Appendix：International Business Review 13 (2004) 383–400Sources of export success in small and medium-sized enterprises: the impact of publicprogramsRoberto Alvarez EDepartment of Economics, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile Abstract 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- andmedium-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. Y et, 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 1990–1996. 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 representmore 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 1Source: 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 manage ment, (iii) manager’s 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 innovation2.2.2. 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 co mparative advantage, real exchange fluctuations tend to be a more important obstacle forsporadic 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 significantdifferences 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 1996–1999 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 firm’s 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 firm’s 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附录：国际商业评论13期（2004）383-400中小企业出口成功的根源探究：公共服务的影响罗伯特-艾薇儿智利圣地亚哥经济系摘要本文分析了中小企业中公司出口的不同点。