Review of World Economics

, Volume 150, Issue 3, pp 471–505 | Cite as

Trading firms in the services sectors: comparable evidence from four EU countries

  • Stefanie A. HallerEmail author
  • Jože Damijan
  • Ville Kaitila
  • Črt Kostevc
  • Mika Maliranta
  • Emmanuel Milet
  • Daniel Mirza
  • Matija Rojec
Original Paper


We establish a set of stylised facts for trade and trading firms in five market services sectors using comparable firm- and activity-level data from four EU countries. Our analysis shows that exports account for much lower shares of overall sales in the services sectors than in manufacturing. This is because fewer firms are engaged in trade in the services sectors and also because within particular sectors firms trade a lower share of their sales on average. Services producers trade mostly goods, but in terms of value, trade in services is much more important to them than to manufacturers. Larger and more productive firms are more likely to be two-way traders and to engage in both goods and services trade. Trade by services firms is somewhat less dominated by firms that both export and import than trade by manufacturing firms. Few firms export many services or to many countries. The value of services exports is increasing in the number of markets served but not necessarily in the number of services traded.


Exports Imports Services International comparison 

JEL Classification

F14 D22 L80 



This project is funded by the European Commission, Research Directorate General as part of the 7th Framework Programme, Theme 8: Socio-Economic Sciences and Humanities, Grant Agreement No. 244552 (SERVICEGAP). This publication reflects the views of the authors and not those of the institutions they are affiliated with. The European Commission is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.


  1. Amador, J., & Opromolla, L. (2013). Product and destination mix in export markets. Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), 149(1), 23–53.Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, M., Lööf, H., & Johansson, S. (2008). Productivity and international trade: Firm level evidence from a small open economy. Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), 144(4), 774–801.Google Scholar
  3. Bernard, A. B., & Jensen, J. B. (1995) Exporters, jobs and wages in US manufacturing: 1976–1987. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Microeconomics, pp. 67–119.Google Scholar
  4. Bernard, A. B., & Jensen, J. B. (1999). Exceptional exporter performance: Cause, effect, or both? Journal of International Economics, 47(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernard, A. B., Jensen, J. B., Redding, S., & Schott, P. K. (2007). Firms in international trade. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(3), 105–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Breinlich, H., & Criscuolo, C. (2011). International trade in services: A portrait of importers and exporters. Journal of International Economics, 84(2), 188–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castellani, D., Serti, F., & Tomasi, C. (2010). Firms in international trade: Importers’ and exporters’ heterogeneity in Italian manufacturing industry. The World Economy, 33(3), 424–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eaton, J., Kortum, S., & Kramarz, F. (2011). An anatomy of international trade: Evidence from French firms. Econometrica, 79(5), 1453–1498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Federico, S., & Tosti, E. (2012). Exporters and importers of services: Firm-level evidence on Italy. Temi di discussione (Economic Working Papers) 877, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.Google Scholar
  10. Gaulier, G., Milet, E., & Mirza, D. (2010). Les Firmes Françaises dans le commerce de Services. Economie et Statistique, 435–436, 125–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greenaway, D., & Kneller, R. (2007). Firm heterogeneity, exporting and foreign direct investment. Economic Journal, 117(517), F134–F161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grublješič, T., & Damijan, J. (2011). Differences in export behavior of services and manufacturing firms in Slovenia. Economic and Business Review, 13(1–2), 77–105.Google Scholar
  13. ISGEP International Study Group on Exports and Productivity. (2008). Understanding cross-country differences in exporter premia: Comparable evidence for 14 countries. Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), 144(4), 596–635.Google Scholar
  14. Kelle, M., & Kleinert, J. (2010). German firms in service trade. Applied Economics Quarterly, 56(1), 51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kox, H., & Rojas-Romagosa, H. (2010). Exports and productivity selection effects for Dutch firms. De Economist, 158(3), 295–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mayer, T., & Ottaviano, G. (2008). The happy few: The internationalization of European firms. Review of European Economic Policy, 43(3), 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Muûls, M., & Pisu, M. (2009). Imports and exports at the level of the firm: Evidence from Belgium. The World Economy, 32(5), 692–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Temouri, Y., Alexander, V., & Wagner, J. (2013). Self-selection into export markets by business services firms—evidence from France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 25(C), 146–158.Google Scholar
  19. UNCTADstat. (2013). Accessed 19/02/2013.
  20. Wagner, J. (2007). Exports and productivity: A survey of the evidence from firm-level data. The World Economy, 30(1), 60–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wagner, J. (2012). International trade and firm performance: A survey of empirical studies since 2006. Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), 148(2), 235–267.Google Scholar
  22. World Bank. (2010). World Development Indicators 2010. Accessed 30/08/2010.

Copyright information

© Kiel Institute 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefanie A. Haller
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jože Damijan
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ville Kaitila
    • 4
  • Črt Kostevc
    • 5
  • Mika Maliranta
    • 4
    • 6
  • Emmanuel Milet
    • 7
  • Daniel Mirza
    • 8
    • 9
    • 10
  • Matija Rojec
    • 5
  1. 1.University College DublinDublinIreland
  2. 2.Institute for Economic ResearchUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  3. 3.VivesKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  4. 4.The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy, ETLAHelsinkiFinland
  5. 5.University of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  6. 6.University of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  7. 7.Paris School of EconomicsParisFrance
  8. 8.LEO-CNRSUniversity François Rabelais de ToursToursFrance
  9. 9.CEPIIParisFrance
  10. 10.Banque de FranceParisFrance

Personalised recommendations