A hybrid model of UK export promotion: Building a proactive dynamic internationalisation capability with public-private collaboration in commercial diplomacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In our paper, we review both a series of econometric (quantitative) and qualitative studies, as well as reviewing the current export policy setup in a number of selected countries, which are regarded as leaders in export promotion practice. We start with quantitative studies addressing the efficacy of commercial diplomacy and other activities in promoting exports. We have reviewed just over 20 econometric studies using a variety of methodologies and covering different countries and different types of export promotion activity. The methodologies can be categorized into four groups: gravity-based studies, firm-level studies, transaction-level studies, and a meta-analysis, each of which is suitable to a different set of subsidiary questions. While these studies differ in methodology and coverage, some broad themes emerge. \n 1. Overwhelmingly, the gravity studies confirm a positive effect of diplomatic representation upon trade. \n 1. Embassies have a stronger effect than consulates. By contrast, trade missions and state visits tend to have either little effect, or short-lasting effect only. \n 2. Most of the firm-level studies suggest that export promotion tends to have a greater effect upon export market entry (the extensive margin) – although a possibly more rigorous study of Canada found the effect was more on the intensive margin. \n 3. The transactions-level studies of Spain, the UK and Belgium, all found positive effects upon both the number of products exported, and the Spanish study found transactions per product also increased. The tentative conclusion is that export promotion activities by embassies and (to a lesser degree) consulates have a significant effect, although more study would be needed to confirm cost-effectiveness. There is serious doubt about the value of diplomatic visits and trade missions. We have also reviewed 15 papers which use qualitative methods including case studies and showcase the value added of governmental commercial diplomacy for export promotion generally and SME internationalization specifically. The highlights from this review are as follows: \n 1. There is increasing need for hybrid models of organisation of commercial diplomacy comprising both traditional diplomatic tools and private sector institutions/export agencies. \n 2. There is heterogeneity among firm needs with regard to internationalisation support and tailored support programmes are required that are appropriate for particular stages and aspects of internationalisation such as negotiating and managing agreements, resolving problems when e.g. borders are closed or import taxes are raised and negotiating IP and contracts. \n 3. There is increasing need for intensification of representation in embassies from various government departments, academic institutions and specialists to support internationalisation of start-ups and small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in specific industries, such as life sciences and clean energy. \n 4. Commercial diplomatic services and support mechanisms via embassies are particularly useful for: a) Newcomers to a host market or for SMEs with no prior experience in exporting or unwilling to export but forced to do so due to pressures such as a domestic economic crisis. b) Bilateral trade relationships of developing countries, especially in view of North–South trade. In these contexts, capitalising on political relationships has a positive effect on allowing SMEs to access networks in host markets. \n 5. There are two main commercial diplomacy mechanisms that positively influence SME internationalisation: a servicing mechanism and a network mechanism resolving respectively barriers of SMEs’ information asymmetry and lack of professional international management skills partner as well as opportunity/partner identification in foreign business networks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".