Firm Size as a Determinant of Export Propensity: An Empirical Study of South Carolina Firms
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTIONExporting by small firms is a considerably significant economic activity. Research conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Census indicates that over two hundred thousand small firms exported goods in 2001. Small companies account for 89 percent of all U.S. exporters, a percentage that has only varied slightly since 1995. Small exporters exported goods valued at $129 billion which represented 20.8 percent of total U.S. goods exported (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). The literature continues to research international entry among small firms, including the relationship between firm size and exporting (Wolffand Pett, 2000 and Mittelstaedt, Harben, and Ward, 2003). Mittelstaedt, Harben, and Ward (2003) argue that firms with fewer than 20 employees fall below a critical threshold and will face major obstacles should they attempt to export. Their conclusions contrast with Wolffand Pett (2000) who argue that micro firms are capable of exporting.The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the export propensity of firms in an empirical study to overcome the competing theories espoused by Mittlelstaedt, et al (203) and Wolffand Pett (2000). We use a data set similar to that of Mittelstaedt, et al (2003), but analyze the dataset differently. Although we find that firm size has a significant impact on export propensity, we fail to find a threshold at twenty employees. Thus our findings support Wolffand Pett's (2000) arguments that small firms are fully capable of exporting which contrasts with the findings of Mittelstaedt et al (2003). Our conclusions indicate that researchers have not yet fully understood the relationship between firm size and exporting behavior.In the next section, we provide a brief review of the literature on exporting by small firms with a particular emphasis on size as a determinant of exporting ability. Then, we describe our research design and discuss our results using a sample of firms obtained from a database of over three thousand firms maintained by the South Carolina Department of Commerce. In the final section, we conclude our discussion.LITERATURE REVIEWSmall firms have emerged as one of the most widely researched topics in the last 30 years (Wright, 1993; Autio, Sapienza, Almeida, 2000; Baird, Lyles, and Orris, 1994; Aitken, Hanson, and Harrison, 1997; and Oviatt and McDougall, 1995). Rather than attempt an exhaustive review of past research, this section will emphasize particular research relevant to firm size as a determinant of exporting. We realize that other forms of market entry are available to small firms, but exporting remains the most attractive means of foreign market entry (Pett and Wolff, 2003; Hollenstein, 2003).Numerous studies have found a positive relationship between firm size and internationalization. For example, Baird, Lyles, and Orris (1994) found that international firms are larger and tend to be industrial firms rather than retail or service firms. Dhanaraj and Beamish (2003) confirmed this finding using a resource-base theory of the firm (Penrose, 1959; Barney, 1991) in a sample of Canadian firms.Other studies have measured performance outcomes in terms of export performance or export intensity. Yet, the findings appear to be mixed. Some studies identify a positive relationship between firm size and export success (e.g., Lali and Kumar, 1981; Kaynak and Kothari, 1984). Other studies find no relationship (e.g., Czinkota and Johnson, 1983; and Moini, 1995). Finally, another group of studies finds an inverse relationship (e.g., Cooper and Klienschmidt, 1985).Recent research also provides contradictory evidence about the relationship between firm size and export activity. Wolff and Pett (2000) demonstrate that small firms are capable of exporting. They conclude that small firms use a different decision process to export than do large firms. They argue that the resource-based view of the firm may serve as a useful explanation for the success of these small exporters. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».