中小企业外文翻译

1、Appendix ：International Business Review 13 (2004) 383400Sources of export success in small andmedium-sized enterprises: the impact of publicprogramsRoberto Alvarez EDepartment of Economics, University of Chile, Santiago, ChileAbstract This paper analyzes differences in firm exporter performance for

2、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 explanat

3、ions 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 interven

4、tion are better than others: trade shows and trade missions do not affect the probability of exporting permanently, but exporter committees show a positive and significant impact.Key words: Export performance; Export promotion; Small- and medium-sized enterprises1 IntroductionInternational evidence

5、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 capab

6、ilities 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 su

7、ccessful exporters.There are, however, firms within the group of SMEs that have been able to compete successfully in international markets. Yet, few empirical studies exploit this fact. This paper contributes to the discussion of firm exporter performance in four ways. First, we compare exporter per

8、formance 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 em

9、pirical 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 empir

10、ical 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. Howe

11、ver, 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: onl

12、y about a 7% can be classified as permanent exporters. Contrast this with large-sized firms, where successful exporters represent more than 40% of the firms in this group (Table 1).The main question we ask here is why some SMEs are more successful exporters thanothers firms of a similar size. In the

13、 next section, we explore various explanations through theuse 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 exportperformance. The fourth section concludes.Table 1Expor

14、t statusSmallMediumLargeN%N%N%Non-exporter428486.078048.013225.6Sporadic exporter65013.165940.622042.6Permanent exporter470.918511.416431.8Total4981100.01624100.0516100.0Sporadic/total_93.3_78.1_57.3exportersSource: Owncalculationbased onNationwideSurvey ofManufacturingEstablishments (ENIA).2 Possib

15、le explanationsInthissection,weexplorepossibleexplanationsfor differencesinfirmexporterperformance.Theapproachaimstoestablishiftherearesignificantdifferencesinfirmactivities that would explain whysome SMEsaremoresuccessfulthanothers.First,wepresent the data source. Second, we test for the existence

16、of statistical differences over fouraspects:(i)technologicalinnovation,(ii)internationalbusinessmanagement,(iii)managerperceptionsabout obstaclesto exporter performance,and (iv)utilizationof publicinstrumentsavailabletoSMEsforenhancingproductivityandtechnologicalcapabilities,increasing exports, and

17、improving access to capital markets.2.2.1 Technological innovationTechnological innovationmayaffecttheexportstatusofa firmbyincreasingproductivity(andreducingcosts) and/orbydevelopingnew goodsforinternationalmarkets. This maybe analyzed in thecontextoffirmsthatcompetein differentiatedproduct markets

18、. Firms may sell low-qualitygoods in domestic markets,but they mustupgrade to technologies that produce high-quality goods if they wish to sell abroad then.We test for differences in three types of innovativeactivities: productinnovation,process innovation, and organizational innovation. The results

19、 are shown in Table 2, andsuggest that there are differences between both groups of exporters. Though permanentexporters engage product innovation in greater intensity than do sporadic exporters, thisdifferenceis notsignificant.However,significantdifferencesexistforprocess andorganizational innovati

20、on. The results show that permanent exporters innovate more thansporadic exporters in outsourcingand the computer-basedmodernizationof productiveprocesses. With respect to the introduction of organizational innovation, permanent exporters are more innovative in terms of introducing re-engineering in

21、to administrative processes and for total quality development.Table 2Technological innovationType of innovationDifference aDifference by sectorProduct innovationTechnological improvements0.110.15New products0.51-0.16Changes in design0.100.10Changes in packaging0.43-0.11Process innovationPurchases of

22、 specialized machinery0.170.09Introduction of quality control0.380.05Outsourcing0.93-0.22Introduction of information0.77-0.28technologiesInnovation in managementIntroduction of strategic planning0.60-0.16Introduction of re-engineering0.90-0.38Introduction of total quality0.69-0.27Introduction of spe

23、cialization and0.54-0.09role definition2.2.2. 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, am

24、ong 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 su

25、rvey, 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

26、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 spor

27、adic 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

28、 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 f

29、irm-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 t

30、hat a lower and/or unstable real exchange rate more greatly affects sporadic exporters than permanent exporters. One interesting result is that the interactive variable between status and sectoris positive and significant. This reveals that in sectors of the economy without a comparative advantage,

31、real exchange fluctuations tend to be a more important obstacle for sporadic exporters.With regard to credit access, the evidence indicates that liquidity constraints are morerelevant for sporadic exporters. This finding in and of itself, however, is not conclusive withrespect to a causality relatio

32、nship. One interpretationis that credit constraints limit thepossibility to remain as an exporter. This is plausible for small firms that are traditionallymore restrictedthan larger firms. An alternativeinterpretationis that capital marketsassociate greater business risk with sporadic exporters, and

33、 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

34、-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

35、 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

36、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.

37、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 u

38、sed 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 spo

39、radic exporters. With regard to ProChile instruments, firm participation has been 26.9% for permanent exporters, and 14.5% for sporadic exporters .The evidence in the previous section suggests that there are significant differences in the firm behavior according to exporter status. In this section,

40、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 overthe period 1996 1999 and 0 if the firm has been a sporadic exporter. For the econometric estimation, the

41、 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 bythe firm s export status. In fact, firms that export permanently may eb not only more likely

42、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

43、the impact of a firm 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 exp

44、ort), andnot 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。 普遍认为， 这些中小企业在国际市场竞争中存在一些弱点。然而，也有研究表明，这些公司中也存在非常成功的，通过分析来自智利公司的数据，我们研究了小型和大型出口商之间的不同，研究结果显

45、示，在国际商务中更多要做的就是良好的服务，过程的创新，以及在出口中积极地做好推广都会对中小企业的发展起到促进作用。另外，我们发现有些形式的干预比其他的要好：交易会和贸易代表团不会影响长久出口的可能性，但是，出口国委员会会起到积极地影响作用。关键词：出口实绩；出口促进；中小企业概述国际贸易实际表明公司的规模会影响出口实绩，我们已经发现一些原因来解释为什么大型企业在国际市场更占优势。经济规模越大，专业化程度越高，更容易在资本市场获得财富，更能够提高其抵御风险的能力。并且，从来自罗伯特、波特、伯纳多和杰森的研究可以得出中小企业在走向成功出口商的道路上比大型企业面临更多的限制。然而，一些实证证实，在中

46、小企业中已经有些公司能够成功的在国际市场上进行竞争。本文从四个方面对出口公司进行分析。第一，比较相同规模公司的出口实绩；第二，仅对于出口公司，区别小型和大型专业化出口企业；第三，对295 家出口商进行详细的调查，这个调查收集信息公司活动不是传统上包括在其他的实证研究。第四，我们对一个最近几年出口多样化大幅提升的国家智利进行研究取证，智利的发展对于世界其他发展中国家的中小企业提高国际竞争力具有积极地作用。本文基于两个很明显的事实，首先，通过对其他国家经济现状的分析，得出出口可能性中小企业比大型企业低。例如，在智利的加工企业，在 1990 年到 1996 年期间，仅有 14% 的中小企业实现了产品

47、出口。然而，在相同时期，74% 的大型企业已经实现了出口。另外，出口商的数量正在持续减少。在这些出口公司中，仅有20% 能够在这期间实现连续出口， 中小企业的成功出口商比例就更低了， 仅仅 7% 能够实现长久出口。和那些大型企业相比，成功出口商占据了大约 40% 。表 1 1990-1996 年智利制造业出口现状小型中型大型出口现状数量百分比数量百分比数量百分比非出口商428486.078048.013225.6零星出口商65013.165940.622042.6永久出口商470.918511.416431.8合计4981100.01624100.0516100.0数据来源：全国范围制造业调查

48、数据在此我们关键要分析的是为什么有些中小企业会比和他规模相同企业做的成功。接下来第二部分，我们对零星的和长久的出口公司进行专业调查。第三部分，通过建立 Probit 模型来分析影响出口实绩的决定性因素。第四部分得出结论进行总结。可能的解释这一部分，我们探讨关于出口商的不同点。这一步的目的是证实，公司活动的差异，能否解释为何有些中小企业会比其他同类企业更加成功。首先，我们利用数据来分析。再者我们从四个方面测试存在的问题：技术革新国际企业管理管理者对出口障碍的预见中小企业利用公共工具提高生产效率和科研能力,增加出口 ,进入资本市场。2.2.1科技创新科技创新会通过提高生产效率或研制国际市场新产品来

49、影响出口现状。这可能是分析的背景下,企业之间的竞争在分化的产品市场。企业或许会在国内市场出售低质量的产品，但是如果他们想把自己的商品出售到国外，就必须提高他们的科学技术进而生产出高质量的商品。我们从三种不同的创新方式进行探究：产品创新、过程创新和组织创新。我们将研究结果通过表二呈现，它显示出在所有出口商之间都存在不同。长久出口商比零星出口商更重视科技创新，这个不同点还不是最主要的。然而，主要不同点在于过程和组织的创新方面。结果显示，长久出口商比中小企业在生产过程中更多的采用专业化地电脑科技，长久出口商更加具有创新性，为产品质量的提高投入比较大。表 2科技创新创新种类不同行业差异产品创新技术改良0.110.15新产品0.51-0.16设计上的革新0.100.10包装的改良0.43-0.11过程创新专业机械的数量0.170.09引入质量监测0.380.05外包0.93-0.22引入信息技术0.77-0.28管理创新引进发展战略0.60-0.16重组0.90-0.38引入全面质量0.6