The Development and Controversy Surrounding Global Production Networks Theory:

<p>    The purpose of this paper is to make the case for expanding the reach of Global Production Networks Theory, henceforth GPN theory. Having gained a rapid “hegemonic” status in Anglophone economic geography in the first two decades of the 21st century, it seems an opportune moment to bring it to the attention of the academy here in Japan where its affinity with the study of industrial geography appears persuasive. In so doing, I will examine both GPN's achievements and the contestation that has accompanied its rise. The theory's originality stems from the following five points: 1) it identifies ‘strategic partners' as one type of the firm actors while incorporating non-firm actors into the theory; 2) it proposes two organizational configurations known as the ‘strategic partnership model' and ‘lead firm-centric model'; 3) it defines three dynamic forces, i.e. cost-capability ratio, market development and financial discipline, to elucidate causal mechanisms; 4) it identifies four patterns of firm strategy that encompass intra-firm coordination, inter-firm control, inter-firm partnership and extra-firm bargaining; and 5) it proposes the ‘value capture trajectory' and ‘strategic coupling' as new concepts to understand regional economic development. <BR>    Since the 2010s, numerous related studies have been published which can be classified into several categories such as the definition of GPN theory, the concept of dynamic forces, the analysis of firm strategy, and the concept of value capture trajectory/strategic coupling and regional development. In addition, there has been a significant increase in research in a number of adjacent areas such as the role of the state, finance, labor, and the importance of the environment. There are, understandably, critics of the GPN theory. A key critique, from their perspective of political economy, is that it lacks insights when it comes to research on uneven spatial development. Henry Yeung, one of the GPN advocates, counterargues that GPN should be viewed as a meso theory, not a grand theory. In addition, he seems to be cautious about applications such as “hegemonic” status. Since several concepts in GPN theory are useful for economic geography in Japan, they may become popular also in Japan in the future.</p>