You are on page 1of 26

ECONOMICS

THE EFFECTS OF OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE AND INDUSTRY CHARACTERISTICS ON EXPORT PERFORMANCE by Dahai Fu Business Schoo The Uni!e"si#y o$ Wes#e"n Aus#"a ia Yan"ui Wu Business Schoo The Uni!e"si#y o$ Wes#e"n Aus#"a ia Yihon% Tan%

Schoo o$ In#e"na#iona T"a&e an& Econo'ics Uni!e"si#y o$ In#e"na#iona Business an& Econo'ics Bei(in% DISCUSSION PAPER )*+*,

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 b

Economics Group, Business choo!, The "niversit# of Western $ustra!ia, Cra%!e#, W$&''(, $ustra!ia 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-port1orientation and industr# capita! intensit# have a strong impact on the e-port performance of Chinese firms. JEL classification: F1, 2+, 2& Keywords: E-port performance3 Chinese firms3 ,%nership3 )ndustr# characteristics

Dahai Fu gratefu!!# ac0no%!edges financia! support from the China cho!arship Counci! 4C C5 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! $ddress9 dfu:bi;.u%a.edu.au3 Te!9 <&14=5 &>== 6&>'

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 firm1!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 Buestion9 %hat are the determinants of firms/ e-port performanceC+ 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 4Dhao and Dou, +''+5. )n particu!ar, t%o Buestions remain re!ative!# une-p!ored. First, ho% do the interactions bet%een foreign1invested firms and domestic investors %ithin the conte-t of corporate governance inf!uence their internationa! activities 4Fi!atotchev et a!., +''=5C 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 Buestions 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(((1+''7. This period corresponds to the pre1 and post1WT, 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 WT, since 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 foreign1o%ned1enterprises over China/s tota! trade reached more than &'E in recent #ears %hi!e the share of state1o%ned1enterprises continuous!# decreased to be!o% +'E. 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
ome comprehensive !iterature revie%s have been made b# Wagner 4+''F5, Greena%a# and Gne!!er 4+''F5, Dou et a!. 41((=5, and ousa et a!. 4+''=5.
2 4

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 decision1ma0ing 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 4Dhao and Dou, +''+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!!#1o%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-port1orientation 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 Firm1!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 decision1ma0ing. 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((F5. 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 1 the e-terna! environment !eve! and the interna! !eve!J 4 ousa et a!., +''=, p.7&75. )n response to ousa et a!./s ca!!, this stud# adopts an integrative frame%or0 incorporating the governance1strateg#1performance paradigm 4G H5 and the structure1conduct1 performance frame%or0 4 CH5 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.

!i$ure 1 Ana ytica !ramewor" of Ownership Structure% Industry Characteristics and Export Performance
&O'E()A)CE Who!!# foreign1o%ned @K %ith foreign contro! @K %ith domestic contro! Who!!# !oca!!#1o%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

Whi!e the impact of corporate governance on firms/ strategic decision1ma0ing 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!1agent 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%ned enterprises, *oint ventures %ith foreign contro!, *oint ventures %ith state or non1state 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 firm1specific 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 cost1!eadership advantages in China are more !i0e!# to e-port and have higher !eve! of e-port intensit#. Dhang 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-port1decision 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 eBuit# shares being he!d b# foreign mu!tinationa!s or firms from 8ong Gong, 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 eBuit# shares. $s this ma# resu!t in strategic conf!icts in re!ation to e-port1decision 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

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 4 ,Es5 and non1state 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-port1oriented industries in China 42ee, +''(5. 8o%ever, non1state enterprises tend to concentrate in e-port1intensive 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-port1oriented than those %ith non1state 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 structure1conduct1performance 4 CH5, 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 Dou, +''+5. Hrevious studies have e-amined the inf!uence of various industr# factors on e-port performance. The industr# factors previous!# e-amined inc!ude industr# concentration 4Dhao and Dou, +''+5, industr# e-port intensit# 4?aidu and Hrasad, 1((>5, industr# e-port orientation 4Campa and Go!dberg, 1((F5, industr# import protection 4Ao*ec et a!., +''>5, industr# instabi!it# 4 a0a0ibara 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 4Dhao and Dou, +''+5. There is no definitive predictive re!ationship bet%een the !eve! of industr#
8

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 uniBue 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!#1concentrated industries are dominated b# state1o%ned enterprises that are protected b# the government b# high tariff and nontariff barriers 4Dhao and Dou, +''+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 performance of 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 non1e-porting firms %ithin the same industr#, encouraging them to pursue a fo!!o%1the1pioneer strateg#. econd, an e-porter1c!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 4Gne!!er and Hisu, +''F3 un, +''(5. Therefore, %e can e-pect that firms running business in an e-port1oriented 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 reBuire re!ative!# more intensive use of those productive factors found !oca!!# in re!ative abundance 4The 8ec0scher1,h!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 !abour1intensive industries are natura!!# more competitive than firms in capita!1intensive 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.

Hypothesis 5: Firms operating in a high!# e-port1oriented 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?B C5. The database covers a!! firms %ith annua! sa!es above 6 mi!!ion yuan 4AMB5, providing detai!ed information on firm identification, four1digit 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 ?B C, 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 uniBue 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 non1reporting, 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 Dhang 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!ue1added7, 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!ue1added to sa!es va!ue must !ie bet%een ' and 13 465 the firm/s identification number must be uniBue and cannot be
3 The 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 eBua!s tota! output va!ue at the current price minus the tota! input and p!us the ta- of va!ue1added.
10

missing3 4&5 the starting #ear of the firm must be va!id and before +''73 4F5 the e-port intensit# is bounded bet%een ;ero and one. We end up %ith a va!id ba!anced1pane! 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 firm1specific covariates. The base!ine specification can be presented as fo!!o%s9
' Yit = a + b1Oi(t -1) + I ij(t -1)b2 + ' i(t -1) 3 ' b + ! it b4 + eit

415

%here subscripts i , j and t denote 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

I o%nership structure of firm i , and denotes a vector of industr# characteristics variab!es that
inc!ude industr# concentration inde-, industr# e-port1orientation 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 Varia le To e-amine the determinants of e-port propensit# in Chinese manufacturing firms, the dependent variab!e in eBuation 415 is represented b# a binar# variab!e 4
L

"!#$it 5, %hich eBua!s one %hen the

firm has positive e-ports va!ues 4 "!#it 5 in a specific #ear and ;ero other%ise.
11

1 i& "!#it% ' ( "!#$it = ( i& ot)er*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. va!ue. We ca!cu!ate the e-port intensit# using the fo!!o%ing formu!a9

"!#+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

"!#+it =

",portsit +ota- .a-esit

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 non1e-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

1 i& su/("!#$i )= ( "!#.i = 2 i& su/("!#$i ) 01142 3 i& su/("!#$i )= 3

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 "aria les 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 state1o%ned1enterprises, co!!ective!#1o%ned enterprises, overseas *oint ventures, foreign *oint ventures, and !imited !iabi!it# companies, sharing ho!ding
12

firms, 8MT enterprises, foreign invested enterprises and others. The second approach is to use the information on the sources of tota! registered capita! 4eBuit#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!!# foreign1o%ned enterprises %ith non18MT contro!3 4+5 %ho!!# foreign1o%ned enterprises %ith 8MT contro!3 475 *oint ventures %ith non18MT contro!3 4>5 *oint ventures %ith 8MT contro!3 465 *oint ventures %ith non1state contro!3 4&5 *oint ventures %ith state contro!3 4F5 %ho!!# !oca!!#1o%ned enterprises %ith non1state contro!3 4=5 %ho!!# !oca!!#1o%ned enterprises %ith state contro!. The Iother t#peJ of o%nership structure %i!! be a benchmar0. $ %ho!!# foreign invested enterprise is an enterprise %ith a!! the registered eBuit# from foreign investors, %ho are from 8ong Gong, Macao and Tai%an 48MT5 and other foreign countries 4main!# ,ECD countries5. $ %ho!!# !oca!!#1o%ned enterprise is one %ho!!#1o%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!. ?on1state 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 non1state 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 sBuares of the mar0et shares of each firm competing in a specific industr#3 4+5 industr# e-port1orientation 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-port1oriented industr#. The !o%er )C) represents a !abour1intensive industr#. These three variab!es are a!! ca!cu!ated at the four1digit industr# !eve!. #ontrol "aria les Three contro! variab!es are inc!uded in this stud#. The tota! factor productivit# 4 +4#5 %as ca!cu!ated b# emp!o#ing the 2evinsohn and Hetrin approach 4+''75 at the t%o1digit !eve!. )n the
13

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!f1se!ection h#pothesis5. We a!so contro!!ed for firm .i5e, as measured b# the number of emp!o#ees and firm 67e, 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. (esu ts 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 +O:I+ 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!# eBua! 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 non18MT contro!s 4main!# from the ,ECD countries5 have the highest e-port propensit# and e-port intensit#, %hi!e %ho!!# !oca!!#1o%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 non18MT contro! have positive coefficients, %hi!e @Ks %ith non1state 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 decision1ma0ing %ithin the enterprises. 8ence both 8#potheses 1 and + are supported. )t is a!so interesting to note that firms %ith non18MT capita! are more e-port1 oriented and e-port1intensive than those %ith 8MT capita!, %hi!e firms invo!ving state capita!s are !ess e-port1oriented and e-port1intensive than those %ith non1state capita!. These resu!ts indicate that 8#pothesis 7 is a!so supported.

14

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# eBuit# *oint venture and %ho!!# foreign1o%ned enterprises after 1(=&. ince the 1(('s the share of %ho!!# foreign1invested enterprises has gradua!!# increased, and the foreign contro! in *oint ventures has a!so increased. From 1((= on%ards, the share of %ho!!# foreign1o%ned enterprises e-ceeded that of eBuit# *oint ventures. B# +''', the share of %ho!!# foreign1o%ned enterprises and contractua! *oint ventures had accounted for =' percent of both tota! contractua! and actua! investment.> Mean%hi!e, the contribution of foreign1invested 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.>F percent to 6>.=> percent. Aecent re!ated research b# Feenstra and 8anson 4+''65 has a!so confirmed 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 Dhao and Dou 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-port1oriented and !abour1intensive 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!f1 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 eBuit#, 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.
4 This paragraph re!ies entire!# on 2ai 4+''+, p.7'5 15

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 seBuences 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 non1e-porters, sporadic e-porters and persistent e-porters. Given the categorica! and ordina! nature of the dependent variab!e, an ordered probit (O#;O:I+) mode! fits %e!!. $ccording to the resu!ts in Tab!e 6, the estimated coefficients of WF,Es %ith non18MT contro!, WF,Es %ith 8MT contro! and @Ks %ith non18MT contro! are positive and statistica!!# significant. )n particu!ar, the o%nership of WF,Es %ith non18MT contro! increases the probabi!it# of them being persistent e-porters b# =.F percent. WF,Es %ith 8MT contro! and @Ks %ith non18MT contro! have corresponding probabi!ities of about 1.(E and >.6E 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 non1state contro!, @Ks %ith state contro!, W2,Es %ith non1state contro!, and W2,Es %ith state contro!5 have a negative impact on firms/ improving their e-port status. $mong these five categories, %ho!!# !oca!!#1o%ned enterprises %ith non1state contro! are !east !i0e!# to be persistent e-porters, fo!!o%ed b# W2,Es %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 non18MT contro! have the highest probabi!it# of e-porting continuous!#. The *oint ventures %ith non18MT 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 non1e-porters than those %ith non1 state contro!. 8o%ever, %ho!!# !oca!!# o%ned enterprises %ith state contro! are !ess !i0e!# to be non1 e-porters than those %ith non1state 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-port1 oriented and !abour1intensive. $!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

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.

1. Conc usions
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 Gong, Macao, Tai%an5 and non18MT 4main!# ,ECD countries5 contro!, and bet%een non1state and state contro! %ithin firms. Three industr# characteristics at the four1digit !eve! 1 industr# concentration, industr# e-port orientation, and industr# capita! intensit# 1 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!!#1o%ned firms and *oint ventures %ith foreign contro! 4non18MT contro! or 8MT contro!5 have had a positive effect on e-port propensit# and intensit#. Firms %ith non18MT contro! are more e-port1oriented 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! 4non1state 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 reBuired. 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-port1oriented 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-port1oriented. econd, the effect of industr# concentration on the e-port performance remains unc!ear and reBuires further investigation. Third, it shou!d be noted that other determinants of the e-port performance not e-amined in this paper ma#
17

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 4AMD5 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#. <ourna- o& Internationa- :usiness .tudies 7>, 67'16>(. Cai, 8. and N. 2iu, +''(, Competition and Corporate Ta- $voidance9 Evidence from Chinese )ndustria! Firms. +)e "cono/ic <ourna- 11(, F&>1F(6. Campa, @. and 2. . Go!dberg, 1((F, The Evo!ving E-terna! ,rientation of Manufacturing9 $ Hrofi!e of Four Countries. 4edera- ;eser=e :an> o& ?e* Yor> "cono/ic #o-icy ;e=ie*, 671=1. Cavusgi!, . T. and . Dou, 1((>, Mar0eting trateg#1Herformance Ae!ationship9 $n )nvestigation of the Empirica! 2in0 in E-port Mar0et. +)e <ourna- o& @ar>etin7 6=, 11+1. Feenstra, A. C. and G. 8. 8anson, +''6, ,%nership and Contro! of ,utsourcing to China9 Estimating the Hropert#1Aights Theor# of the Firm. Auarter-y <ourna- o& "cono/ics 1+', F+(1F&1. Fi!atotchev, )., T. Buc0 and K. Dhu0ov, +''', Do%nsi;ing in Hrivati;ed Firms in Aussia, "0raine, and Be!arus. +)e 6cade/y o& @ana7e/ent <ourna- >7, +=&17'>. Fi!atotchev, )., ?. Demina, M. Wright and T. Buc0, +''1, trategic Choices, E-port ,rientation and Corporate Governance in Hrivati;ed Firms in Aussia, "0raine and Be!arus9 Theor# and Empirica! Evidence. <ourna- o& Internationa- :usiness .tudies 7+, =671=F1. Fi!atotchev, )., O. 2iu, T. Buc0 and M. Wright, +''(, The E-port ,rientation and E-port Herformance of 8igh1techno!og# MEs in Emerging Mar0ets9 The Effects of Gno%!edge Transfer b# Aeturnee Entrepreneurs. <ourna- o& Internationa- :usiness .tudies >', 1''611'+1. Fi!atotchev, )., @. tephan and B. @indra, +''=, ,%nership tructure, trategic Contro!s and E-port )ntensit# of Foreign1)nvested Firms in Transition Economies. <ourna- o& Internationa:usiness .tudies 7(, 1177111>=. Fung, 8.1G., G. Y. Gao, @. 2u and 8. Mano, +''=, )mpact of Competitive Hosition on E-port Hropensit# and )ntensit#9 $n Empirica! tud# of Manufacturing Firms in China. +)e C)inese "cono/y >1, 611&F. Gao, G. Y., @. Y. Murra#, M. Gotabe and @. 2u, +''(, $ P trateg# TripodP Herspective on E-port Behaviour9 Evidence from Domestic and Foreign Firms Based in $n Emerging Econom#. <ourna- o& Internationa- :usiness .tudies ', 11+'. Ge, Y. and Y. Chen, +''=, Foreign ,%nership and Hroductivit# of @oint Kentures. "cono/ic $e=e-op/ent and Cu-tura- C)an7e 6&, =(61(+'. Greena%a#, D. and A. $. Gne!!er, +''F, Firm 8eterogeneit#, E-porting and Foreign Direct )nvestment. +)e "cono/ic <ourna- 11F, F17>1F1&1. Guo, G. and H. ?QDia#e, +''(, )s ChinaQs E-port1,riented Gro%th ustainab!eC I@4 Bor>in7 #aper1 B#C(DC1E2F 8uang, C., M. Dhang, Y. Dhao and C. $. Karum, +''=, Determinants of E-port in China9 $ Microeconomic $na!#sis. +)e "uropean <ourna- o& $e=e-op/ent ;esearc) +', +((171F.

18

@efferson, G. 8., T. G. Aa%s0i and Y. Dhang, +''=, Hroductivit# Gro%th and Convergence $cross ChinaQs )ndustria! Econom#. <ourna- o& C)inese "cono/ic and :usiness .tudies &, 1+111>'. Gne!!er, A. and M. Hisu, +''F, )ndustria! 2in0ages and E-port pi!!overs from FD). +)e Bor-d "cono/y 7', 1'6117>. 2ai, H., +''+, Foreign Direct )nvestment in China9 Aecent Trends and Hatterns. C)ina and Bor-d "cono/y +, +617+. 2ee, @., +''(, tate ,%ned Enterprises in China9 Aevie%ing the Evidence. O"C$ Bor>in7 #aper )ttp:CC***FoecdFor7CdataoecdC14C3(C42(D34D3Fpd&. 2evinsohn, @. and $. Hetrin, +''7, Estimating Hroduction Functions "sing )nputs to Contro! for "nobservab!es. ;e=ie* o& "cono/ic .tudies F', 71F17>1. 2iu, O. and C. hu, +''7, Determinants of E-port Herformance9 Evidence from Chinese )ndustries. "cono/ics o& #-annin7 7&, >61&F. 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* >(, >661>F=. ?aidu, G. M. and K. G. Hrasad, 1((>, Hredictors of E-port trateg# and Herformance of ma!!1 and Medium1 i;ed Firms. <ourna- o& :usiness ;esearc) 71, 1'F1116. ,!!e#, G. . and $. Ha0es, 1((&, The D#namics of Hroductivit# in the Te!ecommunications EBuipment )ndustr#. "cono/etrica &>, 1+&711+(F. Hetrin, $., B. H. Hoi and @. 2evinsohn, +''>, Hroduction Function Estimation in tata "sing )nputs to Contro! for "nobservab!es. +)e .tata <ourna- >, 11711+7. Aoberts, M. @. and @. A. T#bout, 1((F, The Decision to E-port in Co!ombia9 $n Empirica! Mode! of Entr# %ith un0 Costs. 6/erican "cono/ic ;e=ie* =F, 6>616&>. Ao*ec, M., @. H. Dami*an and B. Ma*cen, +''>, E-port propensit# of Estonian and !ovenian manufacturing firms9 Does foreign o%nership matterC . "astern "uropean "cono/ics >+, 771 6>. a0a0ibara, M. and M. E. Horter, +''1, Competing at 8ome to Win $broad9 Evidence from @apanese )ndustr#. +)e ;e=ie* o& "cono/ics and .tatistics =7, 71'17++. ousa, C. M. H., F. @. MartRne;12Spe; and F. Coe!ho, +''=, The Determinants of E-port Herformance9 $ Aevie% of the Aesearch in the 2iterature Bet%een 1((= and +''6. Internationa- <ourna- o& @ana7e/ent ;e=ie*s 1', 7>717F>. un, ., +''(, 8o% Does FD) $ffect Domestic FirmsQ E-portsC )ndustria! Evidence. +)e Bor-d "cono/y 7+, 1+'711+++. Wagner, @., +''F, E-ports and Hroductivit#9 $ urve# of the Evidence from Firm1!eve! Data. +)e Bor-d "cono/y 7', &'1=+. Young, . and $. T. Tavares, +''>, Centra!i;ation and $utonom#9 Bac0 to the Future. Internationa:usiness ;e=ie* 17, +161+7F. Dhang, G. 8. and . ong, +''1, Hromoting E-ports9 the Ao!e of )n%ard FD) in China. C)ina "cono/ic ;e=ie* 11, 7=617(&. Dhao, 8. and . Dou, +''+, The )mpact of )ndustr# Concentration and Firm 2ocation on E-port Hropensit# and )ntensit#9 $n Empirica! $na!#sis of Chinese Manufacturing Firms. <ourna- o& Internationa- @ar>etin7 1', 6+1F1. Dou, . and . tan, 1((=, The Determinants of E-port Herformance9 $ Aevie% of the Empirica! 2iterature bet%een 1(=F and 1((F. Internationa- @ar>etin7 ;e=ie* 16, 777176&.

19

Tab e 1 Summary Statistics about the 'ariab es


'ariab es Dependent Varia les E-port propensit# E-port intensit# E-port strateg# $wnership %tr&ct&re 'D&((ies) WF,Es %ith 8MT contro! WF,Es %ith non18MT contro! @K %ith 8MT contro! @K %ith non18MT contro! @K %ith state contro! @K %ith nonstate contro! W2,Es %ith state contro! W2,Es %ith nonstate contro! !nd&stry #haracteristics )ndustr# concentration )ndustr# e-port orientation )ndustr# capita! intensit# #ontrol Varia les TFH 4!og5 Firm i;e 4!og5 Firm $ge 4!og5 ?umber of Firms Tota! observations .ean '.766 '.+'& 1.FFF '.'&= '.'6+ '.'7' '.'7F '.'1= '.'=' '.1&6 '.6>' '.'76 '.766 FF.'F> F.+>F 6.7+F +.6=' 7&,(>1 1=>,F6 Std. ,e2. '.>F( '.7&1 +.+16 '.+6+ '.++7 '.1F' '.1=( '.177 '.+F1 '.7F1 '.>(= '.'6+ '.+7> >F.(= 1.+'( 1.16' '.F>7 .in ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '.''7 ' 1.( 11.(1( +.'F( ' .ax 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 >F&.=+( 17.(6= 1+.'+6 F.&'+

)ote. WF,EsT%ho!!# foreign o%ned enterprises3 8MTT8ong Gong, Macao, and Tai%an3 @KsT@oint Kentures3 2,EsT%ho!!# !oca!!# o%ned enterprise. .ource: +)e aut)orsG ca-cu-ationF

20

Tab e 2 C assification of !irms accordin$ to Export Strate$y


&roups ?one-porters poradic e-porters Hersistent e-porters Tota! .ource: +)e aut)orsG ca-cu-ationF )umber +',F>> &,+F+ (,(+6 7&,(>1 Percent 345 6&.+ 1&.( +&.( 1''

21

Tab e / ,eterminants of Export Propensity


E-port Hropensit# 42ogit Mode!5 ,%nership )ndustr# Combined )ndependent Kariab!es structure Mode! 1 $wnership %tr&ct&re WF,Es %ith non18MT contro! WF,Es %ith 8MT contro! @Ks %ith non18MT contro! @Ks %ith 8MT contro! @Ks %ith nonstate contro! @Ks %ith state contro! W2,Es %ith nonstate contro! W2,Es %ith state contro! !nd&stry #haracteristics )ndustr# concentration )ndustr# e-port orientation )ndustr# capita! intensit# #ontrol Varia les TFH 4!og5 Firm si;e 4!og5 Firm age 4!og5 2og !i0e!ihood Wa!d ?umber of observations
+

Characteristics Mode! + Mode! 7 +.'&> 4'.''5 1.+(F 4'.''5 1.+>> 4'.''5 '.61> 4'.'75 1'.>>F 4'.'65 1'.&=+ 4'.'15 17.1F1 4'.''5 17.7=F 4'.''5 '.1(( 4'.&>5 =.&61 4'.''5 1'.''+ 4'.''5 '.&+> 4'.1+5 F.&'> 4'.''5 1'.''7 4'.''5 '.+(6 4'.''5 1.>F1 4'.''5 '.'>1 4'.+65 17=&7> 17FF(.F4'.''5 1>F,F&>

+.7== 4'.''5 1.&'6 4'.''5 1.77F 4'.''5 '.&>( 4'.'15 1'.7F6 4'.115 1'.F>= 4'.'15 17.61+ 4'.''5 17.=1F 4'.''5

'.+>= 4'.''5 1.6=( 4'.''5 '.''& 4'.==5 17(6=F 1>(6'.14'.''5 1>F,F&>

'.>+& 4'.''5 1.6&+ 4'.''5 1'.7>7 4'.''5 1>''>& 17+6(.14'.''5 1>F,F&>

)ote. $!! the independent variab!es are !agged one #ear. Hrovince, t%o1digit industr#, and #ear fi-ed effects are inc!uded and not sho%n. The p1va!ues are reported in parentheses. WF,EsT%ho!!# foreign1o%ned enterprises3 8MTT8ong Gong, Macao, and Tai%an3 @KsT@oint Kentures3 2,EsT%ho!!# !oca!!#1o%ned enterprise

22

Tab e 0 ,eterminants of Export Intensity


E-port )ntensit# 4Tobit Mode!5 ,%nership )ndependent Kariab!es structure Mode! > $wnership %tr&ct&re WF,Es %ith non18MT contro! WF,Es %ith 8MT contro! @Ks %ith non18MT contro! @Ks %ith 8MT contro! @Ks %ith nonstate contro! @Ks %ith state contro! W2,Es %ith nonstate contro! W2,Es %ith state contro! !nd&stry #haracteristics )ndustr# concentration )ndustr# e-port orientation )ndustr# capita! intensit# #ontrol Varia les TFH 4!og5 Firm si;e 4!og5 Firm age 4!og5 2og !i0e!ihood Wa!d ?umber of observations
+

)ndustr# Characteristics Mode! 6

Combined

Mode! & '.1+7 4'.''5 '.'(7 4'.''5 '.'F1 4'.''5 '.'6' 4'.''5 1'.'76 4'.'+5 1'.'F> 4'.''5 1'.+1+ 4'.''5 1'.+>7 4'.''5

'.11( 4'.''5 '.'(1 4'.''5 '.'&& 4'.''5 '.'>( 4'.''5 1'.'7& 4'.'+5 1'.'F= 4'.''5 1'.+1F 4'.''5 1'.+>( 4'.''5 1'.'77 4'.+15 '.61> 4'.''5 1'.'''1 4'.''5 '.''= 4'.''5 '.'=6 4'.''5 1'.'++ 4'.''5 17&+>&4'.''5 1(+&&.6& 1>F,F&> '.'1> 4'.''5 '.'=1 4'.''5 1'.'76 4'.''5 17&7F=4'.''5 1=7(&.+> 1>F,F&>

1'.'1= 4'.>=5 '.61= 4'.''5 1'.'''+ 4'.''5 '.'1' 4'.''5 '.'=7 4'.''5 1'.'+1 4'.''5 176+'=4'.''5 ++'77.&> 1>F,F&>

)ote. $!! the independent variab!es are !agged one #ear. Hrovince, t%o1digit industr#, and #ear fi-ed effects are inc!uded and not sho%n. The p-=a-ues are reported in parentheses. WF,EsT%ho!!# foreign o%ned enterprises3 8MTT8ong Gong, Macao, and Tai%an3 @KsT@oint Kentures3 2,EsT%ho!!# !oca!!# o%ned enterprise

23

Tab e 1 ,eterminants of Export Strate$ies


E-port trategies 4,rdered Hrobit Mode!5 )ndependent Kariab!es Margina! Effects poradic E-porters4T+5 Mode! (

Estimates

?one-porters 4T15 Mode! =

Hersistent E-porters4T75 Mode! 1'

Mode! F $wnership %tr&ct&re WF,Es %ith non18MT contro! WF,Es %ith 8MT contro! @Ks %ith non18MT contro! @Ks %ith 8MT contro! @Ks %ith nonstate contro! @Ks %ith state contro! W2,Es %ith nonstate contro! W2,Es %ith state contro! !nd&stry #haracteristics )ndustr# concentration )ndustr# e-port orientation )ndustr# capita! intensit# #ontrol Varia les TFH 4!og5 Firm si;e 4!og5 Firm age 4!og5 2og !i0e!ihood Wa!d Hseudo A+ ?umber of observations '.7'&4'.''5 '.'F+ 4'.'>5 '.1&= 4'.''5 1'.+'>4'.''5 1'.+F64'.''5 1'.77>4'.''5 1'.((74'.''5 11.'FF4'.''5 '.F>'4'.''5 +.6&+4'.''5 1'.''+4'.''5 '.'>74'.''5 '.7614'.''5 '.'&'4'.''5 11+F,>(7.= (1'&F.>4'.''5 '.+(>> 1=>,F'6

1'.1+14'.''5 1'.'+=4'.'>5 1'.'&&4'.''5 '.'FF4'.''5 '.1'74'.''5 '.1+>4'.''5 '.7F64'.''5 '.76+4'.''5 1'.+==4'.''5 1'.(=>4'.''5 '.''14'.''5 1'.'1F4'.''5 1'.17F4'.''5 1'.'+74'.''5

'.'7> 4'.''5 '.'1' 4'.'75 '.'+14'.''5 1'.'714'.''5 1'.'>+4'.''5 1'.'6+4'.''5 1'.11=4'.''5 1'.1&F4'.''5 '.1'+4'.''5 '.7>(4'.''5 1'.'''4'.''5 '.''&4'.''5 '.'>(4'.''5 '.''=4'.''5

'.'=F 4'.''5 '.'1( 4'.'>5 '.'>64'.''5 1'.'>&4'.''5 1'.'&14'.''5 1'.'F14'.''5 1'.+6F4'.''5 1'.1=64'.''5 '.1=&4'.''5 '.&764'.''5 1'.'''4'.''5 '.'114'.''5 '.'==4'.''5 '.'164'.''5

)ote. $!! the independent variab!es are !agged one #ear. Hrovince, t%o1digit industr#, and #ear fi-ed effects are inc!uded and not sho%n. The p-=a-ues are reported in parentheses. WF,EsT%ho!!# foreign o%ned enterprises3 8MTT8ong Gong, Macao, and Tai%an3 @KsT@oint Kentures3 2,EsT%ho!!# !oca!!# o%ned enterprise ECO)O.ICS ,ISC-SSIO) PAPE(S 2667 ,P )-.8E (
'(.'1 '(.'+ '(.'7 '(.'> '(.'6 '(.'&

A-T#O(S
2e, $.T. Wu, Y. Chen, M.8. Ke!agic, A. Mc2ure, M. Chen, $. and Groene%o!d, ?.

TIT9E
E?TAY )?T, "?)KEA )TY9 $AE T8E C8)2DAE? ,F )MM)GA$?T D) $DK$?T$GEDC C8)?$/ C$H)T$2 T,CG EA)E BY AEG),? $?D ECT,A "?DEA T$?D)?G W,A2D C,MM,D)TY HA)CE AET"A? , K,2$T)2)TY $?D D)KEA )F$C$T),? "W$ D) C" ),? H$HEA )? EC,?,M)C 9 T8E F)A T &6'

A,Y$2T)E F,A AEG),? 9 $CC,"?T$B)2)TY $?D " T$)?$B)2)TY AED"C)?G AEG),?$2 D) H$A)T)E )? C8)?$9 $? EK$2"$T),? ,F $2TEA?$T)KE H,2)C)E 24

'(.'F '(.'= '(.'( '(.1' '(.11 '(.1+ '(.17 '(.1> '(.16 '(.1& '(.1F '(.1= '(.1( '(.+' '(.+1

Groene%o!d, ?. and 8agger, $. C!ements, G. and Chen, D. C!ements, G. and Maesepp, M. @ones, C. iddiBue, M.$.B. Weber, E.@. Mc2ure, M. Weber, E.@. T#ers, A. and 8uang, 2. D%eife!, H., H!aff, D. and GUhn, @. C!ements, G. Mc2ure, M. 8arris, A.G. and Aobertson, H. Heng, @., Cui, @., Nin, F. and Groene%o!d, ?. Chen, $. and Groene%o!d, ?.

T8E AEG),?$2 EC,?,M)C EFFECT ,F )MM)GA$T),?9 )M"2$T),? AE "2T FA,M $ M$22 CGE M,DE2. $FF2"E?CE $?D F,,D9 )MH2E W$Y T, )?FEA )?C,ME $ E2F1AEF2ECT)KE )?KEA E DEM$?D Y TEM ME$ "A)?G WE TEA? $" TA$2)$? 8," E HA)CE 9 MET8,D $?D )MH2)C$T),? WE TEA? $" TA$2)$1@$H$? M)?)?G C,1,HEA$T),?9 $? 8) T,A)C$2 ,KEAK)EW HAE1)?D" TA)$2 B)MET$22) M9 T8E )?DEO C,)? 8YHT8E ) H$AET, $?D H)G," ,? ,H8E2)M)TY, "T)2)TY $?D WE2F$AE9 )MH2)C$T),? F,A H"B2)C F)?$?CE W)2FAED EDW$AD GA$8$M $2TEA9 T8E MEA)T ,F $ C2$ )C$2 EC,?,M)C ED"C$T),? C,MB$T)?G C8)?$/ EOH,AT C,?TA$CT),?9 F) C$2 EOH$? ),? ,A $CCE2EA$TED )?D" TA)$2 AEF,AM ) AEG"2$T)?G T8E ,2KE?CY ,F B$?G C,"?TEA1 HA,D"CT)KEC T8E H8D C,?FEAE?CE AE$C8E $D"2T8,,D T8)ATY YE$A ,F EC,?,M)C 9 "W$ $?D T8E W$ BA$?C8 ,F T8E EC,?,M)C ,C)ETY FA,M 1(&7 T, 1((+ TA$DE, W$GE $?D G)22 $CC"M"2$T),? )? T8E EMEAG)?G G)$?T T,CG HA)CE $?D T8E M$CA, EC,?,MY )? C8)?$ AEG),?$2 EN"$2)TY $?D ?$T),?$2 DEKE2,HME?T )? C8)?$9 ) T8EAE $ TA$DE1,FFC

ECO)O.ICS ,ISC-SSIO) PAPE(S 2616 ,P )-.8E (


1'.'1 1'.'+ 1'.'7

A-T#O(S
8endr#, D.F. Mc2ure, M., Tur0ington, D. and Weber, E.@. But!er, D.@., Burban0, K.G. and Chisho!m, @. .

TIT9E
AE E$AC8 $?D T8E $C$DEM)C9 $ T$2E ,F TW, C"2T"AE $ C,?KEA $T),? W)T8 $A?,2D DE22?EA T8E FA$ME BE8)?D T8E G$ME 9 H2$YEA/ HEACEHT),? ,F HA) ,?EA/ D)2EMM$, C8)CGE?, D)CT$T,A, $?D "2T)M$T"M G$ME T8E )?TEA?$T),?$2 EFFECT ,F C8)?$/ GA,WT8, TA$DE $?D ED"C$T),? B,,M T8E DY?$M)C ,F ?EW AE ,"ACE HA,@ECT $ HA,GAE AEH,AT 8," E HA)CE , ?,?1F"?D$ME?T$2 C,MH,?E?T $?D )?TEA T$TE H)22,KEA 9 T8E 25

1'.'> 1'.'6 1'.'&

8arris, A.G., Aobertson, H.E. and Ou, @.Y. C!ements, G.W., Monge#, . and i, @. Coste!!o, G., Fraser, H., Groene%o!d, ?.

$" TA$2)$? EOHEA)E?CE 1'.'F 1'.'= 1'.'( C!ements, G. Aobertson, H.E. Fu, D., Wu, Y., Tang, Y. AEH,AT ,F T8E +''( H8D C,?FEAE?CE )? EC,?,M)C $?D B" )?E )?KE TME?T 2ED GA,WT8 )? )?D)$9 8)?D" F$CT ,A MYT8,2,GYC T8E EFFECT ,F ,W?EA 8)H TA"CT"AE $?D )?D" TAY C8$A$CTEA) T)C ,? EOH,AT HEAF,AM$?CE )??,K$T),? $?D EC,?,M)C GA,WT8 )? C8)?$ T8E DETEAM)?$?T ,F 2$B,"A F,ACE T$T" $M,?G )?D)GE?," $" TA$2)$?

1'.1' 1'.11

Wu, Y. tephens, B.@.

26