Open Economies Review

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 963–976 | Cite as

Business Conditions and Exit Risks Across Countries

  • Michael PflügerEmail author
  • Stephan Russek
Research Article


The risk of market exit that business firms face is significant and differs widely across countries. This paper explores the links between countries’ business conditions and the exit risk at the country level. We set up a general equilibrium model which allows us to derive sharp predictions concerning how key factors which shape a country’s business and trade environment impact on the exit risk of firms which operate in these environments. The model is able to explain the negative correlation between countries’ average labor productivity and the perceived risks of exit borne out in the facts and its predictions accord with evidence on country differences in business conditions.


Firm death Firm heterogeneity Business conditions Firm productivity Trade integration 

JEL Classification

F12 F13 F15 L25 



We thank Daniel Bernhofen, Rainald Borck, Carsten Eckel, Andreas Haufler, Christian Holzner, Richard Kneller, Johann Lambsdorff, Dominika Langenmayr, Jörg Lingens, Philipp Schröder, Jens Südekum, Zhihong Yu, the participants of workshops and conferences in Aarhus (School of Business), Glasgow (EEA), Lausanne (ETSG), Münster, Munich and Nottingham (GEP) and two anonymous referees for their stimulating comments on previous versions of this paper. Financial support from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) through PF 360/5–1 is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Atkeson A, Burstein AT (2010) Innovation, firm dynamics, and international trade. J Polit Econ 118(3):433–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baily MN, Hulten CR, Campbell D (1992) Productivity dynamics in manufacturing plants. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Microeconomics 1992. 187–249Google Scholar
  3. Bartelsman E, Haltiwanger, Scarpetta S (2009) Measuring and analyzing cross-country differences in firm dynamics. In: Dunne T, Jensen JB, Roberts MJ (eds) Producer dynamics. New evidence from micro data. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellone F, Musso P, Nesta L, Quéré M (2006) Productivity and market selection of French manufacturing firms in the nineties. Revue de l’OFCE 97bis. 319–349Google Scholar
  5. Bernard AB, Jensen JB, Schott PK (2006) Survival of the best Fit: exposure to low wage countries and the (Uneven) growth of US manufacturing plants. J Int Econ 68(1):219–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernard AB, Jensen JB, Schott PK (2009) Importers, exporters, and multinationals: a portrait of firms in the U.S. that trade goods. In: Dunne T, Jensen JB, Roberts MJ (eds) Producer dynamics. New evidence from micro data. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Bohnstedt A, Schwartz C, Südekum J (2012) Globalization and strategic research investments. Res Policy 41(1):13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carreira C, Teixeira P (2011) The shadow of death: analysing the pre-exit productivity of Portuguese manufacturing firms. Small Bus Econ 36(3):337–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colantone I, Sleuwaegen L (2010) International trade, exit and entry: a cross-country and industry analysis. J Int Bus Stud 41(7):1240–1257Google Scholar
  10. Colantone I, Coucke K, Sleuwaegen L (2010) Low-cost import competition. Do small firms respond differently? Open Access publications from Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Nr. 123456789/264494Google Scholar
  11. CreditReform (2007) Insolvenzen in Europa, Jahr 2006/07, Verband der Vereine Creditreform e.V., available online on
  12. CreditReform (2009) Insolvenzen in Europa, Jahr 2008/09, Verband der Vereine Creditreform e.V., available online on
  13. Demidova S (2008) Productivity improvements and falling trade costs: Boon or Bane. Int Econ Rev 49(4):1437–1462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Demidova S, Rodríguez-Clare A (2009) Trade policy under firm-level heterogeneity in a small economy. J Int Econ 78(1):100–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dinopoulos E, Fujiwara K, Shimomura K (2011) International trade and volume patterns under Quasilinear preferences. Rev Dev Econ 15(1):154–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Disney R, Haskel J, Heden Y (2003) Restructuring and productivity growth in UK manufacturing. Econ J 113(489):666–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Djankov S, La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A (2002) The regulation of entry. Q J Econ 117(1):1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Doms M, Dunne T, Roberts MJ (1995) The role of technology use in the survival and growth of manufacturing plants. Int J Ind Organ 13(4):523–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dunne T, Roberts MJ, Samuelson L (1988) Patterns of firm entry and exit in U.S. manufacturing industries. RAND J Econ 19(4):495–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dunne T, Jensen JB, Roberts MJ (2009) Producer dynamics. New evidence from micro data. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Esteve-Pérez S, Mañez-Castillejo JA (2008) The resource-based theory of the firm and firm survival. Small Bus Econ 30(3):231–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Greenaway D, Gullstrand J, Kneller R (2008) Surviving globalisation. J Int Econ 74(2):264–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hopenhayn (1992) Entry, exit, and firm dynamics in long-run equilibrium. Econometrica 60:1127–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Melitz M (2003) The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica 71(6):1695–1725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Melitz M, Ottaviano G (2008) Market size, trade, and productivity. Rev Econ Stud 75:295–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pflüger M, Suedekum J (2013) Subsidizing firm entry in open economies. J Public Econ 97(1):258–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Redding S (2011) Theories of heterogeneous firms and trade. Annu Rev Econ 3:77–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tabuchi T, Thisse J-F (2006) Regional specialization, urban hierarchy, and commuting costs. Int Econ Rev 47(4):1295–1317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. World Bank (2010) Doing Business 2010. The World BankGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DIW Berlin and IZAUniversity of WürzburgWürzburgGermany
  2. 2.Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ)BonnGermany

Personalised recommendations