nach oben

Small Business Economics

Erschienen in:

01.10.2015

Performance of small- and medium-sized enterprises in services trade: evidence from French firms

verfasst von: Iza Lejárraga, Harald Oberhofer

Erschienen in: Small Business Economics | Ausgabe 3/2015

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This paper empirically investigates the key firm- and industry-specific restrictions to the performance of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in services trade. For this purpose, we use firm-level data from firms in France operating in different services sectors over the time period 1998–2007 and formulate two-part models consisting of (1) (dynamic) export equations and (2) (dynamic) export share equations. Our results confirm the view that a relatively low share of SMEs engages in services trade. In line with the new-new trade theory, our results also corroborate that more productive SMEs have a higher export probability. The key finding of this paper is that the export decisions of SMEs in services sectors are estimated to be extremely persistent, implying that trade policy efforts, including the allocation of scarce trade promotion budgets, should be directed at addressing the barriers faced in establishing the first export operation. Finally, our sub-sectoral estimates reveal considerable heterogeneity across different types of services.

Vorheriger Artikel Productivity, market selection, and corporate growth: comparative evidence across US and Europe

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Only recently, some new research results highlight the dominant role of newly created firms for overall job creation (Haltiwanger et al. 2013; Huber et al. 2013).

The term new-new trade theory refers to models that incorporate firm-level heterogeneity in standard trade models in order to account for new stylized facts that are observed in firm-level data sets (Baldwin and Robert-Nicoud 2008).

The literature review by Wagner (2012) exclusively focuses on contributions from the international economics literature, which mainly test predictions obtained from the new-new trade theory for data on service firms. In this section, we augment these findings by contributions from the small business economics literature.

In a similar vein, the so-far available empirical evidence is mainly based on data that end prior to the last recession that have been triggered by the financial crisis. Accordingly, evidence on the impact of a world-wide decrease in GDP on the international engagement of services firms is still very scarce, and therefore, surveys that explicitly focus on such questions could be very helpful.

The AMADEUS database does not provided a matched employer–employee dataset, and therefore, we are not able to observe worker-specific characteristics such as wages and the skill level. Accordingly, we are not able to include this information in our empirical analysis. More details on the available data are presented in Sect. 3.2.

Accordingly, small and newly created firms typically have only limited access to (internal and external) financial resources (see, e.g., Fazzari et al. 1988; Cabral and Mata 2003).

For French manufacturing firms, Stiebale (2011), however, is able to show that once observed and unobserved firm heterogeneity is taken into account, financial constraints have no significant effects on the export probability and the export shares.

This ‘pecking order’ of productivity with regard to the choice of internationalization strategies has been confirmed by a huge bulk of empirical contributions (see, e.g., Head and Ries 2004; Greenaway and Kneller 2007; Aw and Lee 2008; Oberhofer and Pfaffermayr 2012; Temouria et al. 2013; Vogel and Wagner 2013). However, it is worth noting, that the vast majority of these investigations rely on manufacturing firms only Wagner (2012).

While Bhattacharya et al. (2012) test their theory for the software industry in India, Wagner (2013) provides the first empirical test of this theory for a developed country, namely Germany.

Below we estimate two different models, where the former assumes that conditional on all other covariates a firm’s export decision is independent of its past exporter status. By contrast, our second model allows to test for this by additionally including the lagged exporter status. More details on the differences between both models will be discussed below.

For the econometric analysis, we also apply alternative definitions for exporting firms in order to check the robustness of the baseline results. Correspondingly, we classify firms as exporters if a non-negligible share of overall revenues (i.e., 10 and 25 %, respectively) is generated through exports.

This also implies that we are not able to distinguish between goods and service exports within firms. For this reason our definition of service firms is based on revision 2 of the NACE industry classification as well as the W120 services classification of the World Trade Organization.

For our sectoral estimates reported in Sect. 4.3 we apply the W120 services classification of the World Trade Organization as an alternative. For more details on this industry classification see, e.g., World Trade Organization (1991).

Among these sub-industries are manufacture of paper and paper products (NACE Rev. 2 codes: 17), manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products (NACE Rev. 2 codes: 26), water transport (NACE Rev. 2 codes: 50), programming and broadcasting activities (NACE Rev. 2 codes: 60), information service activities (NACE Rev. 2 codes: 63) and activities of membership organizations (NACE Rev. 2 codes: 94).

Accordingly, a firm is classified as micro-firm if it employees less than ten employees. Small (medium) firms employ ten or more (50 or more) workers but less than 50 (250). Firms with at least 250 employees are classified as large firms.

Here, it is worth noting that we exclude manufacturing firms from this analysis because in our econometric analysis below we solely focus in firms in these respective industries.

A general discussion on one-part versus two-part fractional response variable (e.g., export shares) models is offered by, e.g., Ramalho et al. (2011) and Oberhofer and Pfaffermayr (2012).

A very similar model for the exporter status and export shares of French manufacturing firms is presented by Stiebale (2011). In econometric terms, the main difference is that Stiebale (2011) applies a Tobit model for the second part, while we make use of a fractional response model. This latter model has the main advantage that it explicitly accounts for the bounded nature of the export share data at hand.

In our application, we assume that only averages of time-varying covariates directly affect the random effects \(\alpha _i\). Otherwise, we would not be able to obtain (short-run) estimates for the impact of legal form and the number of subsidiaries, respectively. We also alternatively estimated the first part using a conditional (fixed effects) logit model. In this model the identification of the parameters of interest is only possible for time-variant covariates and solely relies on the subsample of firms that switch their exporter status during our observational period (see, e.g., Train 2003). The estimates for the time-varying covariates from the conditional logit model are virtually identical to our random effects probit estimates and are available from the authors upon request.

More details on this estimation procedure and the parameter estimates for the Cobb–Douglas production function can be found in Lejárraga et al. (2014).

Due to the inclusion of the lagged export information, the number of observations in the full sample is reduced to 276,039. There are two reasons for this. First, the inclusion of lagged information does not allow to include the first observed year. Second, the AMADEUS data set provides data with missing observations for some years leaving us with an unbalanced panel dataset which further reduces the number of available observations.

The estimation results for other service industries are available from the authors upon request.

Aw, B. Y., & Lee, Y. (2008). Firm heterogeneity and location choice of Taiwanese multinationals. Journal of International Economics, 75, 167–179.CrossRef

Baldwin, R., & Robert-Nicoud, F. (2008). Trade and growth with heterogeneous firms. Journal of International Economics, 74, 21–34.CrossRef

Bartus, T. (2005). Estimation of marginal effects using margeff. Stata Journal, 5, 309–329.

Bhattacharya, R., Patnaik, I., & Shah, A. (2012). Export versus FDI in services. The World Economy, 35, 61–78.CrossRef

Breinlich, H., & Criscuolo, C. (2011). International trade in services: A portrait of importers and exporters. Journal of International Economics, 84, 188–206.CrossRef

Cabral, L. M. B., & Mata, J. (2003). On the evolution of the firm size distribution: Facts and theory. American Economic Review, 93, 1075–1090.CrossRef

Caves, R. E. (1998). Industrial organization and new findings on the turnover and mobility of firms. Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 1947–1982.

Chamberlain, G. (1980). Analysis of variance with qualitative data. Review of Economic Studies, 93, 225–238.CrossRef

Chiru, R. (2007). Innovativeness and export orientation among establishments in knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS) 2003, Working Paper No. 1, Science and Innovation Surveys Section, Statistics Canada.

Conti, G., Lo Turco, A., & Maggioni, D. (2010). Exporters in services: New evidence from Italian firms. Applied Economics Quarterly, 56, 73–98.CrossRef

Davidsson, P., Lindmark, P., & Olofsson, C. (1998). The extent of overestimation of small firm job creation: An empirical examination of the regression bias. Small Business Economics, 11, 87–100.CrossRef

Del Gatto, M., Di Liberto, A., & Petraglia, C. (2011). Measuring productivity. Journal of Economic Surveys, 25, 952–1008.CrossRef

Ebling, G., & Janz, N. (1999). Export and innovation activities in the German service sector: empirical evidence at the firm level, ZEW Discussion Papers, No. 99–53, Centre for European Economic Research.

Eickelpasch, A. F., & Vogel, A. (2011). Determinants of export behavior of German business services companies. The Service Industries Journal, 31, 513–526.CrossRef

Engel, D., Procher, V., & Schmidt, C. M. (2013). Does firm heterogeneity affect foreign market entry and exit symmetrically? Empirical evidence for French firms. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 85, 35–47.CrossRef

Eurostat (2008). Enterprises by size class: Overview of SMEs in the EU. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-08-031/EN/KS-SF-08-031-EN.PDF.

Fazzari, S. M., Hubbard, R. G., & Petersen, B. C. (1988). Financing constraints and corporate investment. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1988, 141–206.CrossRef

Federico, S., & Tosti, E. (2012). Exporters and importers of services: Firm-level evidence on Italy, Bank of Italy Temi di Discussione (Working Paper) No. 877, Bank of Italy.

Gourlay, A., Seaton, J., & Suppakitjarak, J. (2005). The determinants of export behaviour in UK service firms. The Service Industries Journal, 25, 879–888.CrossRef

Greenaway, D., & Kneller, R. (2007). Firm heterogeneity, exporting and foreign direct investment. Economic Journal, 117, F134–161.CrossRef

Haltiwanger, J. C., Jarmin, R. S., & Miranda, J. (2013). Who creates jobs? Small vs. large vs. young. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95, 347–361.CrossRef

Hart, P. E., & Oulton, N. (1996). Growth and size of firms. Economic Journal, 106, 1242–1252.CrossRef

Head, K., & Ries, J. (2004). Exporting and FDI as alternative strategies. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 20, 409–423.CrossRef

Helpman, E. (2006). Trade, FDI, and the organization of firms. Journal of Economic Literature, 44, 589–630.CrossRef

Helpman, E., Melitz, M., & Yeaple, S. (2004). Export versus FDI with heterogeneous firms. American Economic Review, 94, 300–316.CrossRef

Hollenstein, H. (2005). Determinants of international activities: Are SME’s different? Small Business Economics, 24, 431–450.CrossRef

Huber, P., Oberhofer, H., & Pfaffermayr, M. (2013). Who creates jobs? Estimating job creation rates at the firm level, Working Papers in Economics and Finance 2013–05, University of Salzburg.

Kelle, M., Kleinert, J., Raff, H., & Toubal, M. (2013). Cross-border and foreign-affiliate sales of services: Evidence from German micro-data. The World Economy, 36, 1373–1392.CrossRef

Konings, J., & Vandenbussche, H. (2013). Antidumping protection hurts exporters: Firm-level evidence from France. Review of World Economics, 149, 295–320.CrossRef

Kox, H. L. M., & Rojas-Romagosa, H. (2010). Exports and productivity selection effects for Dutch firms. De Economist, 158, 295–322.CrossRef

Lejárraga, I., Rizzo, H. L., Oberhofer, H., Stone, S., & Shepherd, B. (2014). Small and medium-sized enterprises in global markets: A differential approach for services? OECD Trade Policy Paper No. 165, OECD Publishing.

Lejpras, A. (2009). Determinants of internationalization: Differences between service and manufacturing SMEs, Discussion Paper No. 886, German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin).

Levinsohn, J., & Petrin, A. (2003). Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables. Review of Economic Studies, 243, 317–342.CrossRef

Love, J. H., & Ganotakis, P. (2013). Learning by exporting: Lessons from high-technology SMEs unobservables. International Business Review, 22, 1–17.CrossRef

Love, J. H., & Mansury, M. A. (2009). Exporting and productivity in business services: Evidence from the United States. International Business Review, 18, 630–642.CrossRef

Lööf, H. (2010). Are services different exporters? Applied Economics Quarterly, 56, 99–117.CrossRef

Masurel, E. (2001). Export behaviour of service sector SMEs. International Small Business Journal, 19, 80–84.CrossRef

Melitz, M. J. (2003). The Impact of trade on aggregate industry productivity and intra-industry reallocations. Econometrica, 71, 1695–1725.CrossRef

Minondo, A. (2011). Exporters of services in Spain, Orkestra Working Paper Series in Territorial Competitiveness No. 2011–R04, Basque Institute of Competitiveness.

Mundlak, Y. (1978). On the pooling of time series and cross section data. Econometrica, 46, 69–85.CrossRef

Oberhofer, H., & Pfaffermayr, M. (2012a). FDI versus exports: Multiple host countries and empirical evidence. The World Economy, 35, 316–330.CrossRef

Oberhofer, H., & Pfaffermayr, M. (2012b). Fractional response models—A replication exercise of Papke and Wooldridge (1996). Contemporary Economics, 6, 56–64.CrossRef

OECD (2009). Measuring entrepreneurship: A collection of indicators. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/50/44068449.pdf.

Papke, L. E., & Wooldridge, J. M. (1996). Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401(k) plan participation rates. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11, 619–632.CrossRef

Papke, L. E., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2008). Panel data methods for fractional response variables with an application to test pass rates. Journal of Econometrics, 145, 121–133.CrossRef

Persin, D. (2011). Market access for small versus large service enterprises: The preferential and multilateral trade liberalization tracks compared. Journal of World Trade, 45, 785–819.

Pilat, P., Cimper, A., Olsen, K., & Webb, C. (2006). The changing nature of manufacturing in OECD economies, STI Working Paper 2006/9, OECD.

Ramalho, E. A., Ramalho, J. J., & Murteira, J. M. (2011). Alternative estimating and testing empirical strategies for fractional regression models. Journal of Economic Surveys, 25, 19–68.CrossRef

Sloan, B., & Chittenden, F. (2006). Fiscal policy and self-employment: Targeting business growth. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 24, 83–98.CrossRef

Stiebale, J. (2011). Do financial constraints matter for foreign market entry? A firm-level examination. The World Economy, 34, 123–153.CrossRef

Storey, D. J. (1994). The role of legal status in influencing bank financing and new firm growth. Applied Economics, 26, 129–136.CrossRef

Temouria, Y., Vogel, A., & Wagner, J. (2013). Self-selection into export markets by business services firms? Evidence from France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 25, 146–158.CrossRef

Train, K. E. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Van Beveren, I. (2012). Total factor productivity estimation: A practical review. Journal of Economic Surveys, 26, 98–128.CrossRef

Vogel, A. (2011). Exporter performance in the German business services sector. The Service Industries Journal, 31, 1015–1031.CrossRef

Vogel, A., & Wagner, J. (2013). Exports R&D and productivity in German business services firms: A test of the Bustos-model. Empirical Economics Letters, 12, 1–6.

Wagner, J. (2012). International trade and firm performance: A survey of empirical studies since 2006. Review of World Economics, 148, 235–267.CrossRef

Wagner, J. (2013). Exports, foreign direct investments and productivity: Are services firms different? The Service Industries Journal, 34, 24–37.

Wolfmayr, Y., Christen, E., & Pfaffermayr M. (2013). Pattern, determinants and dynamics of Austrian service exports—A firm-level analysis, FIW-Research Reports 2012/13 No. 05, Research Centre International Economics (FIW).

Wooldridge, J. M. (2005). Simple solutions to the initial conditions problem in dynamic, nonlinear panel data models with unobserved heterogeneity. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 20, 39–54.CrossRef

Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

World Trade Organization. (1991). Services sectoral classification list. Geneva: WTO Publications.

Titel: Performance of small- and medium-sized enterprises in services trade: evidence from French firms
verfasst von: Iza Lejárraga
Harald Oberhofer
Publikationsdatum: 01.10.2015
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Small Business Economics / Ausgabe 3/2015
Print ISSN: 0921-898X
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0913
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9647-z

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2015

Export-oriented entrepreneurship and regional economic growth

The patterns of venture capital investment in Europe

Productivity, market selection, and corporate growth: comparative evidence across US and Europe

The effects of acquisition on the growth of new technology-based firms: Do different types of acquirers matter?

Understanding the decline in self-employment among individuals nearing retirement

R&D policies for young SMEs: input and output effects

Premium Partner