9 Comparative Case Studies and Analysis

How connectivity shapes development

Connectivity links people and places through transport, trade, finance, information, and migration. These flows form networks of nodes, such as ports and cities, connected by corridors, or routes. Connectivity can reduce the time and cost of reaching markets, but its development effects depend on who controls production, whether local firms and workers benefit, and how gains and costs are distributed across places.

A comparative case study can use the same questions in each setting:

• What flows connect the place to wider networks, including goods, investment, information, and labor?

• Who controls key nodes and activities, including firms, governments, workers, and intermediaries?

• What does connectivity enable, such as access to markets, jobs, technology, or services?

• Who gains, and who may be left out? Consider wages, local business linkages, working conditions, and regional differences.

• How strong is the evidence, and does it distinguish observed outcomes from claims about what caused them?

Viet Nam: electronics and domestic linkages

Viet Nam’s export-led growth connected factories to regional suppliers, foreign investors, and international consumer markets. Foreign direct investment and access to imported components helped firms assemble electronics for global value chains. Export growth and trade integration show increased connectivity, but they do not by themselves establish how much domestic value added remains in the economy.

The distribution of gains is a central issue. Foreign firms account for 73 percent of Viet Nam’s exports. Enterprise data show that the share of firms with global-value-chain linkages fell from 35 percent in 2009 to 18 percent in 2023. A country can therefore become more connected to global trade while many domestic firms remain weakly connected to the export economy. This limits the spread of technology, skills, and productivity gains beyond firms directly involved in international production.

Physical connectivity is also uneven: trade flows are concentrated through a small number of gateways, alongside bottlenecks and differences in transport infrastructure. This is why connectivity should be assessed as a network, not simply by counting roads, ports, or trade agreements. Improving a corridor may help exporters, but benefits depend on links to domestic suppliers, workers, and less-connected regions.

The case shows that integration into global production can support growth and manufacturing employment without automatically producing broad domestic upgrading. An important next question is whether domestic firms can supply exporters and move into more skill- and knowledge-intensive activities.

Bangladesh: garments, jobs, and logistics

Bangladesh’s ready-made garment (RMG) industry connects factories to international buyers and consumer markets. The sector accounts for 82 percent of the country’s exports, making it a major source of export earnings as well as a concentration risk. The industry is an important source of formal employment, especially for workers entering paid employment, while working conditions and worker vulnerability remain challenges.

Transport links shape access to markets. Congestion, weak multimodal connections, and delays in ports and inland transport constrain reliable trade and export diversification. In a comparison using 2022 maritime-connectivity scores, Bangladesh scored 15.4 and Viet Nam scored 79.8. These figures describe maritime connectivity, not the whole economy, but illustrate differences in access to shipping networks.

The case shows how global connectivity can support a large export industry and employment while leaving the economy exposed to dependence on one dominant sector. Better logistics may lower trade frictions, but diversification and improved job quality also require stronger capabilities, labor protections, and opportunities for firms beyond garments.

Comparing connectivity outcomes

Both cases show that global flows can create jobs and export opportunities, but the forms of connectivity differ. Viet Nam’s electronics exports rely heavily on foreign firms and imported inputs, while Bangladesh’s exports are highly concentrated in garments. In both cases, participation in global value chains is not the same as widespread local ownership or equal gains.

Infrastructure alone does not explain development outcomes. Viet Nam’s stronger maritime connections do not by themselves explain its development outcomes; policy, investment, skills, geography, and institutions also matter. Bangladesh’s port and logistics constraints are important, but resolving them alone would not ensure export diversification or better working conditions.

Connectivity is an enabling condition: its effects depend on complementary institutions and local capabilities. Assessing development therefore requires asking not only whether places are connected, but how effectively local firms, workers, and regions participate in the resulting flows and where gains are located.

Evaluating evidence

A careful case study separates description, association, and causation. Export growth, a high export share, or a connectivity score describes a pattern. If exports and incomes rise together, that association does not prove that connectivity caused the income gain; policy reforms, global demand, investment, and other factors may also have changed.

Use several checks when interpreting evidence:

• Check what is measured. A port-connectivity score is not a measure of household welfare, and export value is not the same as domestic value added.

• Check the date and unit. An employment estimate from a past baseline should not be presented as a current count. A sector’s share of exports is not its share of total employment.

• Compare like with like. Use the same time periods and definitions where possible. For example, the Viet Nam firm-linkage statistic uses a specified definition of a firm’s connection to global value chains.

• Look for distributional evidence. Consider data on domestic suppliers, wages, job security, gender, and regional access—not only national growth or trade totals.

• Ask about the counterfactual. To establish a causal effect, researchers need evidence about what likely would have happened without the connectivity change, such as a credible comparison across places or over time.