Restructuring of the Automotive Industry in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Region from 2007 to 2011
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
IntroductionThe world automotive industry lias undergone significant changes resulting from the 2008 financial and economic crisis, and from the growth of new automotive industries in developing countries. Relocation of production lias been one of the most important issues as it affects investment and employment, which are important factors for wellness in society.In the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) region, the crisis and the great recession that followed profoundly impacted the auto industry. Car production decreased 32.4%, from 12.9 to 8.7 million vehicles (Rubenstein, 1992), several facilities closed while others opened at different location, some models were replaced and others discontinued. Five years later production recovered, although geographical restructuring of production lias been different for each one of the three countries: Canada, United States of America (USA) and Mexico.Changes in the pattern of automotive geographical agglomeration in the NAFTA region have been studied from different points of view. Bailey et al. (2010) evaluated restructuring of the auto industry using a global perspective, including the impact of the industry and of green vehicles on the development of emergent national economies. Within the USA the factors related with industry-clustering in the northwest region and in the south during the 20th and early 21st century were studied by Rubenstein, (1992) and by Klier & Rubenstein (2008, 2009, 2013). Hill & Brahmst (2003) reported that incentives were partially responsible for the decisions made by foreign carmakers to locate in the Deep South. Stanford (2010) explains the geography of auto globalization and the politics of auto bailouts. Sean, McAlinden & Yen Chen (2013) studied the financial look at the -Detroit-Three automakers.Holmes (1998 and 2004) studied the factors related with the development trajectory of the automotive industry in Canada and its relationship with the performance of the USA -Big Three companies, the increasing labor costs and the rising value of the Canadian dollar. Sathe, Dziczek & Cregger (2011 and 2012) compiled a database containing all automaker facilities that closed in the United States since 1979 and examined strategies to re-purpose.Carrillo (1990, 2004) studied the location and specialization and integration of the Mexican and North American Automobile Industry to the after NAFTA. All these studies need to be focused from the perspective of the economic crisis suffered in the region and the consequences for production in the automotive industry within the NAFTA region.The aim of this work is to analyze the production relocation in the NAFTA region after the 2008 economic crisis in order to address questions regarding the regional fluctuations in production within a country, both at the assembly-plant level and in the product portfolio.Our central hypothesis is that the frost-belt industrial region (traditional spaces) lias lost the most, while the new industrial zones (emerging spaces) especially those in Mexico, have been the most favored since production increased and more sophisticated products began to be manufactured in the new spaces. We analyze NAFTA assembly-plants and compare production for two different years: 2007, when the crisis began and 2011 when the consequences could be observed.MethodsInformation was collected from Automotive News and companies' internet pages related to: where plants are located, year of establishment, firm owner, models and volume production in 2007 and in 2011 (automotive news, 2008, 2012).We defined five regions and produced two maps. Plants manufacturing heavy vehicles were not considered in the analysis. The reference years are cmcial as 2007 was prior to the severe crisis of 2008, while 2011 was the last year for which we were able to obtain full information from most assembly plants.NAFTA was divided into five zones as follows: the first one is the traditional industrial area in the United States that integrates five states (Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Ohio). …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».