6.
- Fu, J. (2016). Sporting goods – research in opportunities, challenges and countermeasures for AFTA an example of Chinese sporting goods IPO enterprises. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Economics, Management Engineering and Education Technology.
- Han, Y., Luo, X., & Zou, J. (2015). Trade cooperation competitiveness and complementarities of china and west Asia under the background of silk road economic belt and maritime silk road strategy. World Economic Research, 3, 11.
- Hu, W., Ge, Y., Dang, Q., Huang, Y., Hu, Y., Ye, S., & Wang, S. (2020). Analysis of the development level of geo-economic relations between china and countries along the belt and road. Sustainability, 12(3), 21.
- Huang, Y., Ge, Y., & Liu, X. (2019). Calculation of the geoeconomic relationships between china, the USA and japan based on coulomb force model. Acta Geographica Sinica, 70(2), 12.
- Huntington, S. P. (1993). Why international primacy matters. International Security, 17(4), 68-83.
- Ji, W., & Ren, W. (2020). Influencing factors and development potentials of sports goods export between china and the countries along “the belt and road”: a test based on the extended trade gravity model. Journal of Shanghai Institute of Physical Education, 44(4), 8.
- Khalid, N., Peter, L.-T., Hong, X., & Navjote, K. (2011). Playing against china: Global value chains and labour standards in the international sports goods industry. Global Networks, 11(3), 21.
- Krugman, P. (1998). What’s new about the new economic geography? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 14(2), 11.
- Kundnani, H. (2011). Germany as a geo-economic power. The Washington Quarterly, 34(3), 31-45.
- Li, Y. (2020). Comparison of international trade competitiveness in exporting sporting goods between china, ASEAN and SAARC. Journal of Capital University of Physical Education and Sports, 32(3), 6.
- Luttwak, E. N. (1990). From geopolitics to geo-economics: Logic of conflict, grammar of commerce. The National Interest, 20, 17-23.
- Navjote, K., & Balram, D. (2009). Examination of export constraints affecting the export performance of the Indian sports goods industry. European Journal of International Management, 3(3).
- Qiao, M. (2019). Analysis of the impact of geo-economic relations on china’s ofdi: empirical evidence from “one belt and one road” countries. Discussion on Modern Economy, 12(7), 9.
- Qin, D., Wei, H., Yuejing, G., Shihong, D., Li, Y., & Shufang, W. (2020). Geo-economic linkages intensity and its influencing factors between China and South American countries. Acta Geographica Sinica, 75(10), 15.
- Smith, A. (2002). Imagining geographies of the ’new Europe’: Geo-economic power and the new European architecture of integration. Political Geography, 21, 647-670.
- Steven, P., & Nick, H. (2010). Paul Krugman’s geographical economics, industrial clustering and the British motor sport industry. Regional Studies, 33(9), 13.
- Su, D., Luo, H., & Cai, D. (2013). Analysis of geo-economic relationships between the region of Southeast Asia and major outside countries. World Regional Studies, 22(1), 11.
- Vandenbussche, H., & Viegelahn, C. (2012). Indian antidumping measures against china: Evidence from monthly trade data (Discussion Paper, 322/2012).
- Wang, P., & Liu, X. (2015). Comparative analysis of export similarity index between China and EU. Paper presented at the International Conference on Management Science and Management Innovation.
- Wang, S., Zhu, A., Ge, Y., Liu, Y., & Xue, X. (2017). The spatio-temporal evolution of geo-economic relationships between China and ASEAN countries: Competition or cooperation? Sustainability, 9, 21.
- Wen, Z. (1998). Distance analysis: A method for evaluating geoeconomic relations. Statistics and Decision Making, 1, 3.
- Wigell, M. (2015). Conceptualizing regional powers’ geoeconomic strategies: Neo-imperialism, neo-mercantilism, hegemony, and liberal institutionalism. Asia Europe Journal, 14(2), 135-151.
- Wolfram, M. (2014). Global sports commodity chains and Asia’s new interregional division of labour. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 30(11),1299-1314.
- Wu, X. (2019). A panoramic view of bilateral trade between china and turkey in 2018.
- Zen, G., & Luo, J. (2008). Measurement of geo-economic relations in Wuhan metropolitan area. Statistics and Decision Making, 21, 3.
- Zhang, L., & Zhang, M. (2003). Measurement analysis of geo-economic relationship in the Yangtze river delta. Shanghai Economic Research, 11, 3.
- Zhang, X., Wu, Y., & Luo, H. (2006). Research on the theory and method for the measurement and analysis of inter-regional economic relationship: take Yunnan province as sample. Areal Research and Development, 25(4), 5.
- Zhang, Y., Li, X., & Tang, C. (2012). Regional economic relationship analysis of Beijin, Tianjin and Hebei from the perspective of competition and cooperation. Urban Development Research, 19(5), 6.
- Zhou, Y., Chu, J., & Bai, Z. (2010). Industrial upgrading of Chinese sporting goods in global value chain. Journal of Wuhan Institute of Physical Education, 44(7), 3.
-
Formation of competitive development strategy key performance indicators’ system for consulting companies
Inna Gruzina ,
Maryna Poliukhovych
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/dm.18(1).2020.05
The information on the main stages of key performance indicators selection and formation for the process of estimating the competitive development strategy effectiveness of consulting companies is analyzed, the types of indicators, their differences are examined, the existing views and recommendations of researchers and experts on the expediency of using certain indicators directly by consulting companies are generalized. Various areas of consulting are described and it is suggested to take into account the specifics of the consulting business when selecting relevant performance indicators of their competitive strategies. Comprehensive and relentless globalization has made the protection of company’s intellectual capital one of the key factors in the success of enterprise development. As the main asset of any consulting company are people and their intellectual potential, competition in this area has become quite strong and fierce. Since the main asset of the consulting company is people and their intellectual potential, the competition in this field is very strong and fierce. Thus, the predominance of intellectual work requires specific accounting for the assets of consulting companies and an assessment of the efficiency of use of these assets in accordance with the developed strategy. Given the fact that, by their content, performance indicators should assist managers and business owners in making decisions about evaluating the effectiveness of their chosen process or the performance of a particular system in the enterprise, evaluating the effectiveness of business development as a whole, the possibility of using a certain range of indicators to evaluate consulting company’s strategies effectiveness was considered. In particular, the results of the analysis of the main goals and objectives set in the development of a competitive consulting company’s development strategy suggested the use of groups of indicators (both financial and non-financial) to evaluate the effectiveness of the enterprise competitive strategy, enterprise development strategy or directly to evaluate the competitive development strategy of consulting companies. In addition, the emphasis is placed on determining the optimal number of indicators of the consulting company’s development strategy and analysis of data of different size and geography of business of consulting companies.
-
Estimate of synthesized capital application in regional development strategy formation
Maryna Gruzd
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/dm.17(2).2019.02
The analysis of strategic potential for development strategy aimed at the effective use of synthesized capital is fundamental to solving the urgent problems of increasing the well-being of the population and promoting economic growth. Given the analysis of existing approaches on the principles of consistency and complicity, a system of indicators was developed to assess the components of the region’s strategic potential: investment capital, innovation capital, infrastructural capital, entrepreneurial capital, ecological capital has been developed. The author proposed groups of indicators of human capital, intellectual capital and social capital of the synthesized capital that directly affect the identification of territorial capabilities and allow to create an effective development strategy. Using these indicators, it is possible to carry out component-wise and overall assessment of strategic potential in the effective use of synthesized capital of the region. The author’s methodology of strategic potential analysis is proposed, which can be used to assess the strategic potential of the region and to determine the effectiveness of using the resource support of socio-economic system. Region’s strategic component objective assessment presupposes evaluation in dynamics and under the conditions of capacity buildup. Region’s strategic potential development is based on the dynamic evaluation of strategic potential. For the justification of forecast data for groups of indicators of strategic potential for future periods it is possible to use modern software products that allow using methods of econometric analysis to process statistics and predict them based on given sample.
