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. Volunteering and the Strategic Value of Ignorance
3. The name is absent
4. Confusion and Reinforcement Learning in Experimental Public Goods Games
5. Education Responses to Climate Change and Quality: Two Parts of the Same Agenda?
6. The name is absent
7. Can we design a market for competitive health insurance? CHERE Discussion Paper No 53
8. References
9. The name is absent
10. A Rare Case Of Fallopian Tube Cancer