import intensity has an even higher coefficient than the dichotomous variable (cfr.
column 4 and 5) which confirms the results of Hasan and Raturi (2003).
The coefficient on the foreign ownership variable is never statistically different from
zero while it seems that the capital and technology variables are positively correlated to
the export decision and negatively to the import decision. The first case is in line with
the findings of the literature while in the second case there it seems to be a substitution
effect between firm’s capital and technology and the capital and technology embodied in
the imported inputs.
Table 3. Export and Import decision: Probit estimations
|
Dep V |
ariable | |||||
|
EXP |
IMP |
EXP |
EXP |
IMP |
IMP | |
|
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
(4) |
(5) |
(6) | |
|
IMP |
0.962 | |||||
|
[0.191]*** | ||||||
|
Import share |
1.314 | |||||
|
[0.380]*** | ||||||
|
EXP |
0.980 | |||||
|
[0.187]*** | ||||||
|
Export Share |
0.483 | |||||
|
[0.206]** | ||||||
|
Share of FO |
1.782 |
0.185 |
1.288 |
1.451 |
-0.064 |
-0.078 |
|
[1.430] |
[0.714] |
[1.066] |
[1.241] |
[0.719] |
[0.724] | |
|
Capital Intensity (t-1) |
0.120 |
0.012 |
0.122 |
0.125 |
-0.022 |
0.006 |
|
[0.042]*** |
[0.043] |
[0.044]*** |
[0.043]*** |
[0.045] |
[0.043] | |
|
Skill Intensity |
0.028 |
0.236 |
-0.024 |
-0.002 |
0.236 |
0.232 |
|
[0.060] |
[0.062]*** |
[0.063] |
[0.062] |
[0.065]*** |
[0.063]*** | |
|
Age of machineries |
-0.217 |
0.083 |
-0.246 |
-0.251 |
0.114 |
0.121 |
|
[0.116]* |
[0.123] |
[0.122]** |
[0.121]** |
[0.127] |
[0.124] | |
|
Employment (t-1) |
0.354 |
0.326 |
0.277 |
0.305 |
0.251 |
0.305 |
|
[0.070]*** |
[0.071]*** |
[0.075]*** |
[0.072]*** |
[0.075]*** |
[0.073]*** | |
|
Age of the firm |
0.295 |
-0.135 |
0.326 |
0.317 |
-0.195 |
-0.154 |
|
[0.095]*** |
[0.102] |
[0.099]*** |
[0.099]*** |
[0.106]* |
[0.103] | |
|
Average wage (t-1) |
0.092 |
0.116 |
0.066 |
0.072 |
0.109 |
0.123 |
|
[0.055]* |
[0.055]** |
[0.057] |
[0.056] |
[0.057]* |
[0.055]** | |
|
Constant |
-4.104 |
-3.120 |
-3.319 |
-3.388 |
-2.920 |
-3.144 |
|
[0.563]*** |
[0.555]*** |
[0.559]*** |
[0.553]*** |
[0.574]*** |
[0.560]*** | |
|
Observations |
501 |
"487 |
"487 |
"487 |
"487 |
"487 |
|
Log likelihood |
-236.29 |
-205.53 |
-219.75 |
-226.07 |
-190.86 |
-202.79 |
|
Pseudo R2__________ |
0.3152 |
0.2986 |
0.3460 |
0.3265 |
0.3487 |
0.3080 |
Notes:
Robust Standard errors in brackets
Sector and year dummies included in all the equations
* significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%
Naturally, considering import and export we are referring to different decisions
nonetheless our analysis shows that there is a linkage between the two. The reasons for
10
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. Orientation discrimination in WS 2
3. The Folklore of Sorting Algorithms
4. A Note on Productivity Change in European Co-operative Banks: The Luenberger Indicator Approach
5. The name is absent
6. Regional specialisation in a transition country - Hungary
7. Needing to be ‘in the know’: strategies of subordination used by 10-11 year old school boys
8. AGRICULTURAL TRADE IN THE URUGUAY ROUND: INTO FINAL BATTLE
9. The name is absent
10. Migrating Football Players, Transfer Fees and Migration Controls