Skip to main content
Log in

Spillover Effects from Inward FDI on the Exporting Decisions of Chilean Manufacturing Plants

  • Published:
Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We study the presence of spillover effects on three exporting decisions (likelihood, quantity, propensity) of Chilean manufacturing firms during the period 2001–2004. Evidence suggests that Chilean firm’s export likelihood is positively affected by other domestic firms’ exports. In contrast, exports by MNEs operating in Chile negatively affect Chilean firm’s export likelihood, although MNE-employment generates positive spillover effects, suggesting externalities in human capital. We also find evidence of spillovers from MNE activity on the proportion of production the firm exports (export propensity), but not on how much they decide to export (export quantity).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See www.investchile.com for additional information.

  2. For the remainder of this study, MNEs are foreign-owned firms operating in Chile. Chilean-owned firms are considered ‘domestic’, regardless of their foreign-located holdings.

  3. See the Appendix for a further description on the best response functions linearization.

  4. A proxy for the residual supply in the foreign market could be the total production per 4-digits industry in countries that represent the main destinations of Chilean exports. A significant problem with this approach is that data disaggregated at the industry level is not widely available for many destination countries.

  5. This represents an income, and not a cost, of exporting

  6. The list: Aisen, Antofagasta, Araucania, Atacama, Biobio, Coquimbo, Los Lagos, Magallanes, Maule, O’Higgins, Santiago, Tarapaca, Valparaíso.

  7. According to INE, a more detailed disaggregation of the data, for example into states, provinces, or communes, is not provided in order to guarantee the anonymousness of the firms, given that for small regions it would be possible to identify some firms through their location.

  8. According to the Wald test, we reject the null hypothesis that ind_exp and mne_exp are exogenous for the export decision equation. Additionally, the Hausman test favors the IV probit estimator against the regular probit estimator. Tables 4 and 5 show the first-stage regressions in the IV-probit estimator for the export decision.

  9. Absorptive capacity is defined in Görg and Greenaway (2004) as a firm’s capacity to assimilate knowledge, determined by the level of technology and human capital of the firm.

  10. We are thankful to one of our referees for the suggestion of including this analysis in our paper.

  11. See footnote 8.

References

  • Aitken B, Hanson GH, Harrison AE (1997) Spillovers, foreign investment, and export behavior. J Int Econ 43(1):103–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aitken B, Harrison AE (1999) Do domestic firms benefit from direct foreign investment? Evidence from Venezuela. Am Econ Rev 89(3):605–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alatorre JE, Razo C (2010) Inward FDI in Chile and its policy context, vale Columbia center on sustainable international investment

  • Alvarez R, Görg H (2009) Multinationals and plan exit: evidence from Chile. Int Rev Econ Finance 18:45–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez R, Lopez R (2005) Exporting and performance: evidence from Chilean plants. Can J Econ 38(4):1384–1400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrios S, Görg H, Strobl E (2003) Explaining firms’s export behavior: R&D, spillovers, and the destination market. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 63(4):475–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard AB, Jensen JB (2004) Why some firms export. Rev Econ Stat 86(2):561–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clerides SK, Lach S, Tybout JR (1998) Is learning by exporting important? Micro-dynamic evidence from Colombia, Mexico, and Morocco. Q J Econ 113(3):903–947

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girma S (2005) Absorptive capacity and productivity spillovers from FDI: a threshold regression analysis. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 67(3):281–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girma S, Görg H (2005) Foreign direct investment, spillovers and absorptive capacity: evidence from quantile regression. Discussion Paper Series 1: Econometric Studies, No. 13, Deutsche Bundesbank

  • Görg H, Greenaway D (2004) Much ado about nothing? Do domestic firms really benefit from foreign direct investment. World Bank Res Obser 19(2):171–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenaway D, Sousa N, Wakelin K (2004) Do domestic firms learn to export from multinationals. Eur J Polit Econ 1:1027–1043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman J (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47:153–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawless M (2009) Firm export dynamics and the geography of trade. J Int Econ 77(2):245–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinsohn J, Petrin A (2003) Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables. Rev Econ Stud 70(2):317–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts MJ, Tybout JR (1997) The decision to export in Colombia: an empirical model of entry with sunk costs. Am Econ Rev 87(4):545–564

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Ryan.

Additional information

Duran acknowledges financial research support from Universidad EAFIT (Medellín, Colombia).

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 A. Best response functions linearization

According to Eq. 6, we have that

$$\label{qf1A} q_{fj}=\frac{p_f(Q_f^{-j}) - a q_{dj} - c_f - g}{2\beta_f + a + b_f}=\frac{\alpha_f - \beta_f Q_f^{-j} - a q_{dj} - c_f - g}{A}, $$
(16)

where A = 2β f  + a + b f .

Now, we assume c f (X,Z f EX MNE ) and g(X) can be expressed in linear form as

$$\label{cf_linear} c_f=w_1'X+w_2'Z_f+w_3\Gamma_{EX}+w_4\Gamma_{MNE}, $$
(17)
$$\label{g_linear} g=w_5'X, $$
(18)

and substituting Eqs. 17 and 18 into Eq. 16, we have that

$$ q_{fj}= \frac{\alpha_f}{A} - \frac{\beta_f}{A}Q_f^{-j} - \frac{a}{A}q_{dj} - \frac{w_1'+w_5'}{A}X - \frac{w_2'}{A}Z_f - \frac{w_3}{A}\Gamma_{EX} - \frac{w_4}{A}\Gamma_{MNE}, $$
(19)

or,

$$ q_{fj} = \theta_1 + \theta_2Q_f^{-j} + \theta_3q_d +\theta_4'X + \theta_5'Z_f + \theta_6\Gamma_{EX} + \theta_7\Gamma_{MNE}. $$
(20)

In Eq. 8 we add the random error term v to complete the econometric specification and account for unobserved variables. A similar method follows to linearize Eq. 5 and obtain Eq. 7.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Duran, I.A., Ryan, M. Spillover Effects from Inward FDI on the Exporting Decisions of Chilean Manufacturing Plants. J Ind Compet Trade 14, 393–414 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10842-013-0160-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10842-013-0160-2

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation