公共服務(wù)的影響外文翻譯--中小企業(yè)出口成功的根源探究公共服務(wù)的影響（節(jié)選）

1、<p><b>　　Appendix：</b></p><p>　　International Business Review 13 (2004) 383–400</p><p>　　Sources of export success in small and medium-sized enterprises: the impact of public pr

2、ograms</p><p>　　Roberto Alvarez E</p><p>　　Department of Economics, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile</p><p>　　Abstract This paper analyzes differences in firm exporter performan

3、ce for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Traditionally, it is argued that these firms face several disadvantages for competing in international markets. Few studies, however, exploit the fact that successful ex

4、porters exist within this group. Using data for Chilean firms, we study various explanations for differences between sporadic and permanent exporters. Our results suggest that greater effort in international busi</p&

5、gt;<p>　　Key words: Export performance; Export promotion; Small- and medium-sized enterprises</p><p>　　1 Introduction</p><p>　　International evidence suggests that firm size matters for e

6、xporter performance. Several reasons have been provided to explain why larger firms perform better in International markets. Advantages associated with scale economies and specialization, better access to financial resou

7、rces in capital markets, and improved capabilities to take risks are among these reasons. Also, evidence in Roberts and Tybout (1997) and Bernard and Jensen (1999) regarding the existence of sunk costs to entering intern

8、</p><p>　　There are, however, firms within the group of SMEs that have been able to compete successfully in international markets. Yet, few empirical studies exploit this fact. This paper contributes to the

9、discussion of firm exporter performance in four ways. First, we compare exporter performance among firms of similar size. Second, focusing only on exporters, we distinguish between sporadic and permanent exporters. Third

10、, we employ a detailed survey of 295 sporadic and permanent exporters. This survey </p><p>　　There are two empirical facts that motivate this paper. First, the probability of exporting is lower for SMEs than

11、 it is for larger firms. This resembles evidence found in other national economies. In the Chilean manufacturing industry, for instance, only 14% of SMEs have exported goods over the period 1990–1996. However, more than

12、74% of large firms have exported goods over the same period. Second, a reduced number of firms are able to remain as exporters. Among all exporter firms, only about 2</p><p>　　The main question we ask here i

13、s why some SMEs are more successful exporters than others firms of a similar size. In the next section, we explore various explanations through the use of special survey directed at sporadic and permanent exporter firms.

14、 In the third section, a Probit model is estimat ed to identify empirically the most important determinants of export performance. The fourth section concludes.</p><p><b>　　Table 1</b></p>

15、<p>　　Source: Own calculation based on Nationwide Survey of Manufacturing Establishments (ENIA).</p><p>　　2 Possible explanations</p><p>　　In this section, we explore possible explanations

16、 for differences in firm exporter performance. The approach aims to establish if there are significant differences in firm activities that would explain why some SMEs are more successful than others. First, we present th

17、e data source. Second, we test for the existence of statistical differences over four aspects: (i) technological innovation, (ii) international business management, (iii) manager’s perceptions about obstacles to exporter

18、 performanc</p><p>　　2.2.1 Technological innovation</p><p>　　Technological innovation may affect the export status of a firm by increasing productivity (and reducing costs) and/or by developing

19、new goods for international markets. This may be analyzed in the context of firms that compete in differentiated product markets. Firms may sell low-quality goods in domestic markets, but they must upgrade to technologie

20、s that produce high-quality goods if they wish to sell abroad then.</p><p>　　We test for differences in three types of innovative activities: product innovation, process innovation, and organizational innova

21、tion. The results are shown in Table 2, and suggest that there are differences between both groups of exporters. Though permanent exporters engage product innovation in greater intensity than do sporadic exporters, this

22、difference is not significant. However, significant differences exist for process and organizational innovation. The results show that permanent expor</p><p><b>　　Table 2</b></p><p>

23、　　Technological innovation</p><p>　　2.2.2. Effort in international business</p><p>　　Differences in export performance may be explained by different degrees of effort by internationalizing firms

24、. These differences are attributable to firm heterogeneity in access to information and management capability, among other possibilities. Kumcu, Harcar, and Kumcu (1995) show that, for Turkish companies, manager motivati

25、on helps to explain awareness of export incentives. Moreover, Spence (2003) shows that the success of UK overseas trade missions is positively affected by manager language</p><p>　　In the survey, managers we

26、re asked about the action intensity of several activities, such as strategic alliances with foreign and domestic firms, training of workers in export operations, and promotion of goods abroad. The results are shown in Ta

27、ble 3. The estimates suggest that permanent exporters are more active than sporadic exporters in only two activities: personnel training in exports operations and obtaining funds for working capital in activity-related e

28、xports.</p><p>　　2.2.3. Manager perception regarding obstacles to exporting</p><p>　　One possible explanation for differences in exporter performance is that sporadic exporters face greater diff

29、iculties in their international operations. Some firms may have good export projects, for instance, but if they face credit access problems in the financial market, then it is more likely that they will leave internation

30、al markets. In addition, some firms may exit due to protectionist barriers established in foreign markets. These kinds of obstacles have been divided into three types: int</p><p>　　Even the sign of the diffe

31、rence indicates that permanent exporters assign smaller importance to firm-internal obstacles; the difference between both groups of firms is not statistically significant. Significant differences regarding the evolution

32、 of the real exchange rate and difficulties in access to financial resources exist, however, for the case of country-internal obstacles. This implies that a lower and/or unstable real exchange rate more greatly affects s

33、poradic exporters than permanent e</p><p>　　With regard to credit access, the evidence indicates that liquidity constraints are more relevant for sporadic exporters. This finding in and of itself, however, i

34、s not conclusive with respect to a causality relationship. One interpretation is that credit constraints limit the possibility to remain as an exporter. This is plausible for small firms that are traditionally more restr

35、icted than larger firms. An alternative interpretation is that capital markets associate greater business risk with s</p><p>　　With respect to external obstacles, there are not important differences between

36、permanent and sporadic exporters. Permanent exporters associate lower levels of incidence with almost every obstacle, especially for tariff and no-tariff barriers, but differences with sporadic exporters are not statisti

37、cally significant. This implies that explanations about why some firms are not able to export permanently are not associated with the existence of trade barriers in foreign markets.</p><p>　　2.2.4. Utilizati

38、on of public instruments</p><p>　　There are several public instruments that Chilean firms can use to enhance their productivity and international competitiveness. It can be argued that differences in export

39、performance are associated with the fact that permanent exporter firms have used these instruments with greater intensity than have sporadic exporters.</p><p>　　The Chilean public instruments are classified

40、into three groups. First, there are instruments designed to enhance productivity and technological capability in small firms. Second, there are export promotion instruments whose objective is to increase international co

41、mpetitiveness. Third, there are financial instruments established to improve credit access for small firms.</p><p>　　In Fig. 1, we show the results for differences in the utilization of these instruments by

42、firm group. The evidence shows that permanent exporters have used every public instrument more intensively. The most used public instruments have been the export promotion instruments and those specifically administered

43、by the National Export Promotion Agency (ProChile). In the case of export promotion, about 35% of permanent exporters have used this kind of public support. This percentage is only about 19%</p><p>　　The evi

44、dence in the previous section suggests that there are significant differences in the firm behavior according to exporter status. In this section, we study whether these factors do in fact explain the differences in expor

45、ter status. To do so, we define a dependent variable that takes the value 1 if the firm has been a permanent exporter over the period 1996–1999 and 0 if the firm has been a sporadic exporter. For the econometric estimati

46、on, the following Probit model is used:</p><p>　　There are two potential methodological problems associated with this approach. First, in our case, it may be argued that some of the explanatory variables are

47、 also affected by the firm’s export status. In fact, firms that export permanently may be not only more likely to carry out technological innovation, but also to put greater effort into international business. Our datase

48、t is not detailed enough to explore this bi-causality phenomenon. Instead, firm panel data would illuminate the impact of </p><p><b>　　附錄：</b></p><p>　　國際商業(yè)評(píng)論 13期（2004）383-400</p&

49、gt;<p>　　中小企業(yè)出口成功的根源探究：公共服務(wù)的影響</p><p><b>　　羅伯特-艾薇兒</b></p><p><b>　　智利圣地亞哥經(jīng)濟(jì)系</b></p><p><b>　　摘 要</b></p><p>　　本文分析了中小企業(yè)中公司出口

50、的不同點(diǎn)。普遍認(rèn)為，這些中小企業(yè)在國際市場(chǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)中存在一些弱點(diǎn)。然而，也有研究表明，這些公司中也存在非常成功的，通過分析來自智利公司的數(shù)據(jù)，我們研究了小型和大型出口商之間的不同，研究結(jié)果顯示，在國際商務(wù)中更多要做的就是良好的服務(wù)，過程的創(chuàng)新，以及在出口中積極地做好推廣都會(huì)對(duì)中小企業(yè)的發(fā)展起到促進(jìn)作用。另外，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)有些形式的干預(yù)比其他的要好：交易會(huì)和貿(mào)易代表團(tuán)不會(huì)影響長(zhǎng)久出口的可能性，但是，出口國委員會(huì)會(huì)起到積極地影響作用。</p&

51、gt;<p>　　關(guān)鍵詞：出口實(shí)績(jī)；出口促進(jìn)；中小企業(yè)</p><p><b>　　1.概述</b></p><p>　　國際貿(mào)易實(shí)際表明公司的規(guī)模會(huì)影響出口實(shí)績(jī)，我們已經(jīng)發(fā)現(xiàn)一些原因來解釋為什么大型企業(yè)在國際市場(chǎng)更占優(yōu)勢(shì)。經(jīng)濟(jì)規(guī)模越大，專業(yè)化程度越高，更容易在資本市場(chǎng)獲得財(cái)富，更能夠提高其抵御風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的能力。并且，從來自羅伯特、波特、伯納多和杰森的研究可以

52、得出中小企業(yè)在走向成功出口商的道路上比大型企業(yè)面臨更多的限制。</p><p>　　然而，一些實(shí)證證實(shí)，在中小企業(yè)中已經(jīng)有些公司能夠成功的在國際市場(chǎng)上進(jìn)行競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。本文從四個(gè)方面對(duì)出口公司進(jìn)行分析。第一，比較相同規(guī)模公司的出口實(shí)績(jī)；第二，僅對(duì)于出口公司，區(qū)別小型和大型專業(yè)化出口企業(yè)；第三，對(duì)295家出口商進(jìn)行詳細(xì)的調(diào)查，這個(gè)調(diào)查收集信息公司活動(dòng)不是傳統(tǒng)上包括在其他的實(shí)證研究。第四，我們對(duì)一個(gè)最近幾年出口多樣化大幅提升

53、的國家智利進(jìn)行研究取證，智利的發(fā)展對(duì)于世界其他發(fā)展中國家的中小企業(yè)提高國際競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力具有積極地作用。</p><p>　　本文基于兩個(gè)很明顯的事實(shí)，首先，通過對(duì)其他國家經(jīng)濟(jì)現(xiàn)狀的分析，得出出口可能性中小企業(yè)比大型企業(yè)低。例如，在智利的加工企業(yè)，在1990年到1996年期間，僅有14%的中小企業(yè)實(shí)現(xiàn)了產(chǎn)品出口。然而，在相同時(shí)期，74%的大型企業(yè)已經(jīng)實(shí)現(xiàn)了出口。另外，出口商的數(shù)量正在持續(xù)減少。在這些出口公司中，僅有20%

54、能夠在這期間實(shí)現(xiàn)連續(xù)出口，中小企業(yè)的成功出口商比例就更低了，僅僅7%能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)長(zhǎng)久出口。和那些大型企業(yè)相比，成功出口商占據(jù)了大約40%。</p><p>　　表1 1990-1996年智利制造業(yè)出口現(xiàn)狀</p><p>　　數(shù)據(jù)來源：全國范圍制造業(yè)調(diào)查數(shù)據(jù)</p><p>　　在此我們關(guān)鍵要分析的是為什么有些中小企業(yè)會(huì)比和他規(guī)模相同企業(yè)做的成功。接下來第二部分，我們對(duì)

55、零星的和長(zhǎng)久的出口公司進(jìn)行專業(yè)調(diào)查。第三部分，通過建立Probit模型來分析影響出口實(shí)績(jī)的決定性因素。第四部分得出結(jié)論進(jìn)行總結(jié)。</p><p><b>　　2 可能的解釋</b></p><p>　　這一部分，我們探討關(guān)于出口商的不同點(diǎn)。這一步的目的是證實(shí)，公司活動(dòng)的差異，能否解釋為何有些中小企業(yè)會(huì)比其他同類企業(yè)更加成功。首先，我們利用數(shù)據(jù)來分析。再者我們從四個(gè)方面

56、測(cè)試存在的問題：①技術(shù)革新②國際企業(yè)管理③管理者對(duì)出口障礙的預(yù)見④中小企業(yè)利用公共工具提高生產(chǎn)效率和科研能力,增加出口,進(jìn)入資本市場(chǎng)。</p><p><b>　　2.2.1科技創(chuàng)新</b></p><p>　　科技創(chuàng)新會(huì)通過提高生產(chǎn)效率或研制國際市場(chǎng)新產(chǎn)品來影響出口現(xiàn)狀。這可能是分析的背景下,企業(yè)之間的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)在分化的產(chǎn)品市場(chǎng)。企業(yè)或許會(huì)在國內(nèi)市場(chǎng)出售低質(zhì)量的產(chǎn)品，但是

57、如果他們想把自己的商品出售到國外，就必須提高他們的科學(xué)技術(shù)進(jìn)而生產(chǎn)出高質(zhì)量的商品。我們從三種不同的創(chuàng)新方式進(jìn)行探究：產(chǎn)品創(chuàng)新、過程創(chuàng)新和組織創(chuàng)新。我們將研究結(jié)果通過表二呈現(xiàn)，它顯示出在所有出口商之間都存在不同。長(zhǎng)久出口商比零星出口商更重視科技創(chuàng)新，這個(gè)不同點(diǎn)還不是最主要的。然而，主要不同點(diǎn)在于過程和組織的創(chuàng)新方面。結(jié)果顯示，長(zhǎng)久出口商比中小企業(yè)在生產(chǎn)過程中更多的采用專業(yè)化地電腦科技，長(zhǎng)久出口商更加具有創(chuàng)新性，為產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量的提高投入比較大。

58、</p><p><b>　　表2 科技創(chuàng)新</b></p><p>　　2.2.2國際商務(wù)中的努力</p><p>　　出口表現(xiàn)上的差異可以解釋為對(duì)國際化公司不同程度的努力，這些差異是由于公司中的異質(zhì)性獲取信息和管理能力，還有其他的可能性。Kumcu和Harcar表明，對(duì)于土耳其公司，管理者們的積極性有助于解釋越來越多的人意識(shí)到出口激勵(lì)機(jī)制。

59、此外，史賓塞(2003)表明,英國海外貿(mào)易的成功受到經(jīng)理的任務(wù)是積極的語言水平的提高。</p><p>　　在這項(xiàng)調(diào)查中,經(jīng)理們?cè)诒粏柤瓣P(guān)于幾個(gè)活動(dòng)的行動(dòng)強(qiáng)度，如戰(zhàn)略聯(lián)盟與國外和國內(nèi)的公司、培訓(xùn)執(zhí)行出口業(yè)務(wù)的員工,并促進(jìn)商品銷往國外。結(jié)果顯示于表格3估計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)表明，永久出口商僅在兩個(gè)活動(dòng)上比零星出口商積極：人才培養(yǎng)和相關(guān)出口業(yè)務(wù)資金營(yíng)運(yùn)。</p><p>　　2.2.3 管理者對(duì)于出口障礙嗎

60、的領(lǐng)悟</p><p>　　在出口國之一的性能差異可能的解釋是，零星的出口商在其國際業(yè)務(wù)面臨更大的困難。一些公司可能有很好的出口項(xiàng)目，例如，但如果他們面對(duì)金融市場(chǎng)的信貸準(zhǔn)入問題，那么它更有可能的是，他們將離開國際市場(chǎng)。此外，一些公司可能會(huì)退出由于在國外市場(chǎng)建立保護(hù)主義壁壘。這些類型的障礙已被分為三種類型：向企業(yè)內(nèi)部，國家內(nèi)部和外部。</p><p>　　即使是不同符號(hào)表示永久轉(zhuǎn)讓小型出口商

61、重視事務(wù)所的內(nèi)部障礙，企業(yè)之間的兩組差異不顯著。關(guān)于顯著性差異在獲得財(cái)政資源的實(shí)際匯率和困難進(jìn)化存在，但是，對(duì)于國家的內(nèi)部障礙的情況。這意味著，較低和/或不穩(wěn)定的實(shí)際匯率更不是永久出口大受影響零星出口商。一個(gè)有趣的結(jié)果是，地位和sectoris之間的互動(dòng)積極和重要的變量。這表明，在經(jīng)濟(jì)領(lǐng)域沒有比較優(yōu)勢(shì)，實(shí)際匯率的波動(dòng)往往是一種散發(fā)性出口商更重要障礙。</p><p>　　關(guān)于信貸的機(jī)會(huì)，證據(jù)表明，更多的流動(dòng)性約束

62、是零星出口相關(guān)。這本身并發(fā)現(xiàn)，但是，是不是就一個(gè)決定性的因果關(guān)系。一種解釋是，信貸約束限制的可能性仍然是一個(gè)出口國。這是似是而非是傳統(tǒng)大公司比小公司的限制。另一種解釋是，資本市場(chǎng)的聯(lián)系加強(qiáng)與零星的出口商經(jīng)營(yíng)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，并降低獲得貸款的機(jī)會(huì)可能是由于在過去的出口表現(xiàn)不佳。</p><p>　　關(guān)于外部障礙，有沒有永久性的和零星的出口商之間的重要區(qū)別。準(zhǔn)常任出口商幾乎每一個(gè)障礙的發(fā)病率較低水平，尤其是關(guān)稅和無關(guān)稅的障礙，但

63、零星的出口商的差異并不顯著。這意味著，解釋為什么一些企業(yè)不能永遠(yuǎn)不出口與在國外市場(chǎng)的貿(mào)易壁壘的存在有關(guān)。</p><p>　　2.2.4 公共工具的應(yīng)用</p><p>　　有幾個(gè)公共文書，智利企業(yè)可以使用，以提高它們的生產(chǎn)力和國際競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力。可以說，在出口表現(xiàn)差異的，永久出口企業(yè)有更大的強(qiáng)度比使用有零星出口商這些文書事實(shí)有關(guān)。</p><p>　　智利公共文書分為三組

64、。首先，是為了加強(qiáng)小企業(yè)的生產(chǎn)率和技術(shù)能力的工具；二是促進(jìn)出口的手段，其目的是為了提高國際競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力；三是建立完善對(duì)小企業(yè)獲得信貸的金融工具。</p><p>　　在圖1，我們顯示在由公司利用這些文書組差異的結(jié)果。有證據(jù)表明，永久出口商利用一切社會(huì)公器更加劇烈。市民最常用的手段一直是促進(jìn)出口的具體手段和由國家出口促進(jìn)局（ProChile）管理。在促進(jìn)出口的情況下，出口約35％的永久使用這種類型的公眾支持，這個(gè)比例只有

65、19％的零星出口，關(guān)于ProChile文書，永久出口商公司參與了26.9％，零星出口商14.5％。 </p><p>　　在上一節(jié)根據(jù)出口現(xiàn)狀得出的證據(jù)表明，在公司行為中存在顯著差異。在本節(jié)中，我們研究這些因素是否真的可以解釋再出口狀況中的不同。為此，我們給1996-1999年期間的永久出口商定義了一個(gè)獨(dú)立的變量1，如果這個(gè)企業(yè)為零星的出口商，那么定義其為0。為了警醒經(jīng)濟(jì)估算，我們采用下面Probit模型：<

66、;/p><p>　　關(guān)于這個(gè)問題有兩套可行的措施。首先，在我們的例子中，或許有人會(huì)認(rèn)為這些變量也會(huì)受到企業(yè)出口地位的影響。實(shí)際上，那些長(zhǎng)久做出口的企業(yè)不僅僅會(huì)進(jìn)行科技創(chuàng)新，而且也會(huì)把更多的努力投入到國際業(yè)務(wù)中。我們的數(shù)據(jù)集是不夠詳細(xì)探討這一雙向因果關(guān)系的現(xiàn)象。相反，公司面板數(shù)據(jù)的影響將照亮出口表現(xiàn)對(duì)企業(yè)的行為。但是我們的方法探究了公司決策對(duì)于出口的影響，這符合有關(guān)跨國貿(mào)易文化，表明出口商和企業(yè)之間積極地關(guān)系可以更好的