Export Versus FDI with Heterogeneous Firms
01 Feb 2004-The American Economic Review (American Economic Association)-Vol. 94, Iss: 1, pp 300-316
TL;DR: In this article, Helpman et al. introduce a simple multicountry, multisector model, in which firms face a proximity-concentration trade-off between exports and FDI.
Abstract: Multinational sales have grown at high rates over the last two decades, outpacing the remarkable expansion of trade in manufactures. Consequently, the trade literature has sought to incorporate the mode of foreign market access into the “new” trade theory. This literature recognizes that rms can serve foreign buyers through a variety of channels: they can export their products to foreign customers, serve them through foreign subsidiaries, or license foreign rms to produce their products. Our work focuses on the rm’s choice between exports and “horizontal” foreign direct investment (FDI). Horizontal FDI refers to an investment in a foreign production facility that is designed to serve customers in the foreign market. Firms invest abroad when the gains from avoiding trade costs outweigh the costs of maintaining capacity in multiple markets. This is known as the proximity-concentration tradeoff. We introduce heterogeneous rms into a simple multicountry, multisector model, in which rms face a proximity-concentration trade-off. Every rm decides whether to serve a foreign market, and whether to do so through exports or local subsidiary sales. These modes of market access have different relative costs: exporting involves lower xed costs while FDI involves lower variable costs. Our model highlights the important role of within-sector rm productivity differences in explaining the structure of international trade and investment. First, only the most productive rms engage in foreign activities. This result mirrors other ndings on rm heterogeneity and trade; in particular, the results reported in Melitz (2003). Second, of those rms that serve foreign markets, only the most productive engage in FDI. Third, FDI sales relative to exports are larger in sectors with more rm heterogeneity. Using U.S. exports and af liate sales data that cover 52 manufacturing sectors and 38 countries, we show that cross-sectoral differences in rm heterogeneity predict the composition of trade and investment in the manner suggested by our model. We construct several measures of rm heterogeneity, using different data sources, and show that our results are robust across all these measures. In addition, we con rm the predictions of the proximityconcentration trade-off. That is, rms tend to substitute FDI sales for exports when transport * Helpman: Department of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, Tel Aviv University, and CIAR (e-mail: ehelpman@harvard.edu); Melitz: Department of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, National Bureau of Economic Research, and Centre for Economic Policy Research (e-mail: mmelitz@ harvard.edu); Yeaple: Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, 3718 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104, and National Bureau of Economic Research (e-mail: snyeapl2@ssc.upenn.edu). The statistical analysis of rmlevel data on U.S. Multinational Corporations reported in this study was conducted at the International Investment Division, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, under an arrangement that maintained legal con dentiality requirements. Views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily re ect those of the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Elhanan Helpman thanks the NSF for nancial support. We also thank Daron Acemoglu, Roberto Rigobon, Yona Rubinstein, and Dani Tsiddon for comments on an earlier draft, and Man-Keung Tang for excellent research assistance. 1 See Wilfred J. Ethier (1986), Ignatius Horstmann and James R. Markusen (1987), and Ethier and Markusen (1996) for models that incorporate the licensing alternative. We therefore exclude “vertical” motives for FDI that involve fragmentation of production across countries. See Helpman (1984, 1985), Markusen (2002, Ch. 9), and Gordon H. Hanson et al. (2002) for treatments of this form of FDI. 3 See, for example, Horstmann and Markusen (1992), S. Lael Brainard (1993), and Markusen and Anthony J. Venables (2000). 4 See also Andrew B. Bernard et al. (2003) for an alternative theoretical model and Yeaple (2003a) for a model based on worker-skill heterogeneity. James R. Tybout (2003) surveys the recent micro-level evidence on trade that has motivated these theoretical models. 5 This result is loosely connected to the documented empirical pattern that foreign-owned af liates are more productive than domestically owned producers. See Mark E. Doms and J. Bradford Jensen (1998) for the United States and Sourafel Girma et al. (2002) for the United Kingdom.
Figures (13)
Table 2: Countries (by continent) 
Table 3: Correlation Between Alternative Measures of Dispersion 
Table 7: Exports versus FDI - Random Effects (With Controls) 
Figure 1: Profits from domestic sales, from exports and from FDI 
Figure 3: Empirical Distribution of Firm Sales 
Figure 2: Probability density of labor productivity 
Table 1: BEA 3-Digit Manufacturing Sectors 
Table 6: Exports Versus FDI - Controls 
Table 5: “Beta” Coefficients 
Table 9: Exports versus FDI - Additional Robustness Results (Clustered Standard Errors and IV specifications) 
Table 4: Exports versus FDI - Baseline Results 
Figure 4: Regression Fit to the Pareto Distribution 
Table 8: Exports versus FDI - Aggregated Europe (With Controls and Random Effects)
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors reconcile trade theory with plant-level export behavior, extending the Ricardian model to accommodate many countries, geographic barriers, and imperfect competition, and examine the impact of globalization and dollar appreciation on productivity, plant entry and exit, and labor turnover.
Abstract: We reconcile trade theory with plant-level export behavior, extending the Ricardian model to accommodate many countries, geographic barriers, and imperfect competition. Our model captures qualitatively basic facts about U.S. plants: (i) productivity dispersion, (ii) higher productivity among exporters, (iii) the small fraction who export, (iv) the small fraction earned from exports among exporting plants, and (v) the size advantage of exporters. Fitting the model to bilateral trade among the United States and 46 major trade partners, we examine the impact of globalization and dollar appreciation on productivity, plant entry and exit, and labor turnover in U.S. manufacturing. (JEL F11, F17, O33)
2,280 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors investigate to what extent answers to new micro-level questions have affected answers to an old and central question in the field: how large are the welfare gains from trade?
Abstract: Micro-level data have had a profound influence on research in inter national trade over the last ten years. In many regards, this research agenda has been very successful. New stylized facts have been uncovered and new trade models have been developed to explain these facts. In this paper we investigate to what extent answers to new micro-level questions have affected answers to an old and central question in the field: how large are the welfare gains from trade? A crude summary of our results is: “So far, not much.” (JEL
1,500 citations
TL;DR: The role of exports in promoting growth in general, and productivity in particular, has been investigated empirically using aggregate data for countries and industries for a long time, but only recently have comprehensive longitudinal data at the firm level been used to look at the extent and causes of productivity differentials between exporters and their counterparts which sell on the domestic market only as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: While the role of exports in promoting growth in general, and productivity in particular, has been investigated empirically using aggregate data for countries and industries for a long time, only recently have comprehensive longitudinal data at the firm level been used to look at the extent and causes of productivity differentials between exporters and their counterparts which sell on the domestic market only. This paper surveys the empirical strategies applied, and the results produced, in 45 microeconometric studies with data from 33 countries that were published between 1995 and 2004. Details aside, exporters are found to be more productive than non-exporters, and the more productive firms self-select into export markets, while exporting does not necessarily improve productivity.
1,422 citations
TL;DR: The authors showed that the impact of trade barriers on trade flows is dampened by the elasticity of substitution, and not magnified by trade barriers, and that trade barriers have little impact on bilateral trade flows.
Abstract: By considering a model with identical firms, Paul Krugman (1980) predicts that a higher elas ticity of substitution between goods magnifies the impact of trade barriers on trade flows. In this paper, I introduce firm heterogeneity in a simple model of international trade. When the distribu tion of productivity across firms is Pareto, which is close to the observed size distribution of US firms, the predictions of the Krugman model with representative firms are overturned: the impact of trade barriers on trade flows is dampened by the elasticity of substitution, and not magnified. In Krugman (1980), identical countries trade differentiated goods despite the presence of trade barriers because consumers have a preference for variety. If goods are less substitutable, con sumers are willing to buy foreign varieties even at a higher cost, and trade barriers have little impact on bilateral trade flows. Total exports from country A to country B are given by the following expression:
1,402 citations
TL;DR: This paper found that only half of the difference in labor productivity between firms and countries could be explained by differential inputs, such as capital intensity, and that the productivity differences across firms and plants are temporary but persist over time.
Abstract: Economists have long puzzled over the astounding differences in productivity between firms and countries. For example, looking at disaggregated data on U.S. manufacturing industries, Syverson (2004a) found that plants at the 90th percentile produced four times as much as the plant in the 10th percentile on a per-employee basis. Only half of this difference in labor productivity could be accounted for by differential inputs, such as capital intensity. Syverson looked at industries defined at the four-digit level in the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system (now the North American Industry Classification System or NAICS) like 'Bakeries and Tortilla Manufacturing' or 'Plastics Product Manufacturing.' Foster, Haltiwanger, and Syverson (2008) show large differences in total factor productivity even within very homogeneous goods industries such as boxes and block ice. Some of these productivity differences across firms and plants are temporary, but in large part they persist over time. At the country level, Hall and Jones (1999) and Jones and Romer (2009) show how the stark differences in productivity across countries account for a substantial fraction of the differences in average per capita income. Both at the plant level and at the national level, differences in productivity are typically calculated as a residual-that is, productivity is inferred as the gap between output and inputs that cannot be accounted for by conventionally measured inputs.
1,169 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: This paper developed a dynamic industry model with heterogeneous firms to analyze the intra-industry effects of international trade and showed how the exposure to trade will induce only the more productive firms to enter the export market (while some less productive firms continue to produce only for the domestic market).
Abstract: This paper develops a dynamic industry model with heterogeneous firms to analyze the intra-industry effects of international trade. The model shows how the exposure to trade will induce only the more productive firms to enter the export market (while some less productive firms continue to produce only for the domestic market) and will simultaneously force the least productive firms to exit. It then shows how further increases in the industry's exposure to trade lead to additional inter-firm reallocations towards more productive firms. The paper also shows how the aggregate industry productivity growth generated by the reallocations contributes to a welfare gain, thus highlighting a benefit from trade that has not been examined theoretically before. The paper adapts Hopenhayn's (1992a) dynamic industry model to monopolistic competition in a general equilibrium setting. In so doing, the paper provides an extension of Krugman's (1980) trade model that incorporates firm level productivity differences. Firms with different productivity levels coexist in an industry because each firm faces initial uncertainty concerning its productivity before making an irreversible investment to enter the industry. Entry into the export market is also costly, but the firm's decision to export occurs after it gains knowledge of its productivity.
9,036 citations
Posted Content•
TL;DR: In this paper, a dynamic industry model with heterogeneous firms is proposed to explain why international trade induces reallocations of resources among firms in an industry and contributes to a welfare gain.
Abstract: This Paper builds a dynamic industry model with heterogeneous firms that explains why international trade induces reallocations of resources among firms in an industry. The Paper shows how the exposure to trade will induce only the more productive firms to enter the export market (while some less productive firms continue to produce only for the domestic market) and will simultaneously force the least productive firms to exit. It then shows how further increases in the industry's exposure to trade lead to additional inter-firm reallocations towards more productive firms. These phenomena have been empirically documented but cannot be explained by current general equilibrium trade models, because they rely on a representative firm framework. The Paper also shows how the aggregate industry productivity growth generated by the reallocations contributes to a welfare gain, thus highlighting a benefit from trade that has not been examined theoretically before. The Paper adapts Hopenhayn's (1992a) dynamic industry model to monopolistic competition in a general equilibrium setting. In so doing, the Paper provides an extension of Krugman's (1980) trade model that incorporates firm level productivity differences. Firms with different productivity levels coexist in an industry because each firm faces initial uncertainty concerning its productivity before making an irreversible investment to enter the industry. Entry into the export market is also costly, but the firm's decision to export occurs after it gains knowledge of its productivity.
5,186 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors reconcile trade theory with plant-level export behavior, extending the Ricardian model to accommodate many countries, geographic barriers, and imperfect competition, and examine the impact of globalization and dollar appreciation on productivity, plant entry and exit, and labor turnover.
Abstract: We reconcile trade theory with plant-level export behavior, extending the Ricardian model to accommodate many countries, geographic barriers, and imperfect competition. Our model captures qualitatively basic facts about U.S. plants: (i) productivity dispersion, (ii) higher productivity among exporters, (iii) the small fraction who export, (iv) the small fraction earned from exports among exporting plants, and (v) the size advantage of exporters. Fitting the model to bilateral trade among the United States and 46 major trade partners, we examine the impact of globalization and dollar appreciation on productivity, plant entry and exit, and labor turnover in U.S. manufacturing. (JEL F11, F17, O33)
2,280 citations
TL;DR: This article developed a simple general equilibrium model of international trade in which the location of plants in a differentiated product industry is a decision variable, which is then used to derive predictions of trade pattern, volumes of trade, the share of intra-industry trade, and the share in intra-firm trade as functions of relative country size and differences in relative factor endowments.
Abstract: Using the idea that firm-specific assets associated with marketing, management, and product-specific R & D can be used to service production plants in countries other than the country in which these inputs are employed, I develop a simple general equilibrium model of international trade in which the location of plants in a differentiated product industry is a decision variable. The model is then used to derive predictions of trade pattern, volumes of trade, the share of intra-industry trade, and the share of intrafirm trade as functions of relative country size and differences in relative factor endowments.
2,018 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the notion of knowledge capital as a mobile, joint input into geographically separated production facilities is used to explain the preference for transferring technologies internally within the firm, rather than through arm's-length markets.
Abstract: This paper begins with a review of empirical evidence on multinational firms. Conceptual underpinnings of a theory are developed, relying in particular on the notion of knowledge capital as a mobile, joint input into geographically separated production facilities. This idea is embedded in a simple two-country general equilibrium model that supports multinational production in equilibrium under conditions consistent with the empirical evidence. The final section examines internalization and shows why certain properties of knowledge capital also imply a preference for transferring technologies internally within the firm, rather than through arm's-length markets.
1,928 citations