Aarti Krishnan and Giovanni Pasquali, Do more diversified suppliers rebound faster than concentrated suppliers in times of shocks? Insights from Kenya (2020)

Summary

A WIDER Background Note, No. 8/2020, dated August 2020, by Aarti Krishnan and Giovanni Pasquali of the University of Manchester, published by the United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research. The note examines how Kenyan horticulture, tea and leather export firms performed during two shocks: the 2008 global financial crisis, accompanied by domestic election violence, and the 2011 drought, compounded by an export ban to the European Union for vegetables exceeding legal pesticide levels. It draws sector-by-sector patterns of recovery as a guide for the COVID-19 pandemic. For the leather sector, it argues that strategies concentrating on specific end markets where firms hold a competitive advantage drive robust growth.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Aarti Krishnan and Giovanni Pasquali, Do more diversified suppliers rebound faster than concentrated suppliers in times of shocks? Insights from Kenya (2020).” Original at pure.manchester.ac.uk. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/aarti-krishnan-and-giovanni-pasquali-do-more-diversified-suppliers-reb-28b9e056c5/, SHA-256 190687d8f04cd9eef94fd30e909f3f2e75eda495d884ccbaa572e0c81da1d0d8.

Full text

The University of Manchester Research

Do more diversified suppliers rebound faster than
concentrated suppliers in times of shocks? Insights from
Kenya
DOI:
10.35188/UNU-WIDER/WBN/2020-8

Document Version
Final published version

Link to publication record in Manchester Research Explorer

Citation for published version (APA):
Krishnan, A., & Pasquali, G. (2020). Do more diversified suppliers rebound faster than concentrated suppliers in
times of shocks? Insights from Kenya. (8 ed.) (pp. 11). United Nations University, World Institute for Development
Economics Research. https://doi.org/10.35188/UNU-WIDER/WBN/2020-8

Citing this paper
Please note that where the full-text provided on Manchester Research Explorer is the Author Accepted Manuscript
or Proof version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the
publisher's definitive version.

General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Explorer are retained by the
authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and
abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

Takedown policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please refer to the University of Manchester’s Takedown
Procedures [http://man.ac.uk/04Y6Bo] or contact openresearch@manchester.ac.uk providing relevant details, so
we can investigate your claim.

Download date:04. Oct. 2026
WIDER BACKGROUND NOTE | 8/2020

Do more diversified suppliers rebound
faster than concentrated suppliers in times
of shocks?
Insights from Kenya

Aarti Krishnan and Giovanni Pasquali*

August 2020
Abstract: We examine how different firms and sectors rebound or prevail in crises. We draw on
insights from the performance (upgrading potential) of Kenyan horticulture, tea, and leather
export firms during two recent, but very different, shocks to the Kenyan economy. The first is
the 2008 global financial crisis, which was accompanied by domestic election violence. The
second is the 2011 drought, further compounded by an export ban to the European Union for
vegetables exceeding legal levels of pesticide concentration. Analysis of the impact of these
heterogeneous shocks on Kenyan export firms sheds light on sector-by-sector patterns of
recovery and provides valuable foresight for the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
Key words: export firms, sectors, heterogeneous shocks, Kenya, global value chains
JEL classification: E2, G10, L2, Q11, Q13
Acknowledgements: We would like to thank the ESRC-GCRF for the ES/S000453/1 grant to
which this paper is linked as part of the project ‘Shifting South: decent work in regional value
chains and South-South trade’; and the Hallsworth research grant. We are also extremely grateful
to UNU-WIDER reviewers for the insightful comments.

*Both: University of Manchester, United Kingdom. Corresponding author: aarti.krishnan-2@manchester.ac.uk

This note has been prepared within the UNU-WIDER project on Academic excellence.
Copyright © UNU-WIDER 2020 / Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO

Information and requests: publications@wider.unu.edu

https://doi.org/10.35188/UNU-WIDER/WBN/2020-8
United Nations University World Institute for Development
Economics Research

Katajanokanlaituri 6 B, 00160 Helsinki, Finland

United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research provides economic analysis
and policy advice with the aim of promoting sustainable and equitable development. The Institute began operations in
1985 in Helsinki, Finland, as the first research and training centre of the United Nations University. Today it is a unique
blend of think tank, research institute, and UN agency—providing a range of services from policy advice to governments
as well as freely available original research.
The Institute is funded through income from an endowment fund with additional contributions to its work programme
from Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom as well as earmarked contributions for specific projects from a variety of
donors.

The views expressed in this paper are those of the author(s), and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Institute or the
United Nations University, nor the programme/project donors.
In this background note, we examine how different firms and sectors rebound or prevail in crises.
We draw on insights from the performance (upgrading potential) of Kenyan horticulture, tea, and
leather export firms during two recent, but very different, shocks to the Kenyan economy. The
first is the 2008 global financial crisis, which was accompanied by domestic election violence. The
second is the 2011 drought, further compounded by an export ban to the European Union (EU)
for vegetables exceeding legal levels of pesticide concentration; also known as the ‘Maximum
Residual Levels (MRLs) crisis’.

Analysis of the impact of these heterogeneous shocks on Kenyan export firms sheds light on
sector-by-sector patterns of recovery and provides valuable foresight for the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic.

We unpack two critical questions. Do more diversified suppliers that sell into multiple end markets
recover faster (or differently) compared to concentrated suppliers that depend on specific end markets?
Is there any recurring recovery pattern across Kenyan suppliers across different sectors?

Despite both shocks being very different from each other in origin, Kenyan export firms showed
similar patterns of robustness (‘the ability to maintain operations during a crisis’) and resilience
(‘the ability to return to normal operations over an acceptable period of time, post-disruption’).
The results indicate that diversified suppliers performed comparatively better among tea and
horticulture exporters and proved to be more resilient and robust than concentrated suppliers.
This dynamic suggests that speedier recovery stems more from an export strategy of end-market
diversification than the nature of the shock itself. However, the leather sector proved to be an
exception, as concentrated suppliers were more resilient instead.

Our study has obvious policy implications for governments seeking to shore up their export
industries and increase international competitiveness in the wake of an economic shock, such as
the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. It indicates that a small set of readily available indicators (drawn
from customs data) can be highly explanatory for decision-makers seeking to understand the
unique aspects of key export industries and formulate policy to support their recovery in times of
crisis. We argue that future studies of a similar nature can make a valuable contribution to the
literature on industrial competitiveness and globalization in the time of shocks, and be relatively
straightforward and inexpensive to carry out.

What about low-income countries?

Numerous grim headlines cover the news concerning the disruptive effect of the COVID-19
pandemic on the future of GVCs. These range from the Financial Times asking ‘Will coronavirus
pandemic kill off global supply chains?’, to The Telegraph’s piece ‘The end of globalisation? The
herculean task of decoupling supply chains from China’. A significant chunk of these arguments
focuses on the importance of reducing dependence on specific countries for imports (especially
medicines) and gaining national self-sufficiency.

These articles have in common a combined emphasis on: (a) high-tech manufacturing and the
service sectors in the Global North; and (b) long value chains with a considerable number of
intermediary products and a high degree of specialization. Conversely, they neglect relatively
shorter and less-specialized value chains in low-income countries. Notably, these sectors include
agriculture and light manufacturing sectors, such as apparel and leather, which are often central to
the export strategies of developing and least developed countries.

1
Kenya’s export-oriented industries

In this note, we focus on three key export-oriented sectors in Kenya. The first, horticulture
(including fresh and processed fruits, vegetables and nuts (FFV)) and tea are among the largest of
Kenya’s export sectors, accounting for over 30 per cent of the country’s total exports in 2019.
Historically, high-value FFV was first introduced to Kenya in the early 1900s, when White settlers
founded the East African Agricultural and Horticultural Society. By the 1960s, Kenya was receiving
large inflows of foreign direct investment (FDI), especially in pineapple production, with
investment spearheaded by firms like Del Monte. These FDI flows supported the introduction of
new crops and technologies. Furthermore, indigenous varieties of mangos (e.g. Batawi), avocados
(e.g. G6 and Pueble) and garden peas were replaced by export varieties destined for Europe
(especially the UK), such as apple mangos, Haas avocados and Ambassador peas.

Similarly, new products that were not indigenous to Kenya, such as green beans and snow peas,
were introduced in the mid-1970s–80s. This laid the foundation for the export-oriented nature of
the sector, serving developed economies. Presently, the horticulture sector is dominated by small-
scale producers at the upstream end of the value chain, which funnels into a relatively large number
of mostly small and medium-size export firms.

The origins of tea in Kenya have parallels with horticulture. Tea was first introduced by British
traders in the early 1900s. Over time, with the institutionalization of the Kenyan Tea Development
Authority (KTDA), the tea sector became a highly co-ordinated and controlled value chain,
dominated by a few large exporters. Many of these firms are transnational corporations, such as
Unilever and Tetley. Over 60 per cent of the country’s total tea production is carried out by
smallholder farmers who sell their tea through KTDA and other out-grower schemes co-ordinated
by export firms. Tea is the main export crop for Kenya, accounting for about 30 per cent of the
country’s total exports in 2019.

Leather is also a long-standing industry in Kenya, dating back to 1905 when the industry was
kickstarted to promote the export of game-trophies and vegetable tanned leather for the British
Empire. Following the end of an import substitution regime and the government’s introduction
of a structural adjustment programme in the early 1990s, the sector practically collapsed. Since
2006, export promotion policies have supported the growth of the sector, making it the second
largest (after Ethiopia) exporter of semi-processed hides and skins in the Common Market for
Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) region and the largest producer of leather goods
(excluding footwear). In terms of its structure, the leather sector is somewhere between tea and
horticulture, with a small number of large exporters (especially for semi-processed leather) along
with multiple small enterprises producing a range of leather products for domestic and export
markets. Although it accounts for a small share of Kenya’s total exports, leather is a sunrise sector,
and is central to the country’s long-term industrialization strategy.

Resilience and robustness of global value chains

Unpacking value chains enables digging down into the heterogeneity across sectors and products.
Some value chains are likely to recover or rebound faster than others. According to Miroudot
(2020) ‘resilience’ is defined as the ability to return to normal operations over an acceptable period
of time, post-disruption. Conversely, Brandon-Jones et al. define ‘robustness’ as the ability to
maintain operations during a crisis and continue to perform ‘at least at the same level as prior to

2
the shock’. The key outcomes of resilience and robustness during shocks can be understood
through firms’ performance.

Scholars of global value chains (GVCs) generally link firms’ performance to the critical concept of
‘upgrading’. GVC scholars have defined ‘industrial upgrading’ as ‘the process by which economic
actors — firms and workers — move from low-value to relatively high-value activities in global
production networks’. There are multiple ways for a sector or firm to upgrade. This can occur (i)
by shifting to greater product variety and updating old products (product upgrading); (ii) by re-
organizing production to transform inputs through superior technology (process upgrading); and (iii)
by shifting to higher value-added functions in the chain (functional upgrading) (Humphrey and
Schmitz 2002).

Building robustness and resilience requires different strategies at the firm- and sector-level to
promote upgrading. A key strategy is geographic diversification, broadly understood as a firm’s market
expansion ‘across the borders of global regions and countries into different geographic locations,
or markets’. Scholars argue that multinational firms opt for geographical expansion over co-
location of their global business processes to reduce the ‘hazard of knowledge misappropriation’.
Kramarz, Martin, and Mejean (2020) also show that exporting countries, especially during
idiosyncratic shocks, have significantly higher volatility due to a lack of geographic diversification
or increased over-dependence a few markets.

Alternatively, firms may deploy concentration strategies — that is specialization in serving specific
end markets (see Crick et al. 2000; Katsikea et al. 2005). Studies have shown that long-term
advantages of concentration include accelerating accumulation of complex knowledge, formation
of stronger networks and information sharing, and engendered product diversification over time
(for example, Aspelund et al. 2007).

Geographic diversification and concentration in GVCs has gained relevance only in the last decade
as scholars started unpacking these strategies and their implications for ‘producers who supply
multiple global and regional lead firms’. Most of these studies broadly regard geographic
diversification as a passive strategy based on past experience, trading history, and, more simply,
lack of alternatives. For instance, Pickles et al. (2016) and Blazek (2016) argue that, in some cases,
suppliers withdraw from selling to retailers in the Global North in favour of Southern end markets
with comparatively less stringent standards and lower entry barriers. Their strategy is therefore
underpinned by an attempt to minimize losses. In other cases, scholars have described
geographical diversification driven by firms’ opportunistic behaviour. For instance Barrientos et
al. (2016) and Navas Aleman (2011) suggest that Kenyan, South African, and Brazilian suppliers
in the horticulture and footwear value chains attempt to strategically diversify away from GVCs
and participate in multiple-value chains simultaneously, to reduce dependence on one market.

However, evidence comparing concentration and diversification strategies and their impact on
firms’ resilience and robustness to shocks is surprisingly limited, especially for export-oriented
sectors. Some support the view that more diversified firms are better suited to withstand shocks
as they ‘reduce supplier-specific and country-specific risk’. While others, including a report by the
World Bank following the 2008 downturn, contend that crises bring about consolidation of GVCs
as lead firms liaise with fewer suppliers. Overall, the available research does not account for
different sectors’ resilience or robustness patterns throughout crises, and under what conditions a
strategy of geographic diversification is preferable to single end-market concentration. In the
remainder of this note, we draw on customs data for Kenyan horticulture, tea, and leather sectors
to explore these dynamics.

3
Analysing Kenyan firms’ exposure to past shocks

Due to COVID-19, the IMF has downgraded Kenya’s economic growth prospects for 2020 from
6.2 per cent to 1 per cent. As the Kenyan economy has been badly hit during the COVID-19
pandemic, analysing the impact of previous shocks on the country’s core sectors can help us draw
important lessons on how to tackle the ongoing crisis.

The big shocks that Kenya experienced in the previous decade are in fact very different in nature.
The difference between the 2008 global financial crisis, which was compounded by domestic
violence linked to the country’s general elections, and the 2011 localised shock of one of Kenya’s
worst droughts and concurrent trade suspension of horticultural exports, is not just geographical.
It further rests on the underlying causes of these two shocks. On the one hand, the financial crisis
was primarily driven by a collapse in demand, while on the other hand the 2010–11 MLRs crisis
and the regional drought were a supply shock that disrupted production. Today’s ‘Great
Lockdown’ is a combination of the two, characterised by a ‘rare twin supply–demand shock’ when
a supply constraint is accompanied by a simultaneous shock to demand. Looking at the 2008 and
2011 crises in combination can help us understand what the recovery years 2021 and 2022 may
look like, in terms of robustness and resilience for exporting firms.

Using transaction-level customs data, we disaggregated the impacts on diversified and
concentrated firms for both shocks. We relied on a dataset of 1,349 horticulture exporters, 354 tea
exporters, and 741 leather exporters over an eight-year period (2006–13). The results are fully
representative as they cover the complete universe of exporting firms for each sector. In the
analysis, we take a 4-year timeframe for each of the two crises. This allows us to monitor suppliers’
performance in the year before the crisis (which is set as a benchmark), the change that occurs in
the year of the crisis, and the possible rebound over the following two years.

The data is indexed, with the pre-shock year to 100. The analysis focuses on three firm-specific
indicators, which are commonly used to explain levels of firm upgrading:

1. Firms’ average revenue freight on board (FOB). Changes in a firm’s total exports for a given
sector is an indicator of business performance.
2. Product count, indicating firms’ average number of exported products. An increase in
‘related product diversification’ across products within the same sector has been associated
with increased business performance and competitive advantage.
3. Product sophistication, indicating whether the quality and complexity of products changed
using Hausmann’s product groups. An increase in product sophistication over time has been
previously associated with upgrading.

Results

Horticulture: financial crisis and election, 2007–08

For horticulture, the average FOB of diversified firms constantly increased during and after the
crisis, while concentrated firms saw a continuous decrease. Product count fell steeply in the year
after the crisis 2008–09, and recovered only in 2009–10, across both diversified and concentrated
firms. Product sophistication diverged, with diversified firms increasing through the crisis and
after, in contrast to concentrated firms which continuously decreased, and were unable to recover
to pre-shock levels even two years after in 2009–10 (Figure 1).

4
Figure 1: Average FOB, product count and product sophistication, 2006–10

300

250

200

150

100

0
Diversified Concentrated Diversified Concentrated Diversified Concentrated
FOB Product Count Product Sophistication

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Note: (1) the graphs are calculated by indexing the pre-shock year to a 100; (2) diversified firms: exporting at least
20% of their yearly export at year t outside their core export-region; (3) concentrated firms: with a one-region focus
(regional boxes of trade); (4) product count: firm’s average number of exported products at the 6-digit HS level in
year t); (5) product sophistication: Hausmann’s product groups ranking relative income content.
Source: authors’ illustration based on customs data from Kenya Revenue Authority.

This tells us that diversified horticultural firms display robustness, as through the crisis product
sophistication and average FOB improved, while concentrated firms were unable to recover even
14 months after the crisis.

Horticulture: drought and MRLs crisis, 2010–11

The number of horticulture suppliers fell by 35 per cent between 2009–11 as the sector attempted
to weather the crisis. Both diversified and concentrated firms managed to recover their average
FOB, with the first further increasing it to above the pre-crisis’ value (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Average FOB, product count, and product sophistication, 2009–13

250

200

150

100

0
Diversified Concentrated Diversified Concentrated Diversified Concentrated
FOB Product Count Product Sophistication

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Source: authors’ illustration based on customs data from Kenya Revenue Authority.

5
Diversified firms experienced a steady upward trend in product count and sophistication through
and after the crisis. In contrast, the same indicators for concentrated firms fell during the crisis
and fluctuated after. In both crises, diversified horticultural exporters showed greater robustness.

Tea: financial crisis and election, 2007–08

Diversified tea suppliers outperformed concentrated suppliers in terms of average FOB and
continued to grow during and after the crisis. Diversified firms were also unaffected by the crisis
in terms of product count and product sophistication, which continued to intensify, while
concentrated firms experienced a fall on both indicators during the crisis, and then recovered
marginally after (Figure 3). Clearly diversified tea exporters demonstrated robustness through the
crisis.
Figure 3: Average FOB, product count, and product sophistication, 2006–10

350

300

250

200

150

100

0
Diversified Concentrated Diversified Concentrated Diversified Concentrated
FOB Product Count Product Sophistication

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Source: authors’ illustration based on customs data from Kenya Revenue Authority.

Tea: drought and MRLs crisis, 2010–11

Within the tea sector, diversified firms experienced a drop in average FOB during the crisis, but
swiftly rebounded by 2011–12 and overtook concentrated firms. Diversified tea exporters had
higher product count and sophistication through and after the crisis. The product count fell for
concentrated firms and did not rebound until after 2012–13 (Figure 4).

In the tea sector, diversified firms were more resilient as they rebounded within a year to pre-shock
levels in terms of FOB, and displayed greater robustness in product sophistication and product
count compared to concentrated firms Here, too, end-market diversification outperformed end-
market concentration through both shocks.

6
Figure 4: Average FOB, product count, and product sophistication, 2009–13

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

0
Diversified Concentrated Diversified Concentrated Diversified Concentrated
FOB Product Count Product Sophistication

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Source: authors’ illustration based on customs data from Kenya Revenue Authority.

Leather: financial crisis and election, 2007–08

In terms of firms’ average FOB, concentrated firms’ marginally increased while diversified firms’
fell and did not recover to pre-shock levels even in 2009–10. However only diversified firms
continued to add new products to their remit through the crisis, while concentrated firms chose
to invest in creating more sophisticated products instead (Figure 5).
Figure 5: Average FOB, product count, and product sophistication, 2006–10

160

140

120

100

0
Diversified Concentrated Diversified Concentrated Diversified Concentrated
FOB Product Count Product Sophistication

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Source: authors’ illustration based on customs data from Kenya Revenue Authority.

In sum, the results are mixed. While diversified firms outperformed concentrated firms in terms
of product diversification, concentrated firms displayed a comparatively higher trend for FOB and
product sophistication, proving to be more robust than diversified firms. Previous research on this
industry shows that regional exporters within Africa concentrate on more sophisticated
manufactured goods, but worldwide exporters focus on semi-processed leather, which is more
likely to be influenced by economic shocks and price changes. These findings suggest that

7
concentrated firms were more willing to climb the value-chain ladder, produce specialised goods,
and demonstrate greater resilience.

Leather: drought and MRLs crisis, 2010–11

The drought significantly affected leather as it is a water-intensive sector. The average FOB
stagnated, but concentrated firms outperformed diversified firms by 2011–12. On average, product
count increased slightly more for diversified than concentrated firms, but this did not translate to
greater revenue (FOB). Both diversified and concentrated firms experienced a marginal drop in
product sophistication, but concentrated firms recovered by 2012–13. Unlike in horticulture and
tea, concentrated firms in the leather sector bounced back faster and were more resilient and robust
than diversified firms in both crises (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Average FOB, product count, and product sophistication, 2009–13

160

140

120

100

0
Diversified Concentrated Diversified Concentrated Diversified Concentrated
FOB Product Count Product Sophistication

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Source: authors’ illustration based on customs data from Kenya Revenue Authority.

Overall, through both crises, diversified Kenyan firms in horticulture and tea remained robust and,
at times, even improved their performance vis-à-vis the pre-crisis period. Finally, in the leather
sector, evidence suggests that concentrated firms withstood the shocks better than diversified
firms, featuring a mixture of resilience and robustness outcomes.

How can governments then effectively support firm recovery from COVID-19?

Despite both shocks being very different from each other in origin, Kenyan export firms showed
similar patterns of robustness and resilience. The results indicate that through both demand-side
and supply-side shocks, operating in diversified end markets was comparatively better for tea and
horticulture exporters. Conversely, for the leather sector, our research shows that concentrated
firms rebounded faster, in part through improved product sophistication, indicating that high-
value exports for niche markets is an exploitable feature of the industry.

As we argue, these results present important lessons for both researchers and policy-makers. From
a policy perspective, the Kenyan government has so far focused predominantly on reactive
strategies, through both the financial and MRL/drought crises, primarily attempting to keep

8
business going by filling immediate gaps. For instance during the financial crisis they attempted to
provide cheap credit to large firms to continue export, and began developing a new standard for
food safety called KenyaGAP post the MRL crisis as a means to ensure quality of produce.
However, these policies are reactive and neglect to target the export strategies of firms.

In the same vein, during the COVID-19 crisis, in the horticulture sector the government
implemented targeted protocols wherein farmers and suppliers need to adhere to horticulture
standard KS 1758 to ensure quality and safety of produce and implement logistics hygiene
standards during transport of exported produce. Again, these policies tend to try keep businesses
going as usual, rather than systematically build back better.

The government should support firms with the largest potential for growth. Based on our findings,
decision-makers should therefore consider sector-specific market expansion and specialization
policies to support firms in the wake of COVID-19. In Kenya, it is critical to support market
diversification in the horticulture and tea sector. This would also provide an opportunity for the
government to monitor firm performance and offer incentives that engender those strategies
which strengthen their ability to weather and rebound from shocks and upgrade their exports.

In the manufacturing sector, including leather, the Kenyan government has facilitated
diversification, promoting expedited licensing, one-stop shops for trade information on new
markets, export processing zones, tax rebates, better business engagement, and marketing facilities.
Drawing on our analysis of the leather sector, strategies that concentrate on selling to specific
countries where competitive advantage can be leveraged are the key to the robust growth of firms.
It is therefore important to focus on building deeper linkages with specific end markets, while
simultaneously disincentivising ties with markets where firms have been unable to grow and
upgrade adequately. For instance, recent research using customs data on Kenya leather observes
the critical role of China and the Eastern Africa markets as major drivers of upgrading for large
and small firms respectively. In addition, the leather value chain is significantly ‘longer’ than
horticulture, entailing multiple processing stages. More research is therefore warranted to
understand what nodes in the chain display more resilience and robustness during crises and how
shocks impact on backward and forward linkages. This would further enable the development of
firm-specific measures to promote an industry that is crucial to fostering structural change in the
economy.

File and source

File: krishnan-2020-do-more-diversified-suppliers-rebound-faster-than-concentrated-suppliers-in.pdf
Size: 475,735 bytes
SHA-256: 190687d8f04cd9eef94fd30e909f3f2e75eda495d884ccbaa572e0c81da1d0d8
Our copy: krishnan-2020-do-more-diversified-suppliers-rebound-faster-than-concentrated-suppliers-in.pdf
Original: pure.manchester.ac.uk