Advertisement

Review of World Economics

, Volume 146, Issue 1, pp 113–146 | Cite as

Trade integration and within-plant productivity evolution in Chile

  • Maria BasEmail author
  • Ivan Ledezma
Original Paper

Abstract

We analyze the impact of trade integration on plant TFP using Chilean plant-level data (1982–1999) and 3-digit bilateral trade flows. Our contribution is to disentangle the impact of export and import barriers, estimated as border effects within a multilateral context. A fall in export barriers is positively correlated with plant productivity in traded sectors. The reduction of import barriers, however, can only be associated to productivity improvements in export-oriented sectors. In import-competing sectors a robust positive correlation shows up between plant productivity and protection. We then test several channels linking trade integration and firm productivity.

Keywords

Trade barriers Plant productivity Firm heterogeneity Plant-level data 

JEL Classification

F1 F4 O1 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Pol Antras, Jose Miguel Benavente, Gene Grossman, Thierry Mayer, Jacques Mairesse, Nina Pavcnik, Andrea Repetto and James Tybout for helpful comments.

References

  1. Aghion, P., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., Howitt, P. & Prantl, S. (2009). The effects of entry on incumbent innovation and productivity. Review of Economics and Statistics, 91(1), 20–32.Google Scholar
  2. Alvarez, R., & Lopez, R. (2005). Exporting and performance: Evidence from Chilean plants. Canadian Journal of Economics, 38(4), 1384–1400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amiti, M., & Konings, J. (2007). Trade liberalization, intermediate inputs, and productivity: Evidence from Indonesia. American Economic Review, 97(5), 1611–1638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, J. E., & van Wincoop, E. (2003). Gravity with gravitas : A solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review, 93(1), 170–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, J. E., & van Wincoop, E. (2004). Trade costs. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(1), 691–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies, 58(1), 277–297.Google Scholar
  7. Baier, S. L., & Bergstrand, J. H. (2001). The growth of world trade: Tariffs, transport costs and income similarity. Journal of International Economics, 53(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bond, S. (2002). Dynamic panel data models: A guide to micro data methods and practice. Portuguese Economic Journal, 1, 141–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bergoeing, R., Kehoe, P. J., Kehoe, T. J., & Soto, R. (2002). Policy-driven productivity in Chile and Mexico in the 1980s and 1990s. American Economic Association, 92(2), 16–21.Google Scholar
  10. Bergoeing, R., Loayza, N. & Repetto, A. (2004). Slow recoveries. Journal of Development Economics, 75(2), 473–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bergoeing, R., Micco, A. & Repetto, A. (2005). Dissecting the Chilean export boom. (Working Paper CEA), Universidad de Chile.Google Scholar
  12. Bergoeing, R., Hernando, A., & Repetto, A. (2006). Market reforms and efficiency gains in Chile. (Working Paper CEA), University of Chile.Google Scholar
  13. Bernard, A. B., Jensen, J. B., & Shott, P. K. (2006). Survival of the best fit: Exposure to low-wage countries and the (uneven) growth of US manufacturing plants. Journal of International Economics, 68(1), 219–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Blundell, R., Griffith, R. & Van Reenen, J. (1999). Market share, market value and innovation in a panel of British manufacturing firms. Review of Economic Studies, 66(3), 529–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crépon, B. & Duguet, E. (1997). Research and development, competition and innovation pseudo maximum likelihood and simulated maximum likelihood methods applied to count data models with heterogeneity. Journal of Econometrics, 79, 355–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Loecker, J. (2007). Do exports generate higher productivity? Evidence from Slovenia. Journal of International Economics, 73(1), 69–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Devarajan, S. & Rodrik, D. (1989). Trade liberalization in developing countries: Do imperfect competition and scale economies matter? The American Economic Review, 79(2), 283–287.Google Scholar
  18. Feenstra, R. C. (2003). Advanced international trade: Theory and evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fontagné, L., Mayer, T. & Zignago, S. (2005). Trade in the triad: How easy is the access to large markets? Canadian Journal of Economics, 38(4), 1402–1430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harrigan, J. (1996). Openness to trade in manufactures in the OECD. Journal of International Economics, 40(1–2), 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Head, K., & Mayer, T. (2000). Non-Europe: The magnitude and causes of market fragmentation in Europe. Weltwirschaftliches Archiv/Review of World Economics, 136(2), 285–314.Google Scholar
  22. Greene, W. (2008). Econometric analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall editions.Google Scholar
  23. Kasahara, H., & Rodriguez, J. (2008). Does the use of imported intermediates increase productivity? Plant-level evidence. Journal of Development Economics, 87, 106–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Katayama, H., Lu, S. & Tybout, J. (2009). Firm-level productivity studies: Illusions and a solution. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 27, 403–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kraay, A. (2002). Exports and economic performance: Evidence from a panel of Chinese firms. In Renard M. F. (Ed.) China and its regions, economic growth and reform in Chinese Provinces (pp. 278–299). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  26. Levinsohn, J., & Petrin, A. (2003). Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables. Review of Economic Studies, 70(2), 317–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liu, L., & Tybout, J. (1996). Productivity growth in Colombia and Chile: Panel-based evidence on the role of entry, exit and learning. In Roberts, M. & Tybout, J. (Eds.) Industrial Evolution in Developing Countries. New York : Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. McCallum, J. (1995). National borders matter. American Economic Review, 85(3), 615–623.Google Scholar
  29. Nicita, A., & M. Olarreaga (2001). Trade and production, 1976-99. (Policy research working paper series 2701). Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  30. Nicoletti, G., & Scarpetta, S. (2003). Regulation, productivity and growth: OECD evidence. Economic Policy, 36, 9–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Olley, S., & Pakes, A. (1996). The dynamics of productivity in the telecommunication equipment industry. Econometrica, 64(6), 1263–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pavcnik, N. (2002). Trade liberalisation, exit and productivity improvement: Evidence from Chilean plants. Review of Economic Studies, 69(1), 245–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Redding, S., & Venables, A. (2004). Economic geography and international inequality. Journal of International Economics, 62(1), 53–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rodrik, D. (1992). Closing the technology gap: Does trade liberalization really help? In H. Gerald (Ed.) Trade policy, industrialization and development: New perspectives. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  35. Santos Silva, J. M. C. & Tenreyro, S. (2006). The log of gravity. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88, 641–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schor, A. (2004). Heterogeneous productivity response to tariff reduction: Evidence from Brazilian manufacturing firms. Journal of Development Economics, 75(2), 373–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tingvall, P. & Poldahl, A. (2006). Is there really an inverted U-shaped relation between competition and R&D. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15(2), 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Windmeijer, F. (2005). A finite sample correction for the variance of linear eficient two-step GMM estimators. Journal of Econometrics, 126(1), 25–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kiel Institute 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Paris School of Economics and CEPII (Centre d’Etudes Prospectives et d’Informations Internationales)ParisFrance
  2. 2.Paris School of Economics and Université Paris-Dauphine LEDa-DIALParisFrance

Personalised recommendations