1、Appendix ：International Business Review 13 (2004) 383400Sources of export success in small andmedium-sized enterprises: the impact of publicprogramsRoberto Alvarez EDepartment of Economics, University of Chile, Santiago, ChileAbstract This paper analyzes differences in firm exporter performance for

2、small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Traditionally, it is argued that these firms face several disadvantages for competing in international markets. Few studies, however, exploit the fact that successful exporters exist within this group. Using data for Chilean firms, we study various explanat

3、ions for differences between sporadic and permanent exporters. Our results suggest that greater effort in international business, process innovation, and the utilization of export promotion programs contribute positively to export performance in SMEs. In addition, we find that some forms of interven

4、tion are better than others: trade shows and trade missions do not affect the probability of exporting permanently, but exporter committees show a positive and significant impact.Key words: Export performance; Export promotion; Small- and medium-sized enterprises1 IntroductionInternational evidence

5、suggests that firm size matters for exporter performance. Several reasons have been provided to explain why larger firms perform better in International markets. Advantages associated with scale economies and specialization, better access to financial resources in capital markets, and improved capab

6、ilities to take risks are among these reasons. Also, evidence in Roberts and Tybout (1997) and Bernard and Jensen (1999) regarding the existence of sunk costs to entering international markets implies that small- and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) face greater limitations than larger firms to be su

7、ccessful exporters.There are, however, firms within the group of SMEs that have been able to compete successfully in international markets. Yet, few empirical studies exploit this fact. This paper contributes to the discussion of firm exporter performance in four ways. First, we compare exporter per

8、formance among firms of similar size. Second, focusing only on exporters, we distinguish between sporadic and permanent exporters. Third, we employ a detailed survey of 295 sporadic and permanent exporters. This survey collects information about firm activities not traditionally included in other em

9、pirical studies. Fourth, we study evidence in Chile, a country that has experienced a huge increase in export diversification over the last several decades. The Chilean experience is useful for other developing countries trying to improve the international competitiveness of SMEs.There are two empir

10、ical facts that motivate this paper. First, the probability of exporting is lower for SMEs than it is for larger firms. This resembles evidence found in other national economies. In the Chilean manufacturing industry, for instance, only 14% of SMEs have exported goods over the period 1990 1996. Howe

11、ver, more than 74% of large firms have exported goods over the same period. Second, a reduced number of firms are able to remain as exporters. Among all exporter firms, only about 20% have exported every year of the period. The percentage of successful exporters for SMEs, however, is even lower: onl

12、y about a 7% can be classified as permanent exporters. Contrast this with large-sized firms, where successful exporters represent more than 40% of the firms in this group (Table 1).The main question we ask here is why some SMEs are more successful exporters thanothers firms of a similar size. In the

13、 next section, we explore various explanations through theuse of special survey directed at sporadic and permanent exporter firms. In the third section,a Probit model is estimat ed to identify empirically the most important determinants of exportperformance. The fourth section concludes.Table 1Expor

14、t statusSmallMediumLargeN%N%N%Non-exporter428486.078048.013225.6Sporadic exporter65013.165940.622042.6Permanent exporter470.918511.416431.8Total4981100.01624100.0516100.0Sporadic/total_93.3_78.1_57.3exportersSource: Owncalculationbased onNationwideSurvey ofManufacturingEstablishments (ENIA).2 Possib

15、le explanationsInthissection,weexplorepossibleexplanationsfor differencesinfirmexporterperformance.Theapproachaimstoestablishiftherearesignificantdifferencesinfirmactivities that would explain whysome SMEsaremoresuccessfulthanothers.First,wepresent the data source. Second, we test for the existence

16、of statistical differences over fouraspects:(i)technologicalinnovation,(ii)internationalbusinessmanagement,(iii)managerperceptionsabout obstaclesto exporter performance,and (iv)utilizationof publicinstrumentsavailabletoSMEsforenhancingproductivityandtechnologicalcapabilities,increasing exports, and

17、improving access to capital markets.2.2.1 Technological innovationTechnological innovationmayaffecttheexportstatusofa firmbyincreasingproductivity(andreducingcosts) and/orbydevelopingnew goodsforinternationalmarkets. This maybe analyzed in thecontextoffirmsthatcompetein differentiatedproduct markets

18、. Firms may sell low-qualitygoods in domestic markets,but they mustupgrade to technologies that produce high-quality goods if they wish to sell abroad then.We test for differences in three types of innovativeactivities: productinnovation,process innovation, and organizational innovation. The results

19、 are shown in Table 2, andsuggest that there are differences between both groups of exporters. Though permanentexporters engage product innovation in greater intensity than do sporadic exporters, thisdifferenceis notsignificant.However,significantdifferencesexistforprocess andorganizational innovati

20、on. The results show that permanent exporters innovate more thansporadic exporters in outsourcingand the computer-basedmodernizationof productiveprocesses. With respect to the introduction of organizational innovation, permanent exporters are more innovative in terms of introducing re-engineering in

21、to administrative processes and for total quality development.Table 2Technological innovationType of innovationDifference aDifference by sectorProduct innovationTechnological improvements0.110.15New products0.51-0.16Changes in design0.100.10Changes in packaging0.43-0.11Process innovationPurchases of

22、 specialized machinery0.170.09Introduction of quality control0.380.05Outsourcing0.93-0.22Introduction of information0.77-0.28technologiesInnovation in managementIntroduction of strategic planning0.60-0.16Introduction of re-engineering0.90-0.38Introduction of total quality0.69-0.27Introduction of spe

23、cialization and0.54-0.09role definition2.2.2. Effort in international businessDifferences in export performance may be explained by different degrees of effort by internationalizing firms. These differences are attributable to firm heterogeneity in access to information and management capability, am

24、ong other possibilities. Kumcu, Harcar, and Kumcu (1995) show that, for Turkish companies, manager motivation helps to explain awareness of export incentives. Moreover, Spence (2003) shows that the success of UK overseas trade missions is positively affected by manager language proficiency.In the su

25、rvey, managers were asked about the action intensity of several activities, such as strategic alliances with foreign and domestic firms, training of workers in export operations, and promotion of goods abroad. The results are shown in Table 3. The estimates suggest that permanent exporters are more

26、active than sporadic exporters in only two activities: personnel training in exports operations and obtaining funds for working capital in activity-related exports. 2.2.3. Manager perception regarding obstacles to exportingOne possible explanation for differences in exporter performance is that spor

27、adic exporters face greater difficulties in their international operations. Some firms may have good export projects, for instance, but if they face credit access problems in the financial market, then it is more likely that they will leave international markets. In addition, some firms may exit due

28、 to protectionist barriers established in foreign markets. These kinds of obstacles have been divided into three types: internal to firms, internal to country, and external. Results are shown in Table 4.Even the sign of the difference indicates that permanent exporters assign smaller importance to f

29、irm-internal obstacles; the difference between both groups of firms is not statistically significant. Significant differences regarding the evolution of the real exchange rate and difficulties in access to financial resources exist, however, for the case of country-internal obstacles. This implies t

30、hat a lower and/or unstable real exchange rate more greatly affects sporadic exporters than permanent exporters. One interesting result is that the interactive variable between status and sectoris positive and significant. This reveals that in sectors of the economy without a comparative advantage,

31、real exchange fluctuations tend to be a more important obstacle for sporadic exporters.With regard to credit access, the evidence indicates that liquidity constraints are morerelevant for sporadic exporters. This finding in and of itself, however, is not conclusive withrespect to a causality relatio

32、nship. One interpretationis that credit constraints limit thepossibility to remain as an exporter. This is plausible for small firms that are traditionallymore restrictedthan larger firms. An alternativeinterpretationis that capital marketsassociate greater business risk with sporadic exporters, and

33、 lower access to credit may be due to poor export performance in the past.With respect to external obstacles, there are not important differences between permanent and sporadic exporters. Permanent exporters associate lower levels of incidence with almost every obstacle, especially for tariff and no

34、-tariff barriers, but differences with sporadic exporters are not statistically significant. This implies that explanations about why some firms are not able to export permanently are not associated with the existence of trade barriers in foreign markets.2.2.4. Utilization of public instrumentsThere

35、 are several public instruments that Chilean firms can use to enhance their productivity and international competitiveness. It can be argued that differences in export performance are associated with the fact that permanent exporter firms have used these instruments with greater intensity than have

36、sporadic exporters.The Chilean public instruments are classified into three groups. First, there are instruments designed to enhance productivity and technological capability in small firms. Second, there are export promotion instruments whose objective is to increase international competitiveness.

37、Third, there are financial instruments established to improve credit access for small firms.In Fig. 1, we show the results for differences in the utilization of these instruments by firm group. The evidence shows that permanent exporters have used every public instrument more intensively. The most u

38、sed public instruments have been the export promotion instruments and those specifically administered by the National Export Promotion Agency (ProChile). In the case of export promotion, about 35% of permanent exporters have used this kind of public support. This percentage is only about 19% for spo

39、radic exporters. With regard to ProChile instruments, firm participation has been 26.9% for permanent exporters, and 14.5% for sporadic exporters .The evidence in the previous section suggests that there are significant differences in the firm behavior according to exporter status. In this section,

40、we study whether these factors do in fact explain the differences in exporter status. To do so, we define a dependent variable that takes the value 1 if the firm has been a permanent exporter overthe period 1996 1999 and 0 if the firm has been a sporadic exporter. For the econometric estimation, the

41、 following Probit model is used:There are two potential methodological problems associated with this approach. First, in our case, it may be argued that some of the explanatory variables are also affected bythe firm s export status. In fact, firms that export permanently may eb not only more likely

42、to carry out technological innovation, but also to put greater effort into international business. Our dataset is not detailed enough to explore this bi-causality phenomenon. Instead, firm panel data would illuminate the impact of export performance on firm behavior. Our approach, however, explores

43、the impact of a firm decisions on export performance. This is consistent with related inter-national trade literature that suggests a positive relationship between exports and firm performance is better explained in an empirical sense by a self-selection phenomenon (i.e. better firms are able to exp

44、ort), andnot by the effect of learning-by-exporting (i.e. the idea that exporters improve their performance by accessing附錄：國際商業評論 13 期（ 2004 ） 383-400中小企業出口成功的根源探究：公共服務的影響羅伯特 -艾薇兒智利圣地亞哥經濟系摘 要本文分析了中小企業中公司出口的不同點。 普遍認為， 這些中小企業在國際市場競爭中存在一些弱點。然而，也有研究表明，這些公司中也存在非常成功的，通過分析來自智利公司的數據，我們研究了小型和大型出口商之間的不同，研究結果顯

45、示，在國際商務中更多要做的就是良好的服務，過程的創新，以及在出口中積極地做好推廣都會對中小企業的發展起到促進作用。另外，我們發現有些形式的干預比其他的要好：交易會和貿易代表團不會影響長久出口的可能性，但是，出口國委員會會起到積極地影響作用。關鍵詞：出口實績；出口促進；中小企業概述國際貿易實際表明公司的規模會影響出口實績，我們已經發現一些原因來解釋為什么大型企業在國際市場更占優勢。經濟規模越大，專業化程度越高，更容易在資本市場獲得財富，更能夠提高其抵御風險的能力。并且，從來自羅伯特、波特、伯納多和杰森的研究可以得出中小企業在走向成功出口商的道路上比大型企業面臨更多的限制。然而，一些實證證實，在中

46、小企業中已經有些公司能夠成功的在國際市場上進行競爭。本文從四個方面對出口公司進行分析。第一，比較相同規模公司的出口實績；第二，僅對于出口公司，區別小型和大型專業化出口企業；第三，對295 家出口商進行詳細的調查，這個調查收集信息公司活動不是傳統上包括在其他的實證研究。第四，我們對一個最近幾年出口多樣化大幅提升的國家智利進行研究取證，智利的發展對于世界其他發展中國家的中小企業提高國際競爭力具有積極地作用。本文基于兩個很明顯的事實，首先，通過對其他國家經濟現狀的分析，得出出口可能性中小企業比大型企業低。例如，在智利的加工企業，在 1990 年到 1996 年期間，僅有 14% 的中小企業實現了產品

47、出口。然而，在相同時期，74% 的大型企業已經實現了出口。另外，出口商的數量正在持續減少。在這些出口公司中，僅有20% 能夠在這期間實現連續出口， 中小企業的成功出口商比例就更低了， 僅僅 7% 能夠實現長久出口。和那些大型企業相比，成功出口商占據了大約 40% 。表 1 1990-1996 年智利制造業出口現狀小型中型大型出口現狀數量百分比數量百分比數量百分比非出口商428486.078048.013225.6零星出口商65013.165940.622042.6永久出口商470.918511.416431.8合計4981100.01624100.0516100.0數據來源：全國范圍制造業調查

48、數據在此我們關鍵要分析的是為什么有些中小企業會比和他規模相同企業做的成功。接下來第二部分，我們對零星的和長久的出口公司進行專業調查。第三部分，通過建立 Probit 模型來分析影響出口實績的決定性因素。第四部分得出結論進行總結。可能的解釋這一部分，我們探討關于出口商的不同點。這一步的目的是證實，公司活動的差異，能否解釋為何有些中小企業會比其他同類企業更加成功。首先，我們利用數據來分析。再者我們從四個方面測試存在的問題：技術革新國際企業管理管理者對出口障礙的預見中小企業利用公共工具提高生產效率和科研能力,增加出口 ,進入資本市場。2.2.1科技創新科技創新會通過提高生產效率或研制國際市場新產品來

49、影響出口現狀。這可能是分析的背景下,企業之間的競爭在分化的產品市場。企業或許會在國內市場出售低質量的產品，但是如果他們想把自己的商品出售到國外，就必須提高他們的科學技術進而生產出高質量的商品。我們從三種不同的創新方式進行探究：產品創新、過程創新和組織創新。我們將研究結果通過表二呈現，它顯示出在所有出口商之間都存在不同。長久出口商比零星出口商更重視科技創新，這個不同點還不是最主要的。然而，主要不同點在于過程和組織的創新方面。結果顯示，長久出口商比中小企業在生產過程中更多的采用專業化地電腦科技，長久出口商更加具有創新性，為產品質量的提高投入比較大。表 2科技創新創新種類不同行業差異產品創新技術改良0.110.15新產品0.51-0.16設計上的革新0.100.10包裝的改良0.43-0.11過程創新專業機械的數量0.170.09引入質量監測0.380.05外包0.93-0.22引入信息技術0.77-0.28管理創新引進發展戰略0.60-0.16重組0.90-0.38引入全面質量0.6