How did you come to study the interplay between globalisation and the domestic governance of skills and education?

I have long been interested in the intersection of globalisation and education policy, particularly how international economic forces influence domestic governance. During my early academic training and professional experience, I noticed a recurring tension: while global value chains (GVCs) offer countries economic opportunities, they also pose significant challenges to local skills development and education systems. I was curious to explore whether and how governments respond to these challenges, particularly in contexts where resources are limited. The combination of political economy, labour studies, and education policy gave me a meaningful lens to explore these dynamics.

Can you describe each of the three essays that make up your thesis?

The first essay, “Job Polarization within the Middle-Skill Group and Its Impact on Skills Mismatch”, studies how participation in advanced GVCs affect workers’ skills and perceptions of mismatch in Thailand. I conducted original fieldwork, combining survey data from 401 workers in 10 auto-parts firms with in-depth interviews with policymakers, researchers, employers, and employees.

I found that local firms are moderately upgrading their digital technologies, and the pace of change remains slow and uneven. As a result, many workers feel over-skilled for their current roles, often performing tasks below their qualification levels. However, this does not translate into confidence about their future. On the contrary, many are anxious about longer-term job security, uncertain whether their skills would remain relevant as technologies continue to evolve.

My study also highlights a growing job polarisation within the middle-skill group. At the top end, firms that are deeply integrated into GVCs and actively adopt advanced digital technologies demand middle-skilled workers with strong technical capabilities. At the lower end, firms using traditional production methods continue to require fewer skills. In between, a large segment of firms moderately adopt new technologies, leading to a situation where many workers are over-skilled for their current roles but still face uncertainty about their future, as their skills may not match evolving technological demands.

In the second essay, “Can Governments Do More Than We Thought? New Insights on the Role of Government in Global Value Chains and Skills Governance”, I ask: Does global economic integration influence how much governments invest in education? Using panel data from 126 countries between 1990–2018, I ran cross-national regressions examining the link between GVC integration and education spending across primary, secondary, and tertiary levels.

My findings indicate that countries more integrated into GVCs tend to increase spending on secondary and tertiary education, especially when their participation is upstream (e.g., supplying inputs to other countries). However, the link is not straightforward — it depends on the country’s position in the GVC and its broader institutional context. These results suggest that governments do respond to GVC-related labour risks, but not uniformly. The study also finds that among GVC-participating countries, those that spend more on education tend to have a higher level of workforce skills. This supports the view that public investment in education can play a key role in helping countries translate GVC participation into broader skill upgrading, rather than simply competing on low labour costs.

The last essay, titled “Decision to Privatize: Conditions for the Privatization of Primary Education”, examines under what conditions governments privatise primary education. I used cross-sectional data from 117 countries and conducted a comparative case study of Cambodia, Thailand, and Singapore. My analysis shows that countries’ decisions to privatise primary education are shaped by a range of structural and political factors: higher levels of democracy, stronger capacity to control corruption, greater income inequality, and higher rates of urbanisation are all significantly associated with a greater likelihood of governments relying on private provision of primary education. These findings suggest that privatisation is not simply a response to budgetary constraints or GVC pressures, but also reflects deeper political and institutional dynamics. For example, in more democratic or urbanised contexts, governments may face greater pressure to expand access to education quickly, which can lead to greater reliance on private actors. At the same time, corruption control and inequality influence public trust and state capacity, shaping whether governments opt to deliver services directly or outsource them to private providers.

What could be the social and political implications of your research?

My research underscores that global economic integration is not just an economic process — it reshapes national policies, governance structures, and even public goods like education. On the social side, it highlights how technological change and GVC pressures can exacerbate job insecurity and skills mismatch, especially in middle-income economies like Thailand. Politically, the findings suggest that states adapt in very different ways: some invest more in education, while others privatise it, depending on their institutions and strategic priorities. This has implications for how we think about policy coordination, state capacity, and inequality in a globalised world. My thesis also raises questions about how to protect vulnerable workers and ensure equitable access to education in the face of global pressures.

What are you doing now?

I am currently working as an economist and policy analyst at the OECD, where I focus on the development of frontier technologies — such as artificial intelligence, hydrogen, and advanced manufacturing — and how innovation policy can support their responsible adoption. A key part of this work involves understanding how countries build the ecosystems, institutions, and skills needed to enable these technologies to flourish. In many ways, this connects back to my thesis, which looks at how governments respond to the labour market implications of technological change and global production shifts. At the OECD, I continue to explore how public policy can strengthen skills systems, support workforce adaptation, and ensure that innovation benefits are broadly shared.

*     *     *

On 23 June 2025, Jaewon Kim defended magna cum laude her PhD thesis in International Relations/Political Science, titled “Three Essays on the Political Economy of Global Value Chains and Skills Governance”. Assistant Professor Chanwoong Baek presided over the committee, which included Professor Liliana Andonova and Associate Professor Sungmin Rho, thesis co-supervisors, and, as external reader, Professor Gita Steiner-Khamsi, Teachers College, Colombia University, New York, USA.

Citation of the PhD thesis: 
Kim, Jaewon. “Three Essays on the Political Economy of Global Value Chains and Skills Governance.” PhD thesis, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, 2025.
Access:
The thesis is available in public access in the Geneva Graduate Institute’s repository.

Banner image: SUKIYASHI/Shutterstock.
Interview by Nathalie Tanner, Research Office.