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 Functions of Postpartum Depression2. Feature type effects in semantic memory: An event related potentials study
3. Eigentumsrechtliche Dezentralisierung und institutioneller Wettbewerb
4. A parametric approach to the estimation of cointegration vectors in panel data
5. The name is absent
6. Volunteering and the Strategic Value of Ignorance
7. Evaluation of the Development Potential of Russian Cities
8. WP 48 - Population ageing in the Netherlands: Demographic and financial arguments for a balanced approach
9. The name is absent
10. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE ECONOMETRIC PACKAGES: AN APPLICATION TO ITALIAN DEPOSIT INTEREST RATES