公共服務(wù)的影響外文翻譯.docx

appendix：international business review 13 (2004) 383400sources of export success in small and medium-sized enterprises: the impact of public programsroberto alvarez edepartment of economics, university of chile, santiago, chileabstract this paper analyzes differences in firm exporter performance for 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 explanations 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 intervention 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 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 capabilities 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 successful 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 performance 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 empirical 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 empirical 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 19901996. however, 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: only 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 than others firms of a similar size. in the next section, we explore various explanations through the use 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 export performance. the fourth section concludes.table 1export statussmallmediumlargen%n%n%non-exporter428486.078048.013225.6sporadic exporter65013.165940.622042.6permanent exporter470.918511.416431.8total4981100.01624100.0516100.0sporadic/total exporters_93.3_78.1_57.3source: own calculation based on nationwide survey of manufacturing establishments (enia).2 possible explanationsin this section, we explore possible explanations for differences in firm exporter performance. the approach aims to establish if there are significant differences in firm activities that would explain why some smes are more successful than others. first, we present the data source. second, we test for the existence of statistical differences over four aspects: (i) technological innovation, (ii) international business management, (iii) managers perceptions about obstacles to exporter performance, and (iv) utilization of public instruments available to smes for enhancing productivity and technological capabilities, increasing exports, and improving access to capital markets.2.2.1 technological innovationtechnological innovation may affect the export status of a firm by increasing productivity (and reducing costs) and/or by developing new goods for international markets. this may be analyzed in the context of firms that compete in differentiated product markets. firms may sell low-quality goods in domestic markets, but they must upgrade to technologies that produce high-quality goods if they wish to sell abroad then.we test for differences in three types of innovative activities: product innovation, process innovation, and organizational innovation. the results are shown in table 2, and suggest that there are differences between both groups of exporters. though permanent exporters engage product innovation in greater intensity than do sporadic exporters, this difference is not significant. however, significant differences exist for process and organizational innovation. the results show that permanent exporters innovate more than sporadic exporters in outsourcing and the computer-based modernization of productive processes. with respect to the introduction of organizational innovation, permanent exporters are more innovative in terms of introducing re-engineering into administrative processes and for total quality development.table 2technological innovationtype of innovationdifferenceadifference by sectorproduct innovationtechnological improvements0.110.15new products0.51-0.16changes in design0.100.10changes in packaging0.43-0.11process innovationpurchases of specialized machinery0.170.09introduction of quality control0.380.05outsourcing0.93-0.22introduction of information technologies0.77-0.28innovation in managementintroduction of strategic planning0.60-0.16introduction of re-engineering0.90-0.38introduction of total quality0.69-0.27introduction of specialization and role definition0.54-0.092.2.2. 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, among 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 survey, 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 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 sporadic 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 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 firm-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 that 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, 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 more relevant for sporadic exporters. this finding in and of itself, however, is not conclusive with respect to a causality relationship. one interpretation is that credit constraints limit the possibility to remain as an exporter. this is plausible for small firms that are traditionally more restricted than larger firms. an alternative interpretation is that capital markets associate greater business risk with sporadic exporters, and 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-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 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 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. 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 used 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 sporadic 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, 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 over the period 19961999 and 0 if the firm has been a sporadic exporter. for the econometric estimation, the 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 by the firms export status. in fact, firms that export permanently may be not only more likely 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 the impact of a firms 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 export), and not by the effect of learning-by-exporting (i.e. the idea that exporters improve their performance by accessing附錄：國(guó)際商業(yè)評(píng)論 13期（2004）383-400中小企業(yè)出口成功的根源探究：公共服務(wù)的影響羅伯特-艾薇兒智利圣地亞哥經(jīng)濟(jì)系摘 要本文分析了中小企業(yè)中公司出口的不同點(diǎn)。普遍認(rèn)為，這些中小企業(yè)在國(guó)際市場(chǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)中存在一些弱點(diǎn)。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(shù)據(jù)，我們研究了小型和大型出口商之間的不同，研究結(jié)果顯示，在國(guó)際商務(wù)中更多要做的就是良好的服務(wù)，過程的創(chuàng)新，以及在出口中積極地做好推廣都會(huì)對(duì)中小企業(yè)的發(fā)展起到促進(jìn)作用。另外，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)有些形式的干預(yù)比其他的要好：交易會(huì)和貿(mào)易代表團(tuán)不會(huì)影響長(zhǎng)久出口的可能性，但是，出口國(guó)委員會(huì)會(huì)起到積極地影響作用。關(guān)鍵詞：出口實(shí)績(jī)；出口促進(jìn)；中小企業(yè)1.概述國(guó)際貿(mào)易實(shí)際表明公司的規(guī)模會(huì)影響出口實(shí)績(jī)，我們已經(jīng)發(fā)現(xiàn)一些原因來解釋為什么大型企業(yè)在國(guó)際市場(chǎng)更占優(yōu)勢(shì)。經(jīng)濟(jì)規(guī)模越大，專業(yè)化程度越高，更容易在資本市場(chǎng)獲得財(cái)富，更能夠提高其抵御風(fēng)險(xiǎn)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(yè)在走向成功出口商的道路上比大型企業(yè)面臨更多的限制。然而，一些實(shí)證證實(shí)，在中小企業(yè)中已經(jīng)有些公司能夠成功的在國(guó)際市場(chǎng)上進(jìn)行競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。本文從四個(gè)方面對(duì)出口公司進(jìn)行分析。第一，比較相同規(guī)模公司的出口實(shí)績(jī)；第二，僅對(duì)于出口公司，區(qū)別小型和大型專業(yè)化出口企業(yè)；第三，對(duì)295家出口商進(jìn)行詳細(xì)的調(diào)查，這個(gè)調(diào)查收集信息公司活動(dòng)不是傳統(tǒng)上包括在其他的實(shí)證研究。第四，我們對(duì)一個(gè)最近幾年出口多樣化大幅提升的國(guó)家智利進(jìn)行研究取證，智利的發(fā)展對(duì)于世界其他發(fā)展中國(guó)家的中小企業(yè)提高國(guó)際競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力具有積極地作用。本文基于兩個(gè)很明顯的事實(shí)，首先，通過對(duì)其他國(guó)家經(jīng)濟(jì)現(xiàn)狀的分析，得出出口可能性中小企業(yè)比大型企業(yè)低。例如，在智利的加工企業(yè)，在1990年到1996年期間，僅有14%的中小企業(yè)實(shí)現(xiàn)了產(chǎn)品出口。然而，在相同時(shí)期，74%的大型企業(yè)已經(jīng)實(shí)現(xiàn)了出口。另外，出口商的數(shù)量正在持續(xù)減少。在這些出口公司中，僅有20%能夠在這期間實(shí)現(xiàn)連續(xù)出口，中小企業(yè)的成功出口商比例就更低了，僅僅7%能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)長(zhǎng)久出口。和那些大型企業(yè)相比，成功出口商占據(jù)了大約40%。表1 1990-1996年智利制造業(yè)出口現(xiàn)狀出口現(xiàn)狀小型中型大型數(shù)量百分比數(shù)量百分比數(shù)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(jì)4981100.01624100.0516100.0數(shù)據(jù)來源：全國(guó)范圍制造業(yè)調(diào)查數(shù)據(jù)在此我們關(guān)鍵要分析的是為什么有些中小企業(yè)會(huì)比和他規(guī)模相同企業(yè)做的成功。接下來第二部分，我們對(duì)零星的和長(zhǎng)久的出口公司進(jìn)行專業(yè)調(diào)查。第三部分，通過建立probit模型來分析影響出口實(shí)績(jī)的決定性因素。第四部分得出結(jié)論進(jìn)行總結(jié)。2 可能的解釋這一部分，我們探討關(guān)于出口商的不同點(diǎn)。這一步的目的是證實(shí)，公司活動(dòng)的差異，能否解釋為何有些中小企業(yè)會(huì)比其他同類企業(yè)更加成功。首先，我們利用數(shù)據(jù)來分析。再者我們從四個(gè)方面測(cè)試存在的問題：技術(shù)革新國(guó)際企業(yè)管理管理者對(duì)出口障礙的預(yù)見中小企業(yè)利用公共工具提高生產(chǎn)效率和科研能力,增加出口,進(jìn)入資本市場(chǎng)。2.2.1科技創(chuàng)新科技創(chuàng)新會(huì)通過提高生產(chǎn)效率或研制國(guó)際市場(chǎng)新產(chǎn)品來影響出口現(xiàn)狀。這可能是分析的背景下,企業(yè)之間的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)在分化的產(chǎn)品市場(chǎng)。企業(yè)或許會(huì)在國(guó)內(nèi)市場(chǎng)出售低質(zhì)量的產(chǎn)品，但是如果他們想把自己的商品出售到國(guó)外，就必須提高他們的科學(xué)技術(shù)進(jìn)而生產(chǎn)出高質(zhì)量的商品。我們從三種不同的創(chuàng)新方式進(jìn)行探究：產(chǎn)品創(chuàng)新、過程創(chuàng)新和組織創(chuàng)新。我們將研究結(jié)果通過表二呈現(xiàn)，它顯示出在所有出口商之間都存在不同。長(zhǎng)久出口商比零星出口商更重視科技創(chuàng)新，這個(gè)不同點(diǎn)還不是最主要的。然而，主要不同點(diǎn)在于過程和組織的創(chuàng)新方面。結(jié)果顯示，長(zhǎng)久出口商比中小企業(yè)在生產(chǎn)過程中更多的采用專業(yè)化地電腦科技，長(zhǎng)久出口商更加具有創(chuàng)新性，為產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量的提高投入比較大。表2 科技創(chuàng)新創(chuàng)新種類不同行業(yè)差異產(chǎn)品創(chuàng)新技術(shù)改良0.110.15新產(chǎn)品0.51-0.16設(shè)計(jì)上的革新0.100.10包裝的改良0.43-0.11過程創(chuàng)新專業(yè)機(jī)械的數(shù)量0.170.09引入質(zhì)量監(jiān)測(cè)0.380.05外包0.93-0.22引入信息技術(shù)0.77-0.28管理創(chuàng)新引進(jìn)發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略0