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. WP RR 17 - Industrial relations in the transport sector in the Netherlands2. CAN CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS PREDICT FINANCIAL CRISES? EMPIRICAL STUDY ON EMERGING MARKETS
3. The name is absent
4. DEVELOPING COLLABORATION IN RURAL POLICY: LESSONS FROM A STATE RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
5. The Integration Order of Vector Autoregressive Processes
6. The name is absent
7. The name is absent
8. Party Groups and Policy Positions in the European Parliament
9. Confusion and Reinforcement Learning in Experimental Public Goods Games
10. Passing the burden: corporate tax incidence in open economies