Trade is an important means to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Target 2.1 “Zero Hunger”, and comparative advantage can be used to explain the causes and performance of trade. This study measures the static distribution of agricultural trade comparative advantage in countries along the Belt and Road (B&R) and China by utilizing the Balassa revealed comparative advantage (RCA) index, and further calculates its dynamic change by utilizing the revealed symmetric comparative advantage (RSCA) index and the ordinary least squares correlation analysis. The results show that: (1) in the face of multiple unfavorable factors, the initial comparative advantage of most agricultural products at Harmonized System (HS) 2-digit level in countries along the B&R and China deteriorated, simultaneously, but the initial comparative disadvantage of most and some agricultural products at HS 2-digit level in countries along the B&R and China improved, respectively; (2) the present agricultural trade comparative advantage in most countries along the B&R was higher than China and had a larger extent of change, but the current product structure of their bilateral agricultural trade was in line with each other’s comparative advantage, indirectly proving the validity of the Heckscher–Ohlin theorem. Our research findings suggest that the agricultural trade comparative advantage in countries along the B&R and China need to be further utilized to improve agricultural trade performance and better play its important role in ensuring global, regional, and national food security.

Under the condition of opening up, participation in international specialization and global value chains (GVCs) has become the main source for more and more countries to obtain foreign resources and advanced technologies, thereby promoting productivity improvement and technological progress. What are the pathways of agricultural GVC participation that affect agricultural total factor productivity (TFP)? Is the impact of agricultural GVC participation on agricultural TFP consistent across different statuses and modes of agricultural GVC participation? This paper elaborates on the theoretical mechanism of agricultural GVC participation affecting agricultural TFP, and then empirically estimates the impact of different statuses and modes of agricultural GVC participation on agricultural TFP by taking 58 countries as examples. The results show that agricultural GVCs affect agricultural TFP by several direct and indirect pathways. There was a U-shaped relationship between agricultural GVC participation and agricultural TFP, which means that after crossing a certain threshold, the former has a positive impact on the latter. By participating in agricultural GVCs, agricultural TFP in high-income and upper-middle-income countries was significantly improved, while in lower-middle-income countries it was not. Both forward and backward agricultural GVC participation were conducive to improving agricultural TFP in high-income and upper-middle-income countries, but only backward agricultural GVC participation was conducive to improving agricultural TFP in lower-middle-income countries. Therefore, every country needs to actively explore its optimal pathway to participate in agricultural GVCs in order to maximize the participation benefits and promote the improvement in agricultural TFP, simultaneously.