10-09 the effects of ownership structure and industry characteristics on export performance

8/12/2019 10-09 the Effects of Ownership Structure and Industry Characteristics on Export Performance

1/26

ECONOMICS

THE EFFECTS OF OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE ANDINDUSTRY CHARACTERISTICS

ON EXPORT PERFORMANCE

by

Dahai FuBusiness Schoo

The Uni!e"si#y o$ Wes#e"n Aus#"aia

Yan"ui Wu

Business SchooThe Uni!e"si#y o$ Wes#e"n Aus#"aia

Yihon% Tan%


2/26

Schoo o$ In#e"na#iona T"a&e an& Econo'icsUni!e"si#y o$ In#e"na#iona Business an& Econo'ics

Bei(in%

DISCUSSION PAPER )*+*,


3/26

The Effects of Ownership Structure and Industry Characteristics

On Export Performance

Evidence from Chinese Manufacturing Firms

Dahai Fu a1, Yanrui Wu , Yihong Tang ab

a Economics Group, Business choo!, The "niversit# of Western $ustra!ia, Cra%!e#, W$&''(, $ustra!ia

b choo! of )nternationa! Trade and Economics, "niversit# of )nternationa! Business and Economics, Bei*ing, 1'''+(, China

Abstract

%nership structure and industr# characteristics as interna! and e-terna! factors respective!#

significant!# impact the e-port performance of Chinese manufacturing firms. Three different #et re!ated

mode!s, name!#, !ogit, tobit and ordered probit mode!s, that correspond to three different indicators of

e-port performance are considered. )t %as found that the e-port performance of Chinese manufacturing

firms is re!ated not on!# to foreign capita! invo!vement but a!so to the e-tent of foreign investors/

contro!. Foreign contro!!ed enterprises are more !i0e!# to sho% better e-port performance than those

contro!!ed b# domestic investors. Furthermore, the impact of industr# concentration on e-port

performance is unc!ear, %hi!e both industr# e-portorientation and industr# capita! intensit# have astrong impact on the e-port performance of Chinese firms.

JEL classification:F1, 2+, 2&

Keywords:E-port performance3 Chinese firms3 %nership3 )ndustr# characteristics

1 Dahai Fu gratefu!!# ac0no%!edges financia! support from the China cho!arship Counci! 4CC5 and the Business

choo! of "niversit# of Western $ustra!ia.

Correspondence:Dahai Fu, Economics Group, Business choo! 4M+615, The "niversit# of Western $ustra!ia, 76 tir!ing

8igh%a#, Cra%!e#, W$&''(, $ustra!ia. Emai! $ddress9dfu:bi;.u%a.edu.au3Te!9 == 6&>'
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


4/26

1. Introduction

E-ports have been the primar# engine of Chinese economic gro%th. ver the past three decades,

China has en*o#ed a phenomena! gro%th in e-ports at an annua! rate of 1=.& percent. This has

accounted for over 7' percent of Chinese output gro%th in recent #ears 4Guo and ?/Dia#e, +''(5.

8o%ever, fa!!ing demand and rising !abour costs have adverse!# affected Chinese e-ports, raising

concerns among po!ic# ma0ers. Corresponding!#, stimu!us measures such as reducing a structura!

ta-, raising e-port ta- rebates, and providing financia! support have been imp!emented to boost

e-ports. 8o%ever, these actions, %hich are targeted at specific industries and firms, are !arge!#

based on macroeconomic evidence that cou!d create unreasonab!e e-pectations about the effects of

e-port promotion po!icies 4Bernard and @ensen, 1(((5. To reduce the ris0 that improper measures

are ta0en, a firm!eve! ana!#sis of e-port performance is thus necessar#.

Aecent!# there has been increased discussion of e-port performance at the firm !eve! in the

economics and business !iterature %hich has as0ed this basic uestion9 %hat are the determinants of

firms/ e-port performance+ Though man# studies have advanced our understanding of firms/

e-port behaviour, there are sti!! fe% studies that simu!taneous!# investigate the effects of the interna!

and e-terna! factors on e-port performance 4hao and ou, +''+5. )n particu!ar, t%o uestions

remain re!ative!# une-p!ored. First, ho% do the interactions bet%een foreigninvested firms and

domestic investors %ithin the conte-t of corporate governance inf!uence their internationa! activities

4Fi!atotchev et a!., +''=5 econd, ho% do industr# characteristics affect the e-port performance of

firms in !arge and open economies 4Gao et a!., +''(5. This paper %i!! contribute to ans%ering these

uestions b# e-amining the impact of o%nership structure and industr# characteristics on e-port

performance using a pane! data of 7&,(>1 Chinese manufacturing firms for the period 1(((+''7.

This period corresponds to the pre and postWT period in China.

China %as chosen as the research sub*ect for the fo!!o%ing reasons. First, China, one of the

BA)Cs, has underta0en enormous trade and FD) !ibera!isation in the pursuit of entr# into the WTsince the ear!# 1(('s. $s a resu!t, China rep!aced the ".. as the %or!d/s !argest e-porter of

manufactured goods b# +''&. Mean%hi!e, China has become the !argest recipient of FD) among the

deve!oping economies and in%ard FD) has further stimu!ated the success of China/s e-ports. The

trade share of foreigno%nedenterprises over China/s tota! trade reached more than &' in recent

#ears %hi!e the share of stateo%nedenterprises continuous!# decreased to be!o% +'. 8o%ever,

the effect of diverse patterns of o%nership and contro!, especia!!# the o%nership structure of a *oint

venture, on the e-port performance of firms in transition countries has not been fu!!# studied

2 ome comprehensive !iterature revie%s have been made b# Wagner 4+''5, Greena%a# and ne!!er

4+''5, ou et a!. 41((=5, and ousa et a!. 4+''=5.

4


5/26

4Fi!atotchev et a!., +''=5. econd, the gradua! reform and open process in China has created an

uneven business environment across different industries and regions. )n emerging economies,

e-terna! environment, especia!!# industr# characteristics, p!a#s an important ro!e in firms/ strategic

decisionma0ing 4Heng et a!., +''=5. 8o%ever, studies about the impacts of industr# characteristics

on e-port performance of firms are re!ative!# !imited %ith a fe% e-ceptions 4hao and ou, +''+3

Gao et a!., +''(5.

)n this stud#, o%nership structure and industr# characteristics are considered to be important

factors affecting e-port performance. Three indicators 4i.e. e-port propensit#, e-port intensit# and

e-port strateg#5 are used to capture e-port performance. Corresponding!# three different mode!s,

name!#, !ogit, probit and ordered probit mode!s are emp!o#ed. Furthermore, un!i0e previous studies,

this stud# %i!! not on!# distinguish domestic firms from foreign firms but %i!! a!so distinguish

%ho!!#o%ned enterprises from *oint ventures %ith different dominant ho!ders. This ana!#sis %i!!a!so consider industr# characteristics inc!uding industr# concentration, industr# e-portorientation

and industr# capita! intensit#.

The rest of the paper is structured as fo!!o%s. ection + out!ines the conceptua! frame%or0,

together %ith severa! h#potheses. $ discussion of data and method is fo!!o%ed in ection 7. ection

> presents the econometric resu!ts, and the fina! part provides a summar# and conc!usions.

2. Conceptua !ramewor" and #ypotheses

Firm!eve! ana!#sis of e-port performance has been a hot topic both in economics and business

!iterature due to its po!ic# significance as %e!! as the increasing avai!abi!it# of firm !eve! data across

countries. The e-isting economics !iterature main!# focuses on the re!ationship bet%een firm

heterogeneit#, heterogeneous productivit#, and e-port decisionma0ing. Most of these studies found

that due to the fi-ed entr# costs, on!# firms %ith high productivit# %ere profitab!e in foreign

mar0ets 4Aoberts and T#bout, 1((5. 8o%ever, some researchers from the internationa! business

fie!d argue that it is insufficient to ana!#se the e-port behaviour of firms from a pure!# interna!perspective. To overcome this %ea0ness, ousa et a!. 4+''=5 c!aim that Ie-port performance shou!d

be assessed at the t%o broad !eve!s the e-terna! environment !eve! and the interna! !eve!J 4ousa et

a!., +''=, p.7&75. )n response to ousa et a!./s ca!!, this stud# adopts an integrative frame%or0

incorporating the governancestrateg#performance paradigm 4GH5 and the structureconduct

performance frame%or0 4CH5 to ana!#se the impact of o%nership structure 4as an interna! factor5

and industr# characteristics 4as e-terna! factors5 on the e-port performance of Chinese

manufacturing firms 4Figure 15.

5


6/26

!i$ure 1 Anaytica !ramewor" of Ownership Structure% Industry Characteristics and Export

Performance

&O'E()A)CE

Who!!# foreigno%ned

@K %ith foreign contro!@K %ith domestic contro!

Who!!# !oca!!#o%ned

ST(ATE&*+CO),-CT

E-port propensit#

E-port intensit# E-port strateg#

!I( PE(!O(A)CE

ST(-CT-(E

)ndustr# concentration

)ndustr# e-port orientation)ndustr# capita! intensit#

2.1 Ownership Structure and Export Performance

6


7/26

Whi!e the impact of corporate governance on firms/ strategic decisionma0ing and performance

has been %e!! documented in the !iterature 4Buc0 et a!., +''73 Fi!atotchev et a!., +'''5, its effect on

firms/ e-port performance has been re!ative!# neg!ected unti! recent!#. E-porting strateg#, as a ris0#

adventure in the internationa! mar0ets, is high!# associated %ith corporate governance factors such

as o%nership structure 4Fi!atotchev et a!., +''1, +''=5. 8o%ever, the traditiona! principa!agent

theor# cannot be direct!# app!ied to emerging economies !i0e China since the ma*orit# of

enterprises sti!! have not adopted modern corporate governance. ?everthe!ess, enterprises usua!!#

have contro!!ing shareho!ders 4principa!s5 and minorit# shareho!ders 4principa!s5, %hich a!!o%s the

effect of corporate governance on e-port performance to be e-amined from another perspective 42u

et a!., +''(5.

The gradua! reform of firm o%nership and the !ibera!isation of FD) inf!o%s in China have created

a !arge poo! of diverse o%nerships and contro!!ing structures, such as %ho!!# foreign o%nedenterprises, *oint ventures %ith foreign contro!, *oint ventures %ith state or nonstate contro!, and

%ho!!# !oca!!# o%ned firms, etc. The ma*orit# of empirica! research has compared the e-port

performance of foreign affi!iates and domestic firms. ver%he!ming evidence supports the

argument that foreign firms in emerging economies are more !i0e!# to e-port than domestic

enterprises 4e.g. 8uang et a!., +''=3 Fung et a!., +''=5. This is because mu!tinationa! enterprises

4M?Es5 usua!!# ta0e emerging economies, !i0e China, as the e-port p!atform to serve their home

mar0et or other mar0ets b# uti!ising the costs differences bet%een host countries and their home

countries. Moreover, M?Es tend to possess intangib!e firmspecific assets, such as advanced

techno!og#, mar0eting s0i!!s, brand name, and mar0et net%or0s3 %hich cou!d provide M?Es %ith a

competitive advantage in the internationa! mar0et 4Ge and Chen, +''=5. $ccording to Fung et a!.

4+''=5, foreign firms %ith cost!eadership advantages in China are more !i0e!# to e-port and have

higher !eve! of e-port intensit#. hang and ong 4+'''5 and 2iu and hu 4+''75 a!so find that

increased !eve!s of foreign direct investment 4FD)5 are positive!# associated %ith manufacturing

e-ports in China.

$!though the e-isting !iterature has traditiona!!# argued that the participation of foreign capita!

cou!d increase the probabi!it# of domestic firms in emerging economies e-porting, the structure of

strategic contro! ma# ma0e the e-portdecision comp!e-, especia!!# in the *oint ventures invo!ving

foreign and !oca! investors. )n China, foreign affi!iates are firms %ith +6 percent or more euit#

shares being he!d b# foreign mu!tinationa!s or firms from 8ong ong, Macau, and Tai%an. The

remaining firms are ca!!ed China/s domestic firms. Thus, a !arge proportion of foreign firms are

contro!!ed b# !oca! investors %ho o%n the ma*orit# of the euit# shares. $s this ma# resu!t in

strategic conf!icts in re!ation to e-portdecision ma0ing bet%een the investors, e-port performance

ma# a!so be associated %ith the e-tent of foreign investors/ contro!s 4Fi!atotchev et a!., +''(5. ome

7


8/26

authors suggest that firms %ith foreign contro! are more !i0e!# to e-port, especia!!# %hen the

foreign investors ta0e the *oint ventures as a part of a g!oba! strateg# 4Yong and Tavares, +''>5. )n

addition, !oca! firms in emerging economies can be usua!!# c!assified into state o%ned enterprises

4Es5 and nonstate o%ned enterprises 4?Es5, %ho are be!ieved to behave different!# in

business. For instance, Chinese Es usua!!# p!a# a dominant ro!e in the resources and energ#

industries, such as petro!eum, co0ing, nuc!ear fue!, ra% chemica! materia!, mining and supp!# of

e!ectric and heat po%er, gas and %ater, %hich are !ess e-portoriented industries in China 42ee,

+''(5. 8o%ever, nonstate enterprises tend to concentrate in e-portintensive industries !i0e te-ti!e

and c!othing, foot%ear, furniture, to#s, and food processing. Thus, it is reasonab!e to e-pect that

firms %ith state o%nership are !ess e-portoriented than those %ith nonstate o%nership.

Based on the above revie%ed !iterature, %e h#pothesi;e the fo!!o%ing9

Hypothesis 1: Foreign o%nership is positive!# re!ated to the e-port performance of Chinese

manufacturing firms.

Hypothesis 2:E-port performance is positive!# associated %ith the e-tent of foreign investors/

contro!.

Hypothesis 3: Firms %ith state o%nership are !ess !i0e!# to e-port than those %ithout state

investors.

2.2 Industria Characteristics and Export Performance

The paradigm of structureconductperformance 4CH5, as a dominant theor# in industria!

economics, stresses that the conduct of a firm is determined b# the characteristics of its e-terna!

environment, %hich are main!# represented b# its industr# characteristics. Based on this frame%or0,

the e-port behaviour of a firm is e-pected to be high!# dependent on the characteristics of the

industr# it be!ongs to 4Cavusgi! and ou, +''+5. Hrevious studies have e-amined the inf!uence of

various industr# factors on e-port performance. The industr# factors previous!# e-amined inc!udeindustr# concentration 4hao and ou, +''+5, industr# e-port intensit# 4?aidu and Hrasad, 1((>5,

industr# e-port orientation 4Campa and Go!dberg, 1((5, industr# import protection 4Ao*ec et a!.,

+''>5, industr# instabi!it# 4a0a0ibara and Hoter, +''15, and industr# techno!ogica! intensit#

4Fi!atotchev et a!., +''=5. )n this stud# %e focus on the effects of industr# concentration, industr#

e-port orientation and industr# capita! intensit# on the e-port performance of the Chinese

manufacturing firms.

)ndustr# concentration is an important indicator %hich ref!ects the nature of competition in an

industr#. $ high!# concentrated industr# is %here a fe% !arge firms en*o# high mar0et po%er 4hao

and ou, +''+5. There is no definitive predictive re!ationship bet%een the !eve! of industr#

8


9/26

concentration and e-port performance. n one hand, the dominant firm in a high!# concentrated

industr# usua!!# ta0es advantage of its strong mar0et po%er to increase price discrimination and

hence focus on the domestic mar0et. n the other hand, the dominant firm is usua!!# !arge and

!i0e!# to possess some uniue s0i!!s or techno!ogies compared %ith other re!ative!# sma!! firms in

the same industr#, %hich cou!d a!!o% it to absorb the ris0s that come %ith e-porting. 8o%ever, in

China, most high!#concentrated industries are dominated b# stateo%ned enterprises that are

protected b# the government b# high tariff and nontariff barriers 4hao and ou, +''+5.

Corresponding!#, the# usua!!# possess !ess comparative advantages than the mu!tinationa!s in the

internationa! mar0ets and thus e-hibit !o% e-port propensit# and intensit#. Thus, the re!ationship

bet%een industr# concentration and firms/ e-port performance in China ma# be negative.

Besides industr# concentration, the degree of industr# e-port orientation ma# a!so inf!uence the

e-port performance of firms in that industr#. ome recent studies confirm that e-port performanceof firms is positive!# corre!ated %ith overa!! e-port orientation of the industr# due to the

demonstration and spi!!over effects 4Ao*ec et a!., +''>3 Gao et a!., +''(5. First, firms often !earn

from each other/s actions, inc!uding their e-port behaviour. E-porting firms ma# provide a signa! of

e-port attractiveness to none-porting firms %ithin the same industr#, encouraging them to pursue a

fo!!o%thepioneer strateg#. econd, an e-porterc!ustered industr# ma# create a !arge poo! of

information about foreign mar0ets and s0i!!ed emp!o#ment, %hich %ou!d reduce the e-porting costs

of other firms. )n particu!ar, severa! recent studies have confirmed the e-istence of significant

e-port spi!!overs from mu!tinationa! enterprises 4ne!!er and Hisu, +''3 un, +''(5. Therefore, %e

can e-pect that firms running business in an e-portoriented industr# are more !i0e!# to e-port and

have a high !eve! of e-port intensit#.

The industr# capita! intensit# measures the re!ative importance of factor endo%ments. C!assica!

trade theor# on trade patterns suggests that countries e-port those commodities %hich reuire

re!ative!# more intensive use of those productive factors found !oca!!# in re!ative abundance 4The

8ec0scherh!in Theorem5. )t is genera!!# agreed that China/s comparative advantage !ies in its

abundant !abour endo%ments compared %ith other countries. This is %h# !o% !abour cost has been

conventiona!!# considered the primar# advantage of Chinese firms in the internationa! mar0ets 42iu

and hu, +''75. Thus, firms in !abourintensive industries are natura!!# more competitive than firms

in capita!intensive industries 48uang et a!., +''=5, %hich cou!d ma0e them more !i0e!# to e-port.

The above discussion !eads to the fo!!o%ing h#potheses9

Hypothesis 4:The e-port performance of Chinese manufacturing firms is inverse!# re!ated to

their industr# concentration.

9


10/26

Hypothesis 5:Firms operating in a high!# e-portoriented industr# %ith man# e-porters are more

!i0e!# to achieve better e-port performance.

Hypothesis 6: E-port performance ma# be negative!# re!ated to industr# capita! intensit# in

China.

/. ,ata and ethods

/.1 The ,ataset

The primar# data set emp!o#ed in this stud# is dra%n from $nnua! urve# of Chinese )ndustria!

Firms 4$C)F5 from 1((( to +''7 b# ?ationa! Bureau of tatistics of China 4?BC5. The database

covers a!! firms %ith annua! sa!es above 6 mi!!ion yuan 4AMB5, providing detai!ed information on

firm identification, fourdigit industria! code, output va!ue, va!ue added, ne% product output, e-port

va!ue, and o%nership information etc. More than 6' statistica! indicators of the data set %ere

c!assified into five categories9 4i5 output indicators3 4ii5 capita! indicators3 4iii5 assets and !iabi!ities3

4iv5 profits, and 4v5 remuneration indicators.

$ccording to the c!assification of the ?BC, the tota! database covers three broad sectors9 415

mining3 4+5 manufacturing3 and 475 uti!it# industries. This stud# focuses on the manufacturing

sector, %hich represents over (' percent of Chinese e-ports. )n the dataset, each firm is granted an

invariant and uniue corporation )D code. 8o%ever, %hether firms have e-ited or entered the

mar0et cannot be identified from their )D information. $ccording to @efferson et a!. 4+''=5, there

are at !east three causes !eading to firms/ )D disappearance9 c!osure of the firm3 a decrease in sa!es

that pushes the annua! tota! sa!es be!o% AMB 6 mi!!ion3 or a change in )D associated %ith some

changes in organi;ation. To dea! %ith these unobservab!e shoc0s, this stud# %i!! use a ba!anced

pane! dataset. The corporation )D %i!! be used to match the firms in different #ears and get an

origina! ba!ance pane! data of &7,6(= firms in five consecutive #ears. 8o%ever, inva!id and

abnorma! information due to nonreporting, misreporting, and obvious mista0es in data

0e#punching cou!d to serious bias if treated them %ithout Ic!eaningJ. Therefore, fo!!o%ing

@efferson, Aa%s0i, and hang 4+''=5 and Cai and 2iu 4+''(5, the data used %i!! be sub*ect to the

fo!!o%ing restrictions9 415 observations must not have missing or negative 0e# variab!es 4e.g.

output, va!ueadded7,e-port53 4+5 the number of emp!o#ees hired for a firm must not be !ess than =

peop!e3 475 tota! assets must be greater than tota! fi-ed assets3 4>5 the ratio of va!ueadded to sa!es

va!ue must !ie bet%een ' and 13 465 the firm/s identification number must be uniue and cannot be

3The information of added va!ue in +''' is not reported direct!# in our dataset. o %e ca!cu!ated it use the

formu!a9 added va!ue eua!s tota! output va!ue at the current price minus the tota! input and p!us the ta- of

va!ueadded.

10


11/26

missing3 4&5 the starting #ear of the firm must be va!id and before +''73 45 the e-port intensit# is

bounded bet%een ;ero and one. We end up %ith a va!id ba!ancedpane! samp!e %ith 7&,(>1firms in

the five consecutive #ears from 1((( to +''7.

/.2 The Econometric ode

To comprehensive!# e-amine the effects of o%nership structure and industr# characteristics on

e-port performance, three different indicators of e-port performance 4i.e. e-port propensit#, e-port

intensit# and e-port strateg#5 are used as dependent variab!es. )t is assumed that firms/ o%nership

structure and industr# characteristics cou!d affect firms/ e-port performance, together %ith other

firmspecific covariates. The base!ine specification can be presented as fo!!o%s9

' ' '

it 1 i(t -1) ij(t -1) 2 i(t -1) 3 it 4 it Y = a + b O + I b + b + ! b + e 415

%here subscripts i , j and tdenote firm, industr#, and #ear3 Y is the dependent variab!e representing

the e-port performance, %hich can be binar#, fractiona! or ordina! in this paper3 O denotes

o%nership structure of firm i , andI

denotes a vector of industr# characteristics variab!es that

inc!ude industr# concentration inde-, industr# e-portorientation inde- and industr# capita!

intensit# if firm i operates in industr# j , denotes a vector of contro! variab!es that inc!ude firm

productivit#, si;e and age. ome other variab!es 4! 5, !i0e region, industr# and #ear dummies, are

a!so inc!uded to contro! some unobserved macroeconomic shoc0s and fi-ed effects. Given the

possib!e effects of e-porting on firms/ characteristics, %e fo!!o% the traditiona! method in the

!iterature and !ag a!! the independent variab!es one #ear to a!!eviate the prob!em of simu!taneit#. The

heteros0edasticit# resu!ting from unobserved firm heterogeneit# %i!! a!so be considered. )n

particu!ar, the fi-ed effects mode! cannot be used here because the o%nership structure as an

independent variab!e ma# be constant over time and cou!d be s%ept a%a# b# the fi-ed effects

transformation. Therefore, the random effects mode! is preferred b# assuming that unobserved firm

heterogeneit# is uncorre!ated %ith each e-p!anator# variab!e in a!! time period.

Dependent Variale

To e-amine the determinants of e-port propensit# in Chinese manufacturing firms, the dependent

variab!e in euation 415 is represented b# a binar# variab!e 4 it"!#$

5, %hich eua!s one %hen the

firm has positive e-ports va!ues 4L

it"!# 5 in a specific #ear and ;ero other%ise.

11


12/26

%

it

it

1 i& "!# ' "!#$ =

i& oter*ise

4+5

$s sho%n in Tab!e 1, over one third of the considered firms %ere invo!ved in e-porting activities.

)f the e-port performance is represented b# the e-port intensit# 4i.e. it"!#+

, the ratio of e-port

va!ue to tota! sa!es5, the dependent variab!e %i!! be a fractiona! variab!e %ith a !arge number of ;ero

va!ue. We ca!cu!ate the e-port intensit# using the fo!!o%ing formu!a9

itit

it

",ports"!#+ =

+ota- .a-es 475

The average e-port intensit# in the samp!e is about one fifth, meaning that about t%ent# percent

of the output of Chinese firms %as so!d in foreign mar0ets. Besides the e-port propensit# and

e-port intensit#, an ordina! dependent variab!e is a!so considered in this paper. )n turn, three groups

of firms in terms of e-port strateg# 4 i"!#.

5 are identified9 none-porters %hich are defined as

firms %ho never e-ported in the investigated period3 sporadic e-porters, %hich %ere those that

e-ported in some #ears of the period3 and persistent e-porters %hich %ere those that e-ported ever#

#ear. The dependent variab!e in such occasion is defined as three categorica! and ordina! numbers as

fo!!o%s9

i

i i

i

1 i& su/("!#$ )=

"!#. = 2 i& su/("!#$ ) 014

3 i& su/("!#$ )=

4>5

Tab!e + sho%s that more than ha!f of the samp!ed firms never e-ported in the five #ears studied

and +&.( percent of the firms chose to e-port continuous!#. The remainder 1&.( percent of the firms

e-ported occasiona!!#.

!ndependent "ariales

Based on the information from the dataset, there are t%o %a#s to identif# the firm/s o%nership

structure. The first method is to direct!# uti!ise the firms/ registration o%nership t#pe, %hich fa!!s

into the fo!!o%ing o%nership categories9 stateo%nedenterprises, co!!ective!#o%ned enterprises,

overseas *oint ventures, foreign *oint ventures, and !imited !iabi!it# companies, sharing ho!ding

12


13/26

firms, 8MT enterprises, foreign invested enterprises and others. The second approach is to use the

information on the sources of tota! registered capita! 4euit#5, %hich inc!udes state capita!,

co!!ective capita!, private capita!, 8MT capita!, foreign capita! and capita! from !ega! entit#3 to

identif# the firm/s o%nership structure indirect!#. 8o%ever, the outcome of these t%o methods does

not e-act!# match. This stud# fo!!o%s Ge and Chen 4+''=5 and uses the sources of the registered

capita! to identif# the o%nership structure.

The firms/ o%nership structure is thus c!assified into eight categories9 415 %ho!!# foreigno%ned

enterprises %ith non8MT contro!3 4+5 %ho!!# foreigno%ned enterprises %ith 8MT contro!3 475

*oint ventures %ith non8MT contro!3 4>5 *oint ventures %ith 8MT contro!3 465 *oint ventures %ith

nonstate contro!3 4&5 *oint ventures %ith state contro!3 45 %ho!!# !oca!!#o%ned enterprises %ith

nonstate contro!3 4=5 %ho!!# !oca!!#o%ned enterprises %ith state contro!. The Iother t#peJ of

o%nership structure %i!! be a benchmar0. $ %ho!!# foreign invested enterprise is an enterprise %itha!! the registered euit# from foreign investors, %ho are from 8ong ong, Macao and Tai%an

48MT5 and other foreign countries 4main!# ECD countries5. $ %ho!!# !oca!!#o%ned enterprise is

one %ho!!#o%ned b# !oca! investors inc!uding state investors and nonstate investors. $ *oint

venture is defined as a compan# %ith positive foreign capita! and !oca! capita!. ?onstate capita! for

these purposes inc!udes co!!ective capita!, private capita! and !ega! entities capita!. $ contro!

structure means that the investor of that categor# en*o#s a dominating capita! share in a specific

enterprise. Tab!e 1 sho%s that more than ha!f the firms %ere %ho!!# invested b# !oca! investors %ith

a nonstate contro! structure and about 1&.6 percent %ere contro!!ed b# state investors. The rest

4about 7' percent5 of the firms had foreign capita! and 1+ percent are tota!!# o%ned b# foreign

investors.

Fo!!o%ing the !iterature, %e categorise industr# characteristics of Chinese manufacturing

industries using the fo!!o%ing measures9 415 industr# concentration, b# ca!cu!ating the 8erfindah!

inde- 48)5, %hich is measured b# the sum of the suares of the mar0et shares of each firm

competing in a specific industr#3 4+5 industr# e-portorientation inde- 4)E)5, the percentage of

e-porters in a specific industr#3 475 industr# capita! intensit# 4)C)5 inde- measured b# the ratio of

tota! fi-ed assets to tota! emp!o#ee in a specific industr#. The higher va!ue of 8) imp!ies a more

concentrated industr# %hi!e the higher )E) imp!ies a more e-portoriented industr#. The !o%er )C)

represents a !abourintensive industr#. These three variab!es are a!! ca!cu!ated at the fourdigit

industr# !eve!.

#ontrol "ariales

Three contro! variab!es are inc!uded in this stud#. The tota! factor productivit# 4+#5 %as

ca!cu!ated b# emp!o#ing the 2evinsohn and Hetrin approach 4+''75 at the t%odigit !eve!. )n the

13


14/26

economic !iterature, numerous studies have provided consistent evidence that firm productivit#

p!a#s a positive ro!e in firms/ e-port behaviour 4i.e. the se!fse!ection h#pothesis5. We a!so

contro!!ed for firm .i5e, as measured b# the number of emp!o#ees and firm67e,as measured b# the

number of #ears since the estab!ishment of the firm. Aegion, industr#, and #ear effects are a!so

incorporated in the estimate for robustness. The descriptive statistics of variab!es are presented in

Tab!e 1.

0. (esuts and ,iscussion

0.1 The ,eterminants of Export Propensity and Export Intensity

Fo!!o%ing previous studies, such as Gao et a!. 4+''(5 and Fung et a!. 4+''=5, %e emp!o# 8o7istic

(8O9I+) and +OI+ mode!s for the estimation of e-port propensit# and e-port intensit#,respective!#. We present three specifications %ith different sets of independent variab!es 4i.e.

o%nership structure variab!es, industr# characteristics variab!es and combined variab!es5 for e-port

propensit# and e-port intensit# to c!arif# the proposed h#potheses. The resu!ts for the determinants

of e-port propensit# and for the e-port intensit# are disp!a#ed in Tab!es 7 and > respective!#. The

Wa!d+

statistics revea! that the nu!! h#pothesis that the regression coefficients are *oint!# eua! to

;ero can be re*ected at the one percent significance !eve! for a!! regressions.

Foreign contro! structure has positive effects on e-port propensit# and e-port intensit#, regard!ess

of the source of the foreign capita!. )n contrast, firms governed b# !oca! investors are !ess !i0e!# to

enter foreign mar0ets and more !i0e!# to sho% !o%er e-port intensit#. )n particu!ar, firms %ho!!#

o%ned b# foreign investors %ith non8MT contro!s 4main!# from the ECD countries5 have the

highest e-port propensit# and e-port intensit#, %hi!e %ho!!# !oca!!#o%ned enterprises %ith state

contro!s are the !east !i0e!# to e-port and have the !o%est !eve! of e-port intensit#. $s for the *oint

ventures, the dumm# variab!es for @Ks %ith 8MT contro! or non8MT contro! have positive

coefficients, %hi!e @Ks %ith nonstate contro! or state contro! have negative coefficients. These

resu!ts imp!# that the e-port propensit# and e-port intensit# of Chinese manufacturing firms is

positive!# associated %ith not on!# the vo!ume of foreign capita! but a!so the e-tent of foreign

investors/ contro! over the decisionma0ing %ithin the enterprises. 8ence both 8#potheses 1 and +

are supported. )t is a!so interesting to note that firms %ith non8MT capita! are more e-port

oriented and e-portintensive than those %ith 8MT capita!, %hi!e firms invo!ving state capita!s are

!ess e-portoriented and e-portintensive than those %ith nonstate capita!. These resu!ts indicate

that 8#pothesis 7 is a!so supported.

14


15/26

These findings are actua!!# consistent %ith the changes in the modes of in%ard FD) into China in

recent #ears. )n the ear!# stage of reform, contractua! *oint venture and *oint e-p!oration investment

p!a#ed a dominant ro!e in the entr# modes of FD) in China. These %ere !ater rep!aced b# euit#

*oint venture and %ho!!# foreigno%ned enterprises after 1(=&. ince the 1(('s the share of %ho!!#

foreigninvested enterprises has gradua!!# increased, and the foreign contro! in *oint ventures has

a!so increased. From 1((= on%ards, the share of %ho!!# foreigno%ned enterprises e-ceeded that of

euit# *oint ventures. B# +''', the share of %ho!!# foreigno%ned enterprises and contractua! *oint

ventures had accounted for =' percent of both tota! contractua! and actua! investment.> Mean%hi!e,

the contribution of foreigninvested enterprises to China/s e-ports a!so increased dramatica!!#. The

share of e-ports b# F)Es in tota! e-ports had increased from '.16 percent in 1(=1 to 6=.7' percent

in +''6. Even in the measurement period bet%een 1((( and +''7, the record a!so increased from

>6.> percent to 6>.=> percent. Aecent re!ated research b# Feenstra and 8anson 4+''65 has a!soconfirmed that mu!tinationa! enterprises engaged in e-port processing in China are more !i0e!# to

have the o%nership of the factories.

The stud# a!so found that the estimated coefficient of 8erfindah! inde- is positive but not

statistica!!# significant for e-port propensit#, %hi!e the coefficient is negative but insignificant for

e-port intensit#. This imp!ies that the impact of industr# concentration on the e-port propensit# and

e-port intensit# of Chinese firms is inconc!usive. This is contrar# to hao and ou 4+''+5, in %hich

the# found that industria! concentration has a negative inf!uence on both e-port propensit# and

e-port intensit#. n this basis, 8#pothesis > can be re*ected.

The coefficients of industr# e-port orientation and capita! intensit# are statistica!!# significant at

one percent significance !eve!, meaning firms operating in e-portoriented and !abourintensive

industries are more !i0e!# to e-port and have higher e-port intensit#. This demonstrates that Chinese

e-porters are en*o#ing e-port spi!!overs and uti!ising the comparative advantage of the abundant

cheap !abour, thus supporting 8#potheses 6 and &.

)n re!ation to the effects of the contro! variab!es, the resu!ts sho% that firms %ith higher

productivit# are more !i0e!# to e-port and e-port more, %hich is evidence supporting the se!f

se!ection h#pothesis in China. The firm si;e in terms of tota! emp!o#ees a!so e-erts a positive

inf!uence on firms/ e-port propensit# and e-port intensit#. )t cou!d be argued that !arge firms

usua!!# o%n !arge amounts of euit#, advanced techno!og#, intangib!e assets, or brand name3 %hich

cou!d give them a competitive advantage in foreign mar0ets that sma!! firms do not have.

Mean%hi!e, the effect of firm age on e-port decision is not particu!ar!# significant for the e-port

decision of firms but has a negative inf!uence on e-port intensit#. This imp!ies that Chinese

e-porters %ith !ong histor# of operations have !o%er e-port intensities than those of the #oung.

4This paragraph re!ies entire!# on 2ai 4+''+, p.7'5

15


16/26

0.2 The ,eterminants of Export Strate$ies

This section dea!s %ith the determinants of the choice of the e-port strategies, %hich are

c!assified into three categories according to their e-port seuences during the observed period. $s

discussed above, firms can have three different 0inds of e-port strategies9 never e-port,

occasiona!!# e-port, and persistent!# e-port. Corresponding!#, three groups of firms are identified

based on their e-port strategies9 none-porters, sporadic e-porters and persistent e-porters. Given

the categorica! and ordina! nature of the dependent variab!e, an ordered probit (O#;OI+)mode!

fits %e!!.

$ccording to the resu!ts in Tab!e 6, the estimated coefficients of WFEs %ith non8MT contro!,

WFEs %ith 8MT contro! and @Ks %ith non8MT contro! are positive and statistica!!# significant.

)n particu!ar, the o%nership of WFEs %ith non8MT contro! increases the probabi!it# of them

being persistent e-porters b# =. percent. WFEs %ith 8MT contro! and @Ks %ith non8MT

contro! have corresponding probabi!ities of about 1.( and >.6 respective!#. This imp!ies that

Chinese manufacturing firms %ith these three 0inds of o%nership structures are more !i0e!# to

e-port persistent!#.

)n contrast, the other five categories of o%nership structures 4i.e. @Ks %ith M8T contro!, @Ks

%ith nonstate contro!, @Ks %ith state contro!, W2Es %ith nonstate contro!, and W2Es %ith

state contro!5 have a negative impact on firms/ improving their e-port status. $mong these five

categories, %ho!!# !oca!!#o%ned enterprises %ith nonstate contro! are !east !i0e!# to be persistent

e-porters, fo!!o%ed b# W2Es %ith state contro!. )t is important to note that the sign of the @Ks

%ith 8MT contro! dumm# is negative, %hich is contrar# to the resu!ts in e-port propensit# and

e-port intensit# specifications. This means that *oint ventures %ith 8MT contro! are more !i0e!# to

e-port and e-port more, but %i!! not e-port persistent!# compared %ith other firms %ith foreign

contro!. The resu!ts a!so sho% that %ho!!# foreign o%ned enterprises %ith non8MT contro! have

the highest probabi!it# of e-porting continuous!#. The *oint ventures %ith non8MT contro! are

more !i0e!# to be persistent e-porters than %ho!!# foreign o%ned enterprises %ith 8MT contro!. )n

addition, *oint ventures %ith state contro! are more !i0e!# to be none-porters than those %ith non

state contro!. 8o%ever, %ho!!# !oca!!# o%ned enterprises %ith state contro! are !ess !i0e!# to be non

e-porters than those %ith nonstate contro!.

)n re!ation to industr# characteristics, industr# concentration has a positive and statistica!!#

significant impact on the firms/ choice of e-port strategies. Thus, firms operating in a high!#

concentrated industr# are more !i0e!# to e-port permanent!#. o are firms operating in the e-port

oriented and !abourintensive. $!so, more productive firms are more !i0e!# to e-port continuous!#%hi!e !ess productive firms are more !i0e!# to e-port occasiona!!# or not e-port at a!!. Firm si;e and

16


17/26

age have the same inf!uence on the firms/ e-port strategies as productivit#. Thus, !arge and o!d

firms are more !i0e!# to be persistent e-porters.

. Concusions

The main contribution of this paper %as to e-amine the effects of o%nership structure and industr#

characteristics on the e-port performance in the conte-t of Chinese manufacturing firms. To achieve

this aim, three different #et re!ated mode!s %ere emp!o#ed, name!#, 2ogit mode!, Tobit mode! and

rdered probit mode!, to investigate the determinants of e-port propensit#, e-port intensit# and

e-port strategies, respective!#. "n!i0e previous studies %hich simp!# compare the e-port behaviour

of foreign firms and domestic firms, this stud# distinguishes bet%een %ho!!# foreign o%ned

enterprises, *oint ventures and %ho!!# !oca!!# o%ned enterprises, and bet%een 8MT 48ong ong,

Macao, Tai%an5 and non8MT 4main!# ECD countries5 contro!, and bet%een nonstate and state

contro! %ithin firms. Three industr# characteristics at the fourdigit !eve! industr# concentration,

industr# e-port orientation, and industr# capita! intensit# are a!so incorporated in different

specifications.

This methodo!og# provided some ne% findings. First, three different specifications gave a

consistent conc!usion that the presence of %ho!!#o%ned firms and *oint ventures %ith foreign

contro! 4non8MT contro! or 8MT contro!5 have had a positive effect on e-port propensit# and

intensit#. Firms %ith non8MT contro! are more e-portoriented than those %ith 8MT contro!.

Furthermore, firms %ith such characteristics are more !i0e!# to be persistent e-porters, %ith the

e-ception of *oint ventures %ith 8MT contro!, %hich !ess !i0e!# to e-port persistent!#. @oint

ventures %ith domestic contro! 4nonstate or state contro!5 and %ho!!# !oca!!# o%ned enterprises are

!ess !i0e!# to e-port or improve their e-port status, and have !o%er e-port intensit#.

econd, the impact of industr# concentration on e-port performance remains inconc!usive,

meaning further studies or the use a!ternative measurements are reuired. The resu!ts for the effects

of industr# e-port orientation and capita! intensit# are consistent across the three different mode!s.

The resu!ts imp!# that firms operating in e-portoriented and !abour intensive industries are more

!i0e!# to e-port, have high e-port intensities, and be persistent e-porters.

ome additiona! comments are %orth mentioning. First, the findings imp!# that the management

of entr# modes of foreign direct investment cou!d a!so inf!uence the countr#/s e-port performance.

$n# po!ic# of restricting the entr# of %ho!!# foreign o%ned enterprises ma# not be beneficia! for

Chinese e-ports since the# are the most e-portoriented. econd, the effect of industr#

concentration on the e-port performance remains unc!ear and reuires further investigation. Third,it shou!d be noted that other determinants of the e-port performance not e-amined in this paper ma#

17


18/26

e-ist. For e-amp!e it %ou!d be interesting for future research to e-amine the ro!e of research and

deve!opment 4AD5 in the China/s e-port success.

(eferences

Buc0, T., ). Fi!atotchev, ?. Demina and M. Wright, +''7, )nsider %nership, 8uman Aesource

trategies and Herformance in a Transition Econom#. , 67'6>(.

Cai, 8. and N. 2iu, +''(, Competition and Corporate Ta- $voidance9 Evidence from Chinese

)ndustria! Firms. +e "cono/ic (6.

Campa, @. and 2. . Go!dberg, 1((, The Evo!ving E-terna! rientation of Manufacturing9 $ Hrofi!e

of Four Countries.edera ;eser=e an> o& ?e* Yor> "cono/ic #oicy ;e=ie*, 67=1.

Cavusgi!, . T. and . ou, 1((>, Mar0eting trateg#Herformance Ae!ationship9 $n )nvestigationof the Empirica! 2in0 in E-port Mar0et. +e etin76=, 1+1.

Feenstra, A. C. and G. 8. 8anson, +''6, %nership and Contro! of utsourcing to China9

Estimating the Hropert#Aights Theor# of the Firm. Auartery


19/26

@efferson, G. 8., T. G. Aa%s0i and Y. hang, +''=, Hroductivit# Gro%th and Convergence $cross

ChinaQs )ndustria! Econom#..

2ai, H., +''+, Foreign Direct )nvestment in China9 Aecent Trends and Hatterns. Cina and Bord

"cono/y+, +67+.2ee, @., +''(, tate %ned Enterprises in China9 Aevie%ing the Evidence. O"C$ Bor>in7 #aper

ttp:***FoecdFor7dataoecd14342D4D3Fpd&.

2evinsohn, @. and $. Hetrin, +''7, Estimating Hroduction Functions "sing )nputs to Contro! for

"nobservab!es.;e=ie* o& "cono/ic .tudies', 717>1.

2iu, O. and C. hu, +''7, Determinants of E-port Herformance9 Evidence from Chinese )ndustries.

"cono/ics o& #annin77&, >6&.

2u, @., B. Ou and O. 2iu, +''(, The Effects of Corporate Governance and )nstitutiona!

Environments on E-port Behaviour in Emerging Economies9 Evidence from China.

@ana7e/ent Internationa ;e=ie*>(, >66>=.

?aidu, G. M. and K. . Hrasad, 1((>, Hredictors of E-port trateg# and Herformance of ma!! and

Mediumi;ed Firms.


20/26

Tabe 1 Summary Statistics about the 'ariabes

'ariabes ean Std. ,e. in ax

Dependent Variales

E-port propensit# '.766 '.>( ' 1

E-port intensit# '.+'& '.7&1 ' 1 E-port strateg# 1. +.+16 1 7

$wnership %tr&ct&re 'D&((ies)

WFEs %ith 8MT contro! '.'&= '.+6+ ' 1

WFEs %ith non8MT contro! '.'6+ '.++7 ' 1

@K %ith 8MT contro! '.'7' '.1' ' 1

@K %ith non8MT contro! '.'7 '.1=( ' 1

@K %ith state contro! '.'1= '.177 ' 1

@K %ith nonstate contro! '.'=' '.+1 ' 1

W2Es %ith state contro! '.1&6 '.71 ' 1

W2Es %ith nonstate contro! '.6>' '.>(= ' 1

!nd&stry #haracteristics

)ndustr# concentration '.'76 '.'6+ '.''7 1

)ndustr# e-port orientation '.766 '.+7> ' 1

)ndustr# capita! intensit# .'> >.(= 1.( >&.=+(

#ontrol Variales

TFH 4!og5 .+> 1.+'( 1.(1( 17.(6=

Firm i;e 4!og5 6.7+ 1.16' +.'( 1+.'+6

Firm $ge 4!og5 +.6=' '.>7 ' .&'+

?umber of Firms 7&,(>1

Tota! observations 1=>,6

)ote. WFEs%ho!!# foreign o%ned enterprises3 8MT8ong ong, Macao, and Tai%an3 @Ks@oint

Kentures3 2Es%ho!!# !oca!!# o%ned enterprise..ource: +e autorsG cacuationF

20


21/26

Tabe 2 Cassification of !irms accordin$ to Export Strate$y

&roups )umber Percent 345

?one-porters +',>> 6&.+

poradic e-porters &,++ 1&.(Hersistent e-porters (,(+6 +&.(

Tota! 7&,(>1 1''

.ource: +e autorsG cacuationF

21


22/26

Tabe / ,eterminants of Export Propensity

)ndependent Kariab!es

E-port Hropensit# 42ogit Mode!5

%nership

structure

Mode! 1

)ndustr#

Characteristics

Mode! +

Combined

Mode! 7

$wnership %tr&ct&re

WFEs %ith non8MT

contro!

+.7== 4'.''5 +.'&> 4'.''5

WFEs %ith 8MT contro! 1.&'6 4'.''5 1.+( 4'.''5

@Ks %ith non8MT contro! 1.77 4'.''5 1.+>> 4'.''5

@Ks %ith 8MT contro! '.&>( 4'.'15 '.61> 4'.'75

@Ks %ith nonstate contro! '.76 4'.115 '.>> 4'.'65

@Ks %ith state contro! '.>= 4'.'15 '.&=+ 4'.'15

W2Es %ith nonstate contro! 7.61+ 4'.''5 7.11 4'.''5 W2Es %ith state contro! 7.=1 4'.''5 7.7= 4'.''5


)ndustr# concentration '.1(( 4'.&>5 '.&+> 4'.1+5

)ndustr# e-port orientation =.&61 4'.''5 .&'> 4'.''5

)ndustr# capita! intensit# '.''+ 4'.''5 '.''7 4'.''5

#ontrol Variales

TFH 4!og5 '.+>= 4'.''5 '.>+& 4'.''5 '.+(6 4'.''5

Firm si;e 4!og5 1.6=( 4'.''5 1.6&+ 4'.''5 1.>1 4'.''5

Firm age 4!og5 '.''& 4'.==5 '.7>7 4'.''5 '.'>1 4'.+65

2og !i0e!ihood 7(6= >''>& 7=&7>

Wa!d

+

1>(6'.14'.''5 17+6(.14'.''5 17(.4'.''5

?umber of observations 1>,&> 1>,&> 1>,&>

)ote.$!! the independent variab!es are !agged one #ear. Hrovince, t%odigit industr#, and #ear fi-ed effects

are inc!uded and not sho%n. The pva!uesare reported in parentheses.

WFEs%ho!!# foreigno%ned enterprises3 8MT8ong ong, Macao, and Tai%an3 @Ks@oint Kentures3

2Es%ho!!# !oca!!#o%ned enterprise

22


23/26

Tabe 0 ,eterminants of Export Intensity

)ndependent Kariab!es

E-port )ntensit# 4Tobit Mode!5

%nership

structure

Mode! >

)ndustr#

Characteristics

Mode! 6

Combined

Mode! &

$wnership %tr&ct&re

WFEs %ith non8MT

contro!

'.11( 4'.''5 '.1+7 4'.''5

WFEs %ith 8MT contro! '.'(1 4'.''5 '.'(7 4'.''5

@Ks %ith non8MT contro! '.'&& 4'.''5 '.'1 4'.''5

@Ks %ith 8MT contro! '.'>( 4'.''5 '.'6' 4'.''5

@Ks %ith nonstate contro! '.'7& 4'.'+5 '.'76 4'.'+5

@Ks %ith state contro! '.'= 4'.''5 '.'> 4'.''5 W2Es %ith nonstate contro! '.+1 4'.''5 '.+1+ 4'.''5

W2Es %ith state contro! '.+>( 4'.''5 '.+>7 4'.''5


)ndustr# concentration '.'77 4'.+15 '.'1= 4'.>=5

)ndustr# e-port orientation '.61> 4'.''5 '.61= 4'.''5

)ndustr# capita! intensit# '.'''1 4'.''5 '.'''+ 4'.''5

#ontrol Variales

TFH 4!og5 '.''= 4'.''5 '.'1> 4'.''5 '.'1' 4'.''5

Firm si;e 4!og5 '.'=6 4'.''5 '.'=1 4'.''5 '.'=7 4'.''5

Firm age 4!og5 '.'++ 4'.''5 '.'76 4'.''5 '.'+1 4'.''5

2og !i0e!ihood 7&+>&4'.''5 7&7=4'.''5 76+'=4'.''5

Wa!d+

1(+&&.6& 1=7(&.+> ++'77.&>

?umber of observations 1>,&> 1>,&> 1>,&>


are inc!uded and not sho%n. Thep-=aues are reported in parentheses.

WFEs%ho!!# foreign o%ned enterprises3 8MT8ong ong, Macao, and Tai%an3 @Ks@oint Kentures3

2Es%ho!!# !oca!!# o%ned enterprise

23


24/26

Tabe ,eterminants of Export Strate$ies

)ndependent

Kariab!es

E-port trategies 4rdered Hrobit Mode!5

Margina! Effects

Estimates

Mode!

?one-porters

415

Mode! =

poradic

E-porters4+5

Mode! (

Hersistent

E-porters475

Mode! 1'

$wnership %tr&ct&re

WFEs %ith non8MT

contro!

'.7'&4'.''5 '.1+14'.''5 '.'7> 4'.''5 '.'= 4'.''5

WFEs %ith 8MT contro! '.'+ 4'.'>5 '.'+=4'.'>5 '.'1' 4'.'75 '.'1( 4'.'>5

@Ks %ith non8MT contro! '.1&= 4'.''5 '.'&&4'.''5 '.'+14'.''5 '.'>64'.''5

@Ks %ith 8MT contro! '.+'>4'.''5 '.'4'.''5 '.'714'.''5 '.'>&4'.''5 @Ks %ith nonstate contro! '.+64'.''5 '.1'74'.''5 '.'>+4'.''5 '.'&14'.''5

@Ks %ith state contro! '.77>4'.''5 '.1+>4'.''5 '.'6+4'.''5 '.'14'.''5

W2Es %ith nonstate contro! '.((74'.''5 '.764'.''5 '.11=4'.''5 '.+64'.''5 W2Es %ith state contro! 1.'4'.''5 '.76+4'.''5 '.1&4'.''5 '.1=64'.''5


)ndustr# concentration '.>'4'.''5 '.+==4'.''5 '.1'+4'.''5 '.1=&4'.''5

)ndustr# e-port orientation +.6&+4'.''5 '.(=>4'.''5 '.7>(4'.''5 '.&764'.''5 )ndustr# capita! intensit# '.''+4'.''5 '.''14'.''5 '.'''4'.''5 '.'''4'.''5

#ontrol Variales

TFH 4!og5 '.'>74'.''5 '.'14'.''5 '.''&4'.''5 '.'114'.''5

Firm si;e 4!og5 '.7614'.''5 '.174'.''5 '.'>(4'.''5 '.'==4'.''5 Firm age 4!og5 '.'&'4'.''5 '.'+74'.''5 '.''=4'.''5 '.'164'.''5

2og !i0e!ihood 1+,>(7.=

Wa!d+

(1'&.>4'.''5

Hseudo A+ '.+(>>?umber of observations 1=>,'6


are inc!uded and not sho%n. Thep-=aues are reported in parentheses.

WFEs%ho!!# foreign o%ned enterprises3 8MT8ong ong, Macao, and Tai%an3 @Ks@oint Kentures3

2Es%ho!!# !oca!!# o%ned enterprise

ECO)OICS ,ISC-SSIO) PAPE(S

2667

,P

)-8E(

A-T#O(S TIT9E

'(.'1 2e, $.T. E?TAY )?T "?)KEA)TY9 $AE T8E C8)2DAE? F

)MM)GA$?T D)$DK$?T$GED

'(.'+ Wu, Y. C8)?$/ C$H)T$2 TC EA)E BY AEG)? $?D ECTA

'(.'7 Chen, M.8. "?DEAT$?D)?G WA2D CMMD)TY HA)CE AET"A?,

K2$T)2)TY $?D D)KEA)F$C$T)?

'(.'> Ke!agic, A. "W$ D)C")? H$HEA )? EC?M)C9 T8E F)AT &6'

'(.'6 Mc2ure, M. AY$2T)E FA AEG)?9 $CC"?T$B)2)TY $?D

"T$)?$B)2)TY

'(.'& Chen, $. and Groene%o!d, ?. AED"C)?G AEG)?$2 D)H$A)T)E )? C8)?$9 $?

EK$2"$T)? F $2TEA?$T)KE H2)C)E

24


25/26

'(.' Groene%o!d, ?. and 8agger, $. T8E AEG)?$2 EC?M)C EFFECT F )MM)GA$T)?9

)M"2$T)? AE"2T FAM $ M$22 CGE MDE2.

'(.'= C!ements, . and Chen, D. $FF2"E?CE $?D FD9 )MH2E W$Y T )?FEA )?CME

'(.'( C!ements, . and Maesepp, M. $ E2FAEF2ECT)KE )?KEAE DEM$?D YTEM

'(.1' @ones, C. ME$"A)?G WETEA? $"TA$2)$? 8"E HA)CE9

MET8D $?D )MH2)C$T)?

'(.11 iddiue, M.$.B. WETEA? $"TA$2)$@$H$? M)?)?G CHEA$T)?9 $?

8)TA)C$2 KEAK)EW

'(.1+ Weber, E.@. HAE)?D"TA)$2 B)MET$22)M9 T8E )?DEO C)?

8YHT8E)

'(.17 Mc2ure, M. H$AET $?D H)G" ? H8E2)M)TY, "T)2)TY $?D

WE2F$AE9 )MH2)C$T)? FA H"B2)C F)?$?CE

'(.1> Weber, E.@. W)2FAED EDW$AD GA$8$M $2TEA9 T8E MEA)T F $

C2$)C$2 EC?M)C ED"C$T)?

'(.16 T#ers, A. and 8uang, 2. CMB$T)?G C8)?$/ EOHAT C?TA$CT)?9 F)C$2

EOH$?)? A $CCE2EA$TED )?D"TA)$2 AEFAM

'(.1& %eife!, H., H!aff, D. and

Uhn, @.

) AEG"2$T)?G T8E 2KE?CY F B$? C"?TEA

HAD"CT)KE

'(.1 C!ements, . T8E H8D C?FEAE?CE AE$C8E $D"2T8D

'(.1= Mc2ure, M. T8)ATY YE$A F EC?M)C9 "W$ $?D T8E W$

BA$?C8 F T8E EC?M)C C)ETY FAM 1(&7 T 1((+

'(.1( 8arris, A.G. and Aobertson, H. TA$DE, W$GE $?D )22 $CC"M"2$T)? )? T8E

EMEAG)?G G)$?T

'(.+' Heng, @., Cui, @., Nin, F. and

Groene%o!d, ?.

TC HA)CE $?D T8E M$CA EC?MY )? C8)?$

'(.+1 Chen, $. and Groene%o!d, ?. AEG)?$2 EN"$2)TY $?D ?$T)?$2 DEKE2HME?T )?

C8)?$9 ) T8EAE $ TA$DEFF

ECO)OICS ,ISC-SSIO) PAPE(S

2616

,P

)-8E

(

A-T#O(S TIT9E

1'.'1 8endr#, D.F. AEE$AC8 $?D T8E $C$DEM)C9 $ T$2E F TW

C"2T"AE

1'.'+ Mc2ure, M., Tur0ington, D. and

Weber, E.@.

$ C?KEA$T)? W)T8 $A?2D E22?EA

1'.'7 But!er, D.@., Burban0, K.. and

Chisho!m, @..

T8E FA$ME BE8)?D T8E G$ME9 H2$YEA/

HEACEHT)? F HA)?EA/ D)2EMM$,

C8)CE?, D)CT$TA, $?D "2T)M$T"M G$ME

1'.'> 8arris, A.G., Aobertson, H.E. and

Ou, @.Y.

T8E )?TEA?$T)?$2 EFFECT F C8)?$/

GAWT8, TA$DE $?D ED"C$T)? BM

1'.'6 C!ements, .W., Monge#, . and i, @. T8E DY?$M)C F ?EW AE"ACE HA@ECT $

HAGAE AEHAT

1'.'& Coste!!o, G., Fraser, H., Groene%o!d, ?. 8"E HA)CE, ??F"?D$ME?T$2

CMH?E?T $?D )?TEAT$TE H)22KEA9 T8E

25


26/26

$"TA$2)$? EOHEA)E?CE

1'.' C!ements, . AEHAT F T8E +''( H8D C?FEAE?CE )?

EC?M)C $?D B")?E

1'.'= Aobertson, H.E. )?KETME?T 2ED GAWT8 )? )?D)$9 8)?D" F$CT

A MYT82GY

1'.'( Fu, D., Wu, Y., Tang, Y. T8E EFFECT F W?EA8)H TA"CT"AE $?D)?D"TAY C8$A$CTEA)T)C ? EOHAT

HEAFAM$?CE

1'.1' Wu, Y. )??K$T)? $?D EC?M)C GAWT8 )? C8)?$

1'.11 tephens, B.@. T8E DETEAM)?$?T F 2$B"A FACE T$T"

$M?G )?D)GE?" $"TA$2)$?

10-09 the effects of ownership structure and industry characteristics on export performance

Documents