There are three contrasting approaches to understanding the geography of production. The first approach emphasizes the importance of local agglomerations, the second intrafirm mechanisms, while the third highlights global relationships or global production networks (GPN) or global value chains. These explanations are partial, but complementary. This paper explores the restructuring of global production with a focus on the reshoring or repatriation of manufacturing production to the U.S. and UK. Our intention is to identify the drivers behind reshoring as the first stage toward developing a dynamic conceptual framework for understanding the global organization of production. Reshoring needs to be conceptualized by drawing on and combining approaches developed in GPN with micro‐approaches to understanding firms including the development of a geography of production tasks. The study is based on a theoretical mapping to inform an empirical analysis of reshoring in both countries to identify and conceptualize the quantitative and qualitative causal drivers behind this process. The evidence suggests that reshoring is sector‐dependent and is mainly driven by manufacturers’ cost‐management and quality strategies combined with the importance of manufacturing products close to market. This involves a “total manufacturing cost analysis” in which access to a set of tangible and intangible inputs are key drivers behind dynamics of GPN.

The COVID‐19 pandemic represents a major disturbance that has rippled across the world’s population, states, economy, and central nervous system or global production networks transforming the traditional roles of states, firms, individuals/consumers, and geographies of production. This paper offers a critical and context‐based approach to understanding globalization and localization by challenging the conceptualization of ‘value’ and ‘risk’ within the current global production networks framework as well as identifying key operational strategies in risk management and national security. An analysis of the adaptation strategies of the GPNs of 91 companies identifies the role played by four different forms of value in configuring production networks. This is to balance ‘economic value’ with non‐price‐based sources of value and alternative values. The analysis underscores the critical role of the state in ensuring national and human security as well as its increasing power as a key actor in GPNs and the global economy.

This article examines the extant and potential impact of U.S. antiterrorism policies on Canada‐U.S. cross‐border commerce. Particular attention is focused on the cross‐border trade that takes place between southern Ontario (Canada) and western New York (United States). Evidence from a survey of Canadian and U.S. exporters suggests that U.S. antiterrorism measures have inflated the business costs of exporters on both sides of the border. These measures have also created shipment delays that ultimately imply lost revenues for producers, as well as higher prices for consumers. Security‐related initiatives motivated by a genuine concern for the well‐being of U.S. citizens may nevertheless act as nontariff barriers to bilateral trade. We argue that a potential long‐run consequence of these additional costs is trade diversion. The article concludes with a brief discussion of the implications of the empirical findings for the geography of Canada‐U.S. bilateral trade.

This paper assesses the competitive factors associated with company growth in the US industrial design sector. This small but technologically advanced sector delivers critical innovation inputs to firms that produce durable goods. Evidence from a survey of 85 US design companies suggests that competitive success hinges upon service diversity. Specifically, the most commercially buoyant companies have diversified their service offerings beyond product or component design. These firms have developed strategic competencies in fields such as contract research, prototype development, product testing, technological forecasting, market analysis and even advertising. Although most US design companies are small-to-medium-sized enterprises, successful firms do not differ from their less successful counterparts in terms of employment size, occupational structure, regional location or market focus (client sectors). Instead, the key differences lie in service diversity and the quality of human capital. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of the implications of the empirical findings for future research on the dynamics of the design industry.US industrial design firms, competitive factors, service diversification,