Loading [Contrib]/a11y/accessibility-menu.js
Skip to main content
null
Findings
  • Menu
  • Articles
    • Energy Findings
    • Resilience Findings
    • Safety Findings
    • Transport Findings
    • Urban Findings
    • All
  • For Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • About
  • Blog
  • covid-19
  • search

RSS Feed

Enter the URL below into your favorite RSS reader.

http://localhost:24211/feed
Resilience Findings
December 22, 2023 AEST

Nearshoring to Mexico and US Supply Chain Resilience as a Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Thomas Stringer, Monserrat Ramírez-Melgarejo,
nearshoringtimes seriesMexicosupply chainresilienceCOVID-19
Copyright Logoccby-sa-4.0 • https://doi.org/10.32866/001c.91272
Findings
Stringer, Thomas, and Monserrat Ramírez-Melgarejo. 2023. “Nearshoring to Mexico and US Supply Chain Resilience as a Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Findings, December. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.32866/​001c.91272.
Save article as...▾
Download all (3)
  • Figure 1. Total Monthly Exports to the United States (billions USD)
    Download
  • Figure 2. Monthly Machinery/Electrical Exports to the United States (billions USD)
    Download
  • Figure 3. Monthly Plastics and Rubbers Exports to the United States (billions USD)
    Download

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

If this problem reoccurs, please contact Scholastica Support

Error message:

undefined

View more stats

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted global supply chain upheavals, triggering shortages and delays. Governments and companies sought resilient strategies for future crises. A US response was “nearshoring,” shifting manufacturing from China to Mexico. Analyzing trade data from 2019 to 2023, this study examines if this shift occurred and its sectoral impact. Both countries initially rebounded post-Q1 2020 disruptions. However, China’s exports waned, while Mexico’s surged, surpassing China by March 2023. Sectors like machinery and electrical components showed similar trends. Mexico excelled in US supply, while China’s dominance eroded, affirming the nearshoring hypothesis. Proximity significantly bolstered long-term supply chain resilience.

1. Questions

The COVID-19 pandemic severely disrupted supply chains around the world (Pujawan and Bah 2022). Many consumers in the United States experienced important shortages of goods and companies struggled with important delays on the procurement side of their business. As a consequence of this disruption, governments and private companies had to pivot towards more resilient strategies that could increase their preparedness for similar events in the future (Moosavi, Fathollahi-Fard, and Dulebenets 2022). One of the solutions preconized by US companies that are supplied in manufactured goods was to diversify their manufacturing base by shifting some of their operations from China to Mexico (van Hassel et al. 2022). This shift is commonly referred to as “nearshoring”, or the delocalization of operations to a location nearer to the US (Hartman et al. 2017).

The supply chain pivot from China to Mexico - the US’ 3rd and 2nd largest trading partners - through nearshoring strategies has been discussed in existing literature (Bravo 2022; Pérez Hincapié 2022; van Hassel et al. 2022; Jayashankar and Torres 2023; Pietrobelli and Seri 2023) and justified in part because of shorter supply chain delays, a more educated workforce and cultural proximity to the US. Chinese firms themselves have setting up plants in Mexico to better supply US firms (Goodman 2023). While Torres (2023) does find a general nearshoring effect using empirical data, no study to date using historical trade data grouped by commodity classification has yet been undertaken, between the United States, China and Mexico. Thus, we ask: did exports from China to the US shift to Mexico after the COVID-19 pandemic? Further, in which sectors was this shift most palpable? The novelty of this study comes from the use of data grouped by industrial sector, to understand how US firms from some sectors changed their procurement strategies after the pandemic.

2. Methods

Data used for this study comes from the United States Census Bureau (United States Census Bureau 2023), which offers comprehensive sector- and country-specific trade data pertaining to goods exports to the US. We compile monthly data from January 2019 to March 2023, from roughly one year before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. To analyze the data, we employ a comparative time series design by comparing export volumes (in USD) to the US from China to those from Mexico and by plotting them over time. We underline historical trends in our diagrams by using polynomial trendlines in the third degree. We do this for total export volumes and for each of the sector-based tallies across 15 categories based on the Harmonized System (HS) codes used by the United States Census Bureau. The goods categories and their respective HS codes are shown in Table 1. More information about specific HS codes can be obtained on the website of the United States Census Bureau (United States Census Bureau 2023).

Table 1.HS codes and categories
HS Codes Goods Category
01 to 05 Animal & Animal Products
06 to 15 Vegetable Products
16 to 24 Foodstuffs
25 to 27 Mineral Products
28 to 38 Chemical & Allied Industries
39 to 40 Plastics / Rubbers
41 to 43 Raw Hides, Skins, Leather, & Furs
44 to 49 Wood & Wood Products
50 to 63 Textiles
64 to 67 Footwear / Headgear
68 to 71 Stone / Glass
72 to 83 Metals
84 to 85 Machinery / Electrical
86 to 89 Transportation
90 to 97 Miscellaneous

3. Findings

Tables 2 and 3 show the export volumes by sector to the US from China and Mexico respectively. There are important differences in the export volumes for each sector and by country. China mainly exports machinery and electrical equipment, various manufactured goods and processed materials (plastics, rubbers, metals, chemicals) to the US. Mexico also exports machinery and electrical equipment, various manufactured goods and processed materials agrobusiness-related products, but also a lot of transportation equipment (cars) or agrobusiness-related products (foodstuffs, vegetables, animal products).

Table 2.Quarterly export volumes to the US by sector from China (billions USD)
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Category Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1
Animal & Animal Products 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4
Chemical & Allied Industries 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.2 3.1 4.7 4.4 4.0 4.3 4.7 4.7 6.4 10.4 8.8 9.2 5.6 6.4
Foodstuffs 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5
Footwear & Headgear 4.5 4.0 5.0 3.6 3.0 2.1 3.4 3.0 3.5 3.2 4.5 4.6 5.3 4.8 5.4 3.3 3.4
Machinery & Electrical 49.4 55.2 55.1 56.6 34.9 50.6 55.3 66.7 53.2 56.2 60.2 71.0 61.9 61.3 65.6 60.0 48.0
Metals 6.1 6.2 6.1 5.4 4.5 5.3 6.3 6.5 6.6 6.8 7.4 7.9 8.5 8.2 7.9 6.3 5.4
Mineral Products 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2
Miscellaneous 15.1 15.9 20.6 16.2 10.5 12.9 19.6 22.3 17.7 17.9 22.7 24.9 20.7 20.9 24.9 17.9 14.3
Plastics & Rubbers 5.1 5.2 5.4 4.8 4.0 5.4 6.4 7.0 7.8 7.7 7.0 6.7 7.1 7.3 6.6 5.3 4.7
Raw Hides, Skins, Leather, & Furs 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 0.8 0.7
Stone & Glass 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.0 1.4 1.3 1.7 1.9 1.8 1.8 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.4 1.9 1.6
Textiles 8.6 8.7 12.2 7.7 5.5 13.2 14.9 9.1 7.4 7.1 10.2 9.7 8.8 8.3 11.1 6.7 5.7
Transportation 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.2 2.9 2.8 3.5 3.8 3.9 3.9 4.5 4.4 4.8 4.8 5.3 4.9 4.0
Vegetable Products 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5
Wood & Wood Products 2.0 2.1 2.4 1.9 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.0 1.8 1.8 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.4 1.8 1.5
Total 103 110 120 107 73 102 120 128 110 113 128 143 135 132 144 116 97
Table 3.Quarterly export volumes to the US by sector from Mexico (billions USD)
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Category Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1
Animal & Animal Products 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9
Chemical & Allied Industries 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.8
Foodstuffs 2.8 3.3 3.1 2.8 3.1 3.2 3.7 3.6 3.5 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.7 5.2 5.5 4.6 5.1
Footwear & Headgear 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Machinery & Electrical 30.4 32.7 32.8 32.9 30.8 22.1 33.6 34.2 32.6 34.4 36.3 37.2 37.8 41.5 44.0 42.1 40.4
Metals 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.1 2.7 2.9 3.2 3.5 4.2 4.7 5.3 5.4 5.8 5.5 4.7 4.9
Mineral Products 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.1 3.5 1.7 2.7 2.5 3.1 4.2 4.9 4.3 5.9 8.0 7.3 5.5 5.9
Miscellaneous 7.0 7.3 7.4 6.8 6.9 4.5 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.6 7.8 7.7 8.2 8.8 8.9 8.6 9.1
Plastics & Rubbers 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.4 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.5 2.9 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.4 2.9 3.0
Raw Hides, Skins, Leather, & Furs 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Stone & Glass 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.7 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.2 2.3 2.5
Textiles 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.8 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3
Transportation 24.4 27.3 27.0 24.7 23.9 9.3 24.5 26.3 23.1 24.3 22.1 25.5 25.1 28.8 29.6 29.9 30.3
Vegetable Products 5.0 4.5 2.5 3.8 5.4 4.4 2.8 4.2 5.6 5.2 3.2 4.7 6.1 5.8 3.4 5.0 6.6
Wood & Wood Products 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7
Total 84 90 88 85 85 55 86 90 87 94 93 99 104 115 115 111 113

We see that there are steady export volumes from China and Mexico to the US throughout 2019. COVID-19 cases first appear in China during Q1 of 2020 (World Health Organization 2023), disrupting their supply chains and reducing their export volumes the US. In Mexico, we see the effect of the pandemic on the supply chain during Q2 because the virus makes landfall in the country later in the year (Ibarra-Nava et al. 2020). By Q3, export volumes to the US are back to pre-pandemic levels for both countries. This could indicate that US firms benefitted from resilient supply chains in China and Mexico in the immediate aftermath of the initial disruption.

Figure 1 plots the total export volumes from both countries and related trendlines. In the 18 months following the disruption in Q1 and Q2 of 2020, supply chains of both countries to the US outperform pre-pandemic exports. However, the start of 2022 marks a change in trend between China and Mexico. China’s export volumes start to fall dramatically, whereas Mexico’s continue to increase steadily, continuing to outperform pre-pandemic exports. By the end of our study period, March 2023, there are more exports from Mexico to the US than from China. This confirms in part the hypothesis formulated in the literature that part of US firms’ supply chains were displaced to Mexico.

Figure 1
Figure 1.Total Monthly Exports to the United States (billions USD)

Figures 2 and 3 plot two sectoral categories in our study to better illustrate the point made above. Figure 2 shows the trends for exports in machinery and electrical components, exhibiting the same behaviour as total export volumes. This category includes components for the automotive, aeronautics and electronics industries, all time-sensitive sectors with complex supply chains where reduced uncertainty is an advantage. These industrial sectors also represent an important part of Mexico’s economic output. Even for categories that have less complex supply chains, the same trend is palpable. This is notable for plastics and rubbers, shown in Figure 3, where China’s exports to the US shows a very important downward trend by 2023.

Figure 2
Figure 2.Monthly Machinery/Electrical Exports to the United States (billions USD)
Figure 3
Figure 3.Monthly Plastics and Rubbers Exports to the United States (billions USD)

Our findings show that both China and Mexico were able to quickly recover from the disruption of their supply chains by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, only Mexico was able to improve its performance in supplying the US post-recovery. On the other hand, China seems to be progressively losing ground on its share of supplying the US market with goods. This suggests that US firms have indeed pivoted part of their supply chains from China towards Mexico in the aftermath of the disruption caused by COVID-19, to benefit from a more resilient procurement strategy. This could be because of two things. First, that the supply chain delays related to procurement from China no longer answer the US’ needs. Second, that some of the advantages of Mexican procurement, i.e., shorter supply chain delays, a more educated workforce and cultural proximity to the US, are strategic advantages. For example, the automotive industry, where Mexico is an intermediate step and receives components to be assembled in a car that is then shipped to the US (Torres 2023), is a good example of how proximity can be doubly beneficial. Our research tracks this shift in strategy and offers researchers and policymakers empirical evidence of how trade between China, Mexico and the US changed during the most important event of supply chain disruption in recent history. We can conclude that regional proximity has a non-negligible impact on long-term supply chain resilience.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Rafael Batres for his insights on the Mexican economy.

Submitted: August 05, 2023 AEST

Accepted: December 17, 2023 AEST

References

Bravo, Y.M.G. 2022. “Nearshoring of US Manufacturing Corporates’ Supply Chains: Exploring Administrative and Economic Issues for Their Potential Expansion across the Americas.” Latin American Journal of Trade Policy 5 (13).
Google Scholar
Goodman, P. 2023. “Why Chinese Companies Are Investing Billions in Mexico.” The New York Times.
Google Scholar
Hartman, Paul L., Jeffrey A. Ogden, Joseph R. Wirthlin, and Benjamin T. Hazen. 2017. “Nearshoring, Reshoring, and Insourcing: Moving beyond the Total Cost of Ownership Conversation.” Business Horizons 60 (3): 363–73. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.bushor.2017.01.008.
Google Scholar
Ibarra-Nava, Ismael, Jesús A. Cardenas-de la Garza, Raul E. Ruiz-Lozano, and Raul G. Salazar-Montalvo. 2020. “Mexico and the COVID-19 Response.” Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 14 (4): e17–18. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1017/​dmp.2020.260.
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
Jayashankar, A., and L. Torres. 2023. “Mexico Awaits ‘Nearshoring’ Shift as China Boosts Its Direct Investment.” Southwest Economy.
Google Scholar
Moosavi, Javid, Amir M. Fathollahi-Fard, and Maxim A. Dulebenets. 2022. “Supply Chain Disruption during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Recognizing Potential Disruption Management Strategies.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 75 (June):102983. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.ijdrr.2022.102983.
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
Pérez Hincapié, W.C. 2022. “Nearshoring in Latin America: A New Home for American Textile and Apparel Companies Based in China?” Doctoral dissertation, Universidad EAFIT.
Pietrobelli, C., and C. Seri. 2023. “Reshoring, Nearshoring and Developing Countries: Readiness and Implications for Latin America.” UNU-MERIT.
Pujawan, I.N., and A.U. Bah. 2022. “Supply Chains under COVID-19 Disruptions: Literature Review and Research Agenda.” Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal 23 (1): 81–95.
Google Scholar
Torres, L. 2023. “Mexico Seeks to Solidify Rank as Top US Trade Partner, Push Further Past China.” Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
Google Scholar
United States Census Bureau. 2023. “USA Trade Online.” 2023. https:/​/​usatrade.census.gov/​.
van Hassel, Edwin, Thierry Vanelslander, Kris Neyens, Hans Vandeborre, Dominique Kindt, and Stefan Kellens. 2022. “Reconsidering Nearshoring to Avoid Global Crisis Impacts: Application and Calculation of the Total Cost of Ownership for Specific Scenarios.” Research in Transportation Economics 93 (June):101089. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.retrec.2021.101089.
Google ScholarPubMed Central
World Health Organization. 2023. “Archived: WHO Timeline - COVID-19.” 2023. https:/​/​www.who.int/​news/​item/​27-04-2020-who-timeline---covid-19.

This website uses cookies

We use cookies to enhance your experience and support COUNTER Metrics for transparent reporting of readership statistics. Cookie data is not sold to third parties or used for marketing purposes.

Powered by Scholastica, the modern academic journal management system