THE DYNAMICS OF TRADE AND INNOVATION:

A JOINT APPROACH

Silviano Esteve-Pérez Diego Rodríguez

FUNDACIÓN DE LAS CAJAS DE AHORROS DOCUMENTO DE TRABAJO

Nº 467/2009

De conformidad con la base quinta de la convocatoria del Programa

de Estímulo a la Investigación, este trabajo ha sido sometido a eva-

luación externa anónima de especialistas cualificados a fin de con-

trastar su nivel técnico. ISSN: 1988-8767 La serie DOCUMENTOS DE TRABAJO incluye avances y resultados de investigaciones dentro de los pro-

gramas de la Fundación de las Cajas de Ahorros.

Las opiniones son responsabilidad de los autores.

THE DYNAMICS OF TRADE AND INNOVATION:

A JOINT APPROACH

Silviano Esteve-Pérez** Diego Rodríguez*

Abstract

This paper analyzes the joint dynamics of internationalization and innovation decisions at the firm level. A

main concern is to disentangle the observed persistence that arises from true state dependence from that

emerging from firm heterogeneity, which could lead to spurious state-dependence. To this end, we use

alternative econometric approaches, ranging from static pooled probit to dynamic random effects probit

models that deal with the initial conditions problem. Later, we explicitly account for interdependence between

these two decisions and cross-persistence by estimating a bivariate extension. Export and R&D participation

are initially used as indicators of internationalization and innovation decisions, respectively. Then we extend

the analysis to imports and alternative measures of innovation, particularly product and process innovations.

The empirical analysis is carried out using a firm-level longitudinal dataset of Spanish manufacturing over the

period 1990-2006.

Keywords: innovation, exports, persistence, binary choice panel data models

JEL classification: F12, L25, C25.

* Diego Rodríguez Rodríguez, Dep, Applied Economics II, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid (28233), Spain. E-mail: drodri@ccee.ucm.es **Dep. Applied Economics II - Faculty of Economics and Business--University of Valencia Acknowledgements: Silvio Esteve gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Science and

Innovation (reference ECO2008-04059/ECON). Diego Rodríguez acknowledges financial support from the Spanish

Ministry of Science and Innovation (reference ECO2007-66520/ECON) and the Micro-Dyn Project (VI Framework

Program). The usual disclaimer applies.

1

1. Introduction

The literature on either innovation or export decisions at the firm level has been very prolific during the last

decade. Rather frequently, these studies have considered one of these activities to be a determinant of the

other. However, previous research had already pointed out a close relationship between the two decisions. For

instance, the global-economy models of endogenous innovation and growth (Grossman and Helpman, 1991)

showed a strong interdependence between export and innovation. In addition, both innovation and

internationalization strategies have been found to be rather persistent, i.e. participating in one of these

activities in one period raises the probability of carrying out that activity in the next period.

Recently, both the theoretical developments of dynamic models of heterogeneous firms facing sunk

costs of entering markets (Melitz, 2003), which extend previous models of firm dynamics (Jovanovic, 1982),

and the availability of longitudinal datasets have boosted micro-level studies on the decision to export. These

studies have showed that export activity is closely related to observed heterogeneity across firms in their

efficiency levels, so that only the most efficient firms participate in export markets. They have also examined

heterogeneity between exporters and non-exporters in several other performance dimensions by testing the

self-selection and learning-by-exporting hypotheses (among others, Bernard and Jensen, 1999 and 2004).

They find that exporters are usually larger and enjoy advantages in other features closely related to

productivity, such as average wages and capital intensity (see Greenaway and Kneller, 2007, for a survey of

empirical studies).

A shortcoming of these models is that the origin of the heterogeneity in efficiency levels across firms

remains unexplained, that is, heterogeneity is assumed rather than derived. In other words, these models focus

on the link between efficiency distribution across firms and export (and import) involvement, but do not step

back to ask what the drivers of the observed differences in efficiency levels across firms are. In that sense, it

seems reasonable to think that productivity is closely related to decisions previously pursued by firms,

particularly those linked to innovation strategies. Indeed, endogenous growth theory has long emphasized the

role played by innovation activity to explain productivity growth. The robust relationship that empirical

evidence has found between export and efficiency can be driven by different causal mechanisms between

innovation and export. For instance, it could be argued that exporters are ex-ante more productive because

they carried out innovation activities before entering export markets, that is, a firm’s decision to start

exporting may be driven by its prior decision to innovate and consequently enhance its productivity.

Alternatively, participation in export markets may enhance process innovation boosting exporters’

productivity.

The primary goal of this paper is to shed more light on the empirical determinants of export and

innovation decisions taking into account persistence and the interdependence between them. Specifically, this

paper provides insights to address some interesting questions: (i) which firms engage in export and R&D

activities?; (ii) are participation rates in both activities similar or is one activity more common than the other?,

2

and why?; (iii) is there persistence in export/innovation activities?; if so, is it “true” or spurious persistence?;

(iv) is there interdependence between exports and innovation?; (v) are export and innovation decisions driven

by the same observed/unobserved firm characteristics? If so, correlation between exports and innovation may

be spurious; (vi) is the observed (simultaneous) correlation between exports and innovation spurious or is it

real state dependence across these two participation decisions over time, due to sunk costs or learning effects?;

(vii) Are exporters compelled to innovate before entering export markets and/or do exporting enhances

innovation participation?

It is important to bear in mind that the dynamics of the relationship between innovation and

internationalization may be complex. On the one hand, if exporters enjoy ex-ante efficiency advantages over

non-exporters (a finding broadly supported by the empirical literature, which is consistent with the self-

selection hypothesis), past innovation behaviour may be relevant to explain current export strategies. The

measurement of innovation, particularly the distinction between product and process innovation, can also play

a relevant role here. Product innovation rather than process innovation may enhance productivity facilitating

access to export markets. Thus, firms would enjoy the monopolistic position that emerges from supplying a

differentiated product from competitors making it easier access export markets. In addition, participation in

export markets may enhance efficiency gains through a process of learning-by-exporting that accrues from

access to technology, best international practices, and tougher competition. In this setting, exporting firms

may have a stronger incentive than home-based firms to introduce process innovation as the costs of the

investment can be spread over a larger amount of output. Hence, an effect may run from export towards

process innovation, although the empirical support to this learning-by-exporting effect is modest (see Wagner,

2007, for a survey).

On the other hand, both innovation and export status have been found to be highly persistent (Roberts

and Tybout, 1997, Geroski et al., 1997, for exports and innovation, respectively). That is, being and

exporter/innovator in one period raises the probability of carrying out that activity in the next period.

Persistence may arise due to true state dependence (caused by sunk entry costs, success breads success or

learning-by-doing effects) or due to observed/unobserved firm heterogeneity. A main challenge in the

empirical analysis is to differentiate between the persistent behaviour that emerges from true state dependence

and the persistence that arises from unobserved firm heterogeneity that could lead to spurious state-

dependence. In the first case, there is a casual effect because the decision to export (or to innovate) in one

period enhances the probability of exporting (or innovating) in the subsequent period. Alternatively, in the

second case, firms may possess certain characteristics which make them more likely to export (to innovate). If

these characteristics persist over time, they will induce persistence in the decision. Some of those

characteristics will be observable (e.g., firm size, foreign ownership,..) and controlled for in the empirical

analysis. The difficulties arise with unobservable characteristics (technological opportunities; managerial

abilities, risk attitudes …) that affect the firms’ decision to export (innovate) and that are correlated over time.

Past behaviour could then affect present behaviour only due (or largely due) to these persistent unobservable

3

firm characteristics.

In this paper, we use firm-level data from the Encuesta Sobre Estrategias Empresariales (ESEE,

hereafter), a survey conducted annually since 1990 for Spanish manufacturing firms with more than 10

employees. In particular, we use a representative longitudinal dataset of Spanish manufacturing firms for a

long period of time: 1990-2006. The study of the Spanish manufacturing sector over this period merits further

comments. First, exporting activities of Spanish firms grew very fast over the 1990s. The initial years of the

sample period are coincident with the last phase of transitory period the Spanish economy went through after

joining the EU in 1986 and the process of attaining the Single European Market. Besides, exchange rate

turmoil in the EMS in early nineties and subsequent domestic currency devaluations improved price

competitiveness. The combination of EU membership and currency devaluation boosted access to foreign

markets by domestic firms during the 1990s. This internationalization trend has attenuated in recent years,

although Spanish export share in world markets has grown over the complete period despite the increasing

competition from Asian countries since the late nineties. Secondly, innovation activities have been rather

modest over the whole period. In spite of policy makers concerns, aggregated innovation activities of the

economy make the Spanish economy to be ranked in the last positions among European countries.

The analysis is carried out using univariate and bivariate dynamic binary choice panel data models for

the decisions to export and innovate in order to take account of the interactions between these two decisions.

These models allow explaining the source of persistence and cross-persistence in the two activities. One of the

main features of the univariate dynamic binary choice model with random effects is that it permits

distinguishing between unobserved heterogeneity and genuine state dependence. In addition, the bivariate

model accounts for correlation between innovation and export activities taking into account persistence. The

remarkable length of the time span of the data, seventeen years, is rather unusual in the context of firm panel

datasets and may enhance the robustness of the dynamic analysis.

This paper contributes to the literature in a number of ways. First, the empirical approach takes into

account the dynamic characteristics of both innovation and internationalization activities as well as the

interdependence between the two decisions. The econometric methods deal with the issue of initial conditions

and correlated unobserved heterogeneity in dynamic binary choice models using both Wooldridge (2005) and

Heckman (1981) methods. The paper assumes explicitly that both export and innovation are endogenous

variables. We use then a dynamic random effect probit to address crossed-links between both strategies. The

empirical work builds upon recent papers that have applied this framework to analyze the relationship

between unemployment and low-wage employment (Stewart, 2007) and the joint ownership of stocks and

mutual funds (Alessie et al., 2005). Other authors have also addressed the interdependence between

innovation and exports using bivariate probit models [Aw et al., 2007, 2008; Damijan, Kostevc and Polanec,

2008; Girma et al., 2008]. Secondly, the nature of both innovation and internationalization activities are

carefully analyzed. We initially measure innovation with R&D expenses, a very common measurement of

technological activities by firms. Later, we shift from an input to an output perspective on innovative

4

activities, and use both process and product innovation to proxy innovation activities. Thirdly, the robustness

analysis is extended to include import activities as an alternative measurement of internationalization.

The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a description of the related literature on the

relationship between trade and innovation. Section 3 describes the data and provides some preliminary

evidence. The econometric model is sketched out in section 4, and estimation results as well as some

extensions are discussed in section 5. Finally, Section 6 summarizes main conclusions.

2. Trade and innovation: a revision of related literature

The relationship between international trade and innovation has been widely addressed by the economic

literature. International trade theory has long pointed to technological differences in order to explain trade

patterns across countries (Bloomfield, 1994). This relationship was made more explicit when market

imperfections were incorporated to trade models, as in neo-technological models that emphasized the role

played by persistent technological gaps among countries (Posner, 1961) or in those models based on the

effects of the product cycle life on the decision to export (Vernon, 1966). Later, several models dug deeper

into the role played by technological activities in international trade flows, under the premise that these

activities are a main source of product differentiation (Grossman and Helpman, 1995).

The empirical work devoted to examine the effects of innovation activities on aggregated export flows

(at cross-country and/or cross-industry level) is widespread. Wakelin (1998a) estimated this relationship for a

panel of OECD countries finding high inter-industry heterogeneity. The availability of micro-level data

boosted firm-level empirical studies that obtained rather mixed results. For example, Hirsch and Bijauoui

(1985) and Willmore (1992) did not obtain evidence in favor of a positive relationship for Israeli and Brazilian

firms, respectively, while Kumar and Siddhartan (1994), Braunerhjelm (1996), and Wakelin (1998b) did find

a positive association. These studies differ both in the proxies used for innovation and in the features of the

samples of firms investigated (innovators, exporters…). Furthermore, most of them examined the relationship

between innovation and export intensities rather than participation decisions.

Recently, a number of firm-level (and plant-level) studies have resumed the investigation of the link

between innovation and internationalization. In contrast to the aforementioned studies, recent work

emphasizes the importance of heterogeneity in efficiency levels across firms. Wagner (2007) summarizes the

main findings of this literature. First, exporters are different from non-exporters in several dimensions

(productivity, size…). Secondly, evidence is broadly consistent with self-selection hypothesis that predicts

that only more efficient firms enter export markets. Thirdly, evidence supporting the existence of a

productivity-enhancing effect of exporting (learning-by-exporting hypothesis) is mixed. This empirical work

builds upon Clerides et al. (1998) and Melitz (2003) dynamic models of heterogeneous firms that face sunk

costs of entering export markets, inspired by Jovanovic (1982) model of firm dynamics. A main characteristic

of these models is that firms draw their productivity level from a known statistical distribution. Only more

productive firms enter a market (home, foreign), or stay in if they had entered previously. Less productive

5

firms either do not enter or decide to exit a market. Hence, firms differ in their productivity levels, but these

levels are given and not derived endogenously in the model. Thus, these theoretical models predict ex-ante

(before entering foreign markets) productivity advantages of exporters over non-exporters, although they do

not preclude additional efficiency gains that may later (after entry) accrue to exporters (learning by exporting).

Interestingly, Melitz (2003) suggests that higher productivity may also be thought of as producing a

higher quality variety at equal cost. Though it might be reasonable to relate quality varieties with product

innovations, there is not an explicit role for the latter in his model. More recently, Costantini and Melitz

(2008) develop a model where both innovation and export are endogenous decisions. Their model predicts

that the anticipation of trade liberalization brings forward the firm’s decision to innovate relative to that of

entering export market, which may influence the causation link between export status and productivity. Their

model excludes a learning-by-exporting channel, so innovation- or productivity-enhancing effects derived

from export experience are precluded. This model is similar to that by Atkeson and Burstein (2007), who also

examine the two decisions though considering that each firm chooses a different level from a continuum of

innovation intensities. By contrast, Costantini and Melitz (2008) consider it as a more radical decision: either

adoption of a new technology or major product quality upgrades/redesign.

When assessing the direction of causality between innovations and export decision the distinction

between product and process innovation may be important. On the one hand, it might be argued that product

innovations are more relevant to explain the decision to export. The supply of a differentiated product confers

firms some market power facilitating their access to foreign markets. This is coherent with the classical

product life-cycle theory (Klepper, 1996), which suggests that product innovation dominates in early stages,

while process innovations are more relevant in mature phases of the life cycle, when production scale is larger

so productive efficiency becomes increasingly important. Thus, Damijan et al. (2008) find that product

innovation is crucial to explain the export decision for Slovenian firms.1 On the other hand, process

innovation, associated to cost-savings and improvements in technical conditions, enhances firm efficiency,

which could stimulate export activity. This positive effect of process innovation on export is probably more

relevant in homogeneous-product industries where price competition is more intense. Recent research on the

link between innovation and productivity emphasizes the role played by process innovations (Griffith et al.,

2006). In sum, probably both types of innovation may help explain the self-selection of more efficient firms

into export markets.

The causal link between innovation and exports may be easily reversed in presence of learning effects

related to the participation in foreign markets. In this case, it seems that process innovation could play a more

relevant role than product innovation. Export activities allow firms to enlarge their relevant market raising the

potential benefits from process innovations, given that fixed (and sunk) costs of innovation may be distributed

over a larger number of lower-price units. In addition, tougher competition in international markets and access

1 Becker and Egger (2007) and Cassiman and Golovko (2007) find similar results.

6

to best-practices (knowledge spillovers) also strengthen the incentive to innovate. Besides, exporting may also

enhance product innovation when the dynamics of the market forces firms to introduce new varieties in order

to maintain their competitive position. The empirical evidence on the effect of exporting on innovation

activities is more scarce (e.g., Salomon, 2006), which is consistent with the little empirical support for the

learning-by-exporting hypothesis.

The aforementioned literature suggests that the relationship between exports and innovation may run

in both directions. On the one hand, the link running from product innovation to productivity and then to the

decision to export may explain how a firm’s decision to carry out R&D and make product innovations

improves its productivity and fosters the decision to enter export markets. On the other hand, the relationship

running from exporting to innovation may help explain the link between exporting activity and productivity

growth.

Therefore, the analysis of this relationship ought to take this interdependence into consideration.

Some recent papers have examined this issue in the context of bivariate decision analysis. Aw et al. (2007)

estimate how participation in export and innovation influences a firm’s future productivity trajectory using a

selection model that accounts for the endogenous decision of a firm to exit production. Aw et al. (2008)

develop a structural model in which a domestic firm makes three dynamic decisions in each period: a discrete

decision to export and two continuous decisions regarding the level of R&D and the investment in physical

capital. Girma et al. (2008) use R&D expenditures as an indicator of innovation for Irish and British firms.

Their results are mixed: while previous exporting experience enhances the innovative capability of Irish firms

through increasing R&D activity, there is no effect for British firms. Damijan et al. (2008) estimate a bivariate

probit model to assess the two-way relationship between exports and innovation. Besides, they also use

propensity-score matching techniques, applied both to the export participation equation (they compare the

likelihood to start exporting of innovators and non-innovators) and to the innovation participation equation

(comparing innovation efforts of exporters and non-exporters). They do not find support for the hypothesis

that either product or process innovations increases the probability of becoming a first-time exporter.

However, they find evidence that, in a sample of medium and large first-time exporters, process (but not

product) innovations lead to productivity improvements.

Lileeva and Trefler (2007) have introduced an interesting aspect in this debate between exporting,

innovation and productivity. They suggest that the effect of market openness on the incentives to start

exporting and making productivity-enhancing investments differs according the initial productivity level of

the firm. Lower-productivity firms will incur such investments because new access to foreign markets

provides them with enough sales volumes. As a result, we should observe a complementary relationship

between innovation and exports for those firms. By contrast, higher-productivity firms will export without

incurring in such investment. They find support for this dichotomy analyzing the effect of the FTA on

Canadian firms.

A final consideration is related to the fact that export activity is not the only channel of

7

internationalization that may be related to innovation. Access to best international practices and technology

can take place through exports, but also through the acquisition of goods and services. However, the shift

from export to imports is not straightforward and requires some caution. To some extent, the link between

both activities emerges because a share of intermediate-good imports is reprocessed and later exported

(Hummels et al., 2001), which quite often is closely related to the role of multinational enterprises in

international trade. A connection between productivity and import activities is expected insofar as these

imported inputs provide access to foreign technology (Grossman and Helpman, 1991). Besides, firms can also

attain a higher variety and/or quality of inputs through imports. In this line, some recent papers have started to

incorporate imports to explain efficiency heterogeneity across firms (e.g., Kasahara and Rodrigue, 2005;

Altomonte and Békés, 2008; Castellani et al., 2008; and Fariñas and Martin, 2008, for Chilean, Hungarian,

Italian and Spanish plants/firms, respectively). The results suggest that importers are more productive than

non-importers. Kasahara and Lapham (2008) have developed a theoretical model in which more productive

firms self-select into importing. Similarly to exports, the argument hinges on the existence of sunk costs

related to start importing. In principle, the argument of sunk costs related to import activity is less compelling

than in the export case. However these costs may arise when either client-supplier relationships are the result

of a matching process after which both parts establish stable sourcing relationships (see, for example,

Grossman and Helpman, 2002) or importers incur in complementary costs to adapt intermediate import (and

incorporated technologies) to their production processes.

3. Data and preliminary evidence.

3.1. Data

The data used in this paper are drawn from the Encuesta Sobre Estrategias Empresariales survey (Survey on

Business Strategies), for the period 1990-2006. This survey is conducted yearly since 1990 by Fundacion

SEPI, on behalf of the Spanish Ministry of Industry. The sampling scheme is as follows. Manufacturing firms

with less than 10 employees are excluded from the survey. Firms with 10 to 200 employees (SMEs,

henceforth) are randomly sampled by industry (at two-digit NACE level) and size strata, holding around a 4%

of the population. All firms with more than 200 employees (large firms, henceforth) are requested to

participate, obtaining a participation rate around 60%. The ESEE is representative of Spanish manufacturing

firms classified by industrial sectors and size categories and includes exhaustive information at the firm level,

especially regarding exporting and innovation activities. The relatively long sample period, which comprises

17 waves, ensures that we can observe firms’ innovation and exporting behaviour over different phases of the

business cycle and study their dynamics.

8

Table 1

Characteristics of the panel Unbalanced with at least seven consecutive

years Balanced

(t=17) SMEs Large SMEs Large Number of observations 14430 7270 4505 2023 Number of firms 1202 611 265 119 Average number of consecutive obs. per firm

12.00

11.87

17

17

The ESEE survey is an unbalanced panel given that some firms exit the market, shift to non-

manufacturing activities or leave the survey. These firms are replaced by others with similar characteristics in

order to maintain the representativeness of the survey. Some of the econometric methods used in order to

analyse the dynamics of firms’ innovation and exporting behaviour require using a sample without missing

data (blanks) within the temporal period for each firm. Therefore, we restrict attention to those firms that

stayed in the survey at least 7 consecutive years.2 Table 1 summarizes the main characteristics of the dataset.

The sample is made up of a total of 21700 observations: 14430 observations for SMEs (those with 10 to 200

employees) and 7270 for large firms (those with more than 200 employees). These observations correspond to

1813 firms (1202 SMEs and 611 large firms) that are observed, on average, over a period of 12 consecutive

years. In contrast to other studies that analyze dynamics using very short time-dimension panels, twelve years

is an ample inter-temporal variation to carry out an analysis of persistence. The right column of table 1

corresponds to a full-balanced sample, comprising those firms staying in the survey over the entire period

1990-2006. This implies a huge decrease in available sample and it increases attrition problems. Unless

otherwise stated, the analysis lies on the unbalanced panel.

3.2. Preliminary evidence

The focus of this paper lies in examining in depth the determinants of firm-level innovation and export

participation, taking into account the dynamics and the relationship between these two decisions. Innovation is

defined initially as a binary variable taking value one when the firm carries out investment in R&D in a given

year t. Alternative measures of innovation will be discussed later. The export participation variable is also a

binary variable that is equal to one if the firm exports in year t and zero otherwise. As figure 1 indicates, the

percentage of innovating firms remains relatively stable over time, while there appears to be a smooth increase

in the percentage of exporting firms, especially among SMEs, which is more intense during the nineties. The

latter mimics the trend of the Spanish economy, which increased its openness over this period in the context of

the fulfillment of the Single Market and consecutive phases of the EMU.

2 We select seven years because it both coincides with the average period in which a firm is in the survey over 1990-2006, and provides a temporal window long enough to carry an analysis of persistence. In some (few) occasions, two potential spells are available for the same firm; in such cases the larger spell has been selected.

9

Figure 1 Exporters and innovators: 1990-2006

20

30

40

50

60

Pe

rce

nta

ge

1990 1995 2000 2005Years

Exporters Innovators

SME firms

60

70

80

90

10

0P

erc

en

tag

e

1990 1995 2000 2005Years

Exporters Innovators

Large firms

10

Table 2 provides a snapshot of the pattern of firm participation in export and innovative activities of

large and SMEs in four different years. Each firm is classified into four categories according to whether it

participated in both activities, exported only, carried out R&D only, or did carry neither of them. Among

SMEs, the percentage of firms that participated in export markets rose from 32.3% in 1991 to 53.1% in 2006,

whereas the percentage of firms with expenditures on R&D remained fairly stable around 20-22% over the

sample period. As expected, both activities are far more common among large firms. In each year, a

substantial share of exporting firms chose to invest in R&D. Over the sample period, about two thirds (15%)

of large firms (SMEs) participated in both activities, while less than 10% (42-61%) of large firms (SMEs) did

not participate in either activity.

Overall, participation in the export market is more common among all firms than R&D activities.

While 21.3% to 29.7% (18.9%-35.4%) of large firms (SMEs) in each year chose to export but not carry out

R&D, the share of firms that only invested in R&D is relatively small. Furthermore, table 2 reveals that large

firms that export are far more likely to innovate than not to innovate by almost 40 percentage points. As for

SMEs, the percentage of firms exporting and carrying out R&D is smaller than that of exporting but non-

innovating. In addition, exporters are far more likely to innovate than non-exporters for the two size groups.

Table 2 Export and R&D in Spanish manufacturing firms

(per cent of firms of each column total)

Year 1991 1996 2001 2006 SMEs firms (Nº of observations) 656 913 971 691 Export & R&D 13.4 13.8 15.1 18.1 Export & No R&D 18.9 30.7 35.4 35.0 No Export & R&D 6.7 5.4 5.2 4.5 No Export & No R&D 61.0 50.1 44.2 42.4 Large firms (Nº of observations) 371 499 480 332 Export & R&D 62.0 60.1 65.6 66.0 Export & No R&D 21.3 29.7 28.1 26.2 No Export & R&D 6.7 4.0 2.5 1.5 No Export & No R&D 10.0 6.2 3.6 6.3

The evidence so far (figure 1 and table 2) points to a positive (cross-section) relationship between

exporting and innovation. However, the aggregate picture hinders the dynamics of firms’ individual

innovation and exporting behavior over time. Some interesting questions arise. First, is it the same group of

firms that continuously carry out R&D investments and/or compete in export markets (persistence)? Or, is

there a high firm turnover in each activity simultaneously, so that the aggregated picture remains rather stable

over time? Secondly, are these two activities related at the firm level? If so, which is the direction of causality:

innovation to exports or exports to innovation, or the relationship works in both directions? Is there cross-

11

persistence between the two activities? To address these questions, we start by examining persistence in each

activity separately, and then we analyze the pattern of cross persistence between innovation and exporting.

a) Persistence in R&D and exporting

Table 3 provides information on the dynamics of each participation decision over the entire period. Both

SMEs and large firms depict a remarkably high persistence in innovation and exporting activities. Thus, 80%

(for exports) and 53% (for R&D) of large firms do not change their status. For SMEs, such percentage is

similar in both activities (about 64%), but the distribution between the two persistent states (never and always)

is the opposite of that for large firms. The bottom row shows that the highest share of switchers takes place for

R&D activities, and then in export participation for SMEs.

Table 3

Persistent and non-persistent behaviour (1990-2006; per cent of column total)

Export R&D

SMEs Large SMEs Large Persistent - Never 37.10 2.45 56.99 10.80 - Always 27.04 78.72 6.41 42.06 No persistent - Entrants 11.56 6.55 5.99 9.66 - Exiters 3.99 3.11 4.99 7.86 - Switchers 20.30 9.17 25.62 29.62

Table 4 depicts two-period (i.e. between period t-1and t) transition probabilities over 1990-2006. At first

glance, the past (either export or innovative) status of a firm is strongly positively related with its current

status. Between 94% and 99% of exporters persisted to export and 83%-93% of non-exporters continued as

non-exporters. The probability of being an exporter at t was around 80 percentage points higher for exporters

at t-1 than for non-exporters (non-innovators). Additionally, while for SME the transition rates in both ways

(from export to non-export and viceversa) are very similar, exit from export activity very seldom occurs for

large firms. A similar pattern emerges for innovation activity, except for the higher probability of exiting than

entering innovation activities for SMEs.

12

Table 4 Transition Probabilities, Whole Period 1990-2006 (univariate)

Export Year t SMEs Large Year t-1 No Yes No Yes No 92.90 7.10 100 82.56 17.44 100 Yes 6.25 93.75 100 1.33 98.67 100 TOTAL 53.33 46.67 100 8.79 91.21 100 Innovations Year t SMEs Large Year t-1 No Yes No Yes No 95.12 4.88 100 85.57 14.43 100 Yes 18.39 81.61 100 6.97 93.03 100 TOTAL 79.57 20.43 100 32.09 67.91 100

b) Cross-persistence in R&D and exporting

Table 5 examines the correlation between participation in one activity at t-1 and participation in the

other at t. The results suggest that there is cross-persistence between both activities: the probability of

exporting in year t is larger for those firms carrying out R&D investments in year t-1 than for those not

carrying out R&D in year t-1. The same pattern emerges for innovation with respect to the export status at t-1.

For example, among SMEs, 12.2% of innovators in period t-1 make the transition to export (switched from

non-exporters at t-1 to export at period t). That percentage is twice the corresponding to non-innovators

(6.6%). This relative difference is similar (22.6% to 14.5%) for large firms. Regarding the innovation

transitions, 7.4% of SMEs exporters at t-1 make the transition to innovate at t (vs. 3.3% of non-exporters), and

for large firms the figure is 15.7% (vs. 9.0% of non-exporters).3

3 Similarly, those SMEs (large) firms exporting and investing in R&D in t-1 are more likely to also export in t than those firms exporting but not carrying out R&D (96.7% versus 92.3% for SMEs, and 99.2% versus 97.5% for large firms). Besides, 84.6% (93.6%) of SMEs (large firms) carrying out R&D and exporting in t-1 also participate in R&D activities in t, and 73.0%% (82.3%) of the SMEs (large firms) investing in R&D but not exporting in t-1 also invest in R&D in t.

13

Table 5 Transition Probabilities, Whole Period 1990-2006 (bivariate)

SMEs firms

t-1 t Export Innovate Yes export Yes Innovate

No No 6.57 3.31 No Yes 12.24 73.01 Yes No 92.33 7.43 Yes Yes 96.66 84.56

Large firms

t-1 t Export Innovate Yes export Yes Innovate

No No 14.54 9.02 No Yes 22.57 82.30 Yes No 97.47 15.67 Yes Yes 99.16 93.60

14

3.3. Determinants of export market and innovation participation

The preliminary evidence suggests the existence of persistence in each activity and a positive link between

innovation and export participation. As has been indicated, the primary goal of this paper is to uncover

whether this positive correlation is due to genuine state dependence effect or to (observed or unobserved)

heterogeneity. This section further introduces the factors that may be driving these results.

Table 6

Unconditional and conditional probabilities of export and innovate

Unconditional Export at t-1 No export at t-1 EXPORT (t) All 0.608 0.962 0.079 Size: SMEs 0.457 0.937 0.071 Large firms 0.908 0.987 0.174 Foreign owned: Yes 0.737 1.000 0.167 No 0.527 0.952 0.072 Productivity > median 0.770 0.976 0.114 <= median 0.446 0.939 0.066 Age > median 0.751 0.977 0.090 <= median 0.469 0.937 0.074 Advertising: Yes 0.661 0.966 0.095 No 0.468 0.949 0.054 R&D: Yes 0.876 0.984 0.169 No 0.456 0.938 0.067 INNOVATE (t) Unconditional R&D at t-1 No R&D at t-1 All 0.361 0.888 0.065 Size: SMEs 0.201 0.816 0.049 Large firms 0.678 0.930 0.144 Foreign owned: Yes 0.631 1 0 No 0.286 0.862 0.057 Productivity > median 0.519 0.917 0.098 <= median 0.203 0.808 0.045 Age > median 0.503 0.910 0.090 <= median 0.222 0.837 0.049 Advertising: Yes 0.409 0.892 0.075 No 0.249 0.873 0.045 Export: Yes 0.523 0.908 0.102 No 0.115 0.746 0.033

The probabilities of exporting and innovating over the sample period are presented in table 6. The raw

unconditional probability of exporting (innovating) at period t is 60.8% (36.1%). Columns 2 and 3 of the table

provide probabilities conditional on status at t-1. The first row of the two panels again suggests the existence

of considerable state dependence in both activities: a firm exporting (innovating) at t-1 is about 12.2 (13.7)

times as likely to be exporting at t as a firm not exporting (not innovating) at t-1.

15

Part, or even all, of the persistence exhibited in the first row of the two panels of Table 6 could be due

to heterogeneity. To account for it, we include a set of explanatory variables: firms’ age, size, productivity,

foreign ownership and advertising (see table A1 for variable definitions).4 They are control variables that may

positively affect both export and innovation decisions and are widely supported by the literature. Table 7

describes their average or median values (in first year in the sample) in relationship to both innovation and

exporting status. Interestingly, for the sub-sample of SMEs, exporters/innovators are clearly more productive,

larger, and older than both exporters/ non-innovators, and non-exporters/innovators. Non-exporters/non-

innovators are the least productive, smallest and youngest firms. Furthermore, differences between innovators

and non-innovators (when export status is controlled for) in productivity, size and age are remarkable. In

addition, innovation and advertising seem to be quite correlated in the sample. Finally, foreign capital

participation is higher among exporters than across non-exporters. Some of these results are less clear for

large firms. In particular, non-exporters/innovators seem to outperform the rest of categories. However, we

must bear in mind that this is a very small group of firms, which represented 1.5% of large firms in 2006 (see

table 2).

Table 7 Firm characteristics

SME Large

Export: No Yes No Yes Innovate: No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

Foreign ownership 2.9 8.1 12.1 19.3 33.3 39.4 46.1 50.0Age 9 11 11.5 17 26 32 27 33.5Productivity 17.9 22.0 23.0 29.5 26.7 35.9 31.6 34.5Size (employees) 19 23.5 30.5 65 347.5 442 321 413Advertising 49.7 72.6 63.9 78.1 64.3 87.9 68.1 78.9 Notes: Firm characteristics are measured in the first year of the spell. Foreign ownership and advertising reflect the percentage of foreign owned firms and firms investing in advertising, respectively. Median values are reported for age, productivity and size. Productivity (real added value per employee, in euros) is measured at 1990 constant prices. Individually adjusted price-indexes have been used to deflate value added. The number of firms is 1202 and 611 for SME and large firms, respectively.

Turning to table 6, it also depicts the probabilities of exporting and innovating, both unconditional and

conditional on status at t-1, for sub-samples of firms according to explanatory variables. In line with previous

evidence, the probability of exporting and innovating is higher for large, foreign-owned, more productive, and

older firms, as well as for those advertising. The differences between the probabilities conditional on status at

t-1 are evident across all subgroups. In addition, the first column shows that an exporter is more likely to carry

out R&D by about 40% (0.876 vs. 0.456). In the same manner, an innovator is also more likely to be an

4 Average sales and capital stock could be alternative candidates. We have decided not to include them because they are highly correlated with productivity.

16

exporter by 40% (0.523 vs. 0.115). Even if there were no structural persistence for individuals, this

heterogeneity would cause those firms exporting (carrying out innovative effort) at t-1 to have a higher

probability of exporting (innovating) at t than those who were not exporting (not investing in R&D).

In sum, there seems to be a positive link between innovative activity and exporting status, even

though the direction of the relationship between both activities is not evident from the above results. In

addition, innovation and exporting may be driven by the same determinants. Variables such as firm size, age

and foreign ownership may be positively correlated with both innovation and export and, consequently, the

observed correlation between both of them may be spurious. The regression analysis investigates whether, and

to which extent, the observed persistence is due to underlying differences in individual characteristics or due

to a genuine causal effect of past on future status of the two decisions.

4. Model specification and estimation

Transition rates previously examined depict the degree of persistence and cross-persistence, but do not offer a

clue to the causes of this phenomenon since they do not control for observed or unobserved individual

characteristics. This section sets up the econometric modeling strategy and discusses some specification and

estimation issues. We model two binary indicators of export participation and innovation participation, for

firm i (i=1,…,n) in year t (t=1,…,T). The binary dependent variable yit can be modeled in terms of a

continuous latent variable y*it as given by equation (1). Each indicator variable is a function of (i) a vector of

lagged observable explanatory variables, xit-1 (some of them may be time-invariant), including firms’ age,

size, productivity, foreign ownership, advertising and innovation (export) status in the export (innovation)

equation;5 (ii) state dependence through lagged export/innovation status indicator yit-1; (iii) unobservable time-

invariant firm-specific random effect as modeled by the component i; and (iv) a time-varying idiosyncratic

random error term, uit:

'1 1

1 0

0it

it

it it it i it

yy

else

y y x u

i = 1,…,N; t=2,..,T (1)

We start with the estimation of pooled and random-effects univariate static models, that is, assuming

implicitly no state dependence (=0), to later estimate pooled and random effects univariate dynamic probit

models. Finally, the case of bivariate models is considered.

In dynamic probit models, it is assumed that 1 2 , 1, ,... ,it i i i t itu y y y x is iid as N(0,1) and itu is

uncorrelated with 1, ,i i iy x . A shortcoming of the standard random effects model is that it relies on the

assumption that individual effects ( i ) are uncorrelated with regressors. Alternatively, Mundlak (1978) and

5 Explanatory variables are lagged one period to mitigate potential endogeneity problems.

17

Chamberlain (1984) allow correlation between the individual effects ( i ) and the observed characteristics (xit)

by assuming that i i ix a , iiid normal and independent of xit and uit for all i,t. Additionally, for

estimation of dynamic models such (1) we have to solve two important problems: (i) the treatment of initial

conditions (yi1); and (ii) persistence (time-series correlation)6 and unobserved individual heterogeneity (i).

Furthermore, bivariate models bring about the problem of cross-persistence.

The initial conditions problem arises in a longitudinal binary process when the process has a first-

order Markov property and contains unobserved heterogeneity. The data generation process is such that the

first observation (initial condition) –yi1- for each firm is affected by the same process and so is endogenous. In

random effects modelling, because of the correlation between the individual-specific error term and the initial

conditions, treating these endogenous initial conditions as exogenous leads to inconsistent estimates. There

are, at least, three possible solutions. The first and simplest solution (Lee, 1997) is to assume that the initial

value (yi1) is exogenous, i.e. it is a non-random constant. That is, it is assumed that yi1 and i are independent,

which is a very strong and unrealistic assumption. If initial conditions are correlated with i, the degree of

state dependence () will be overestimated. A second solution is the two-step estimation method proposed by

Heckman (1981). In the first step we have to add a reduced form equation for the initial value of the latent

variable y*i1, excluding the lagged dependent variable but including a set of exogenous instruments. The set of

instruments must include some variables not included in the main equation. Then, in the second step the

maximum likelihood estimates of the complete model are worked out. A third alternative proposed by

Wooldridge (2005) is based on conditional maximum likelihood (for serially independent errors). The author

assumes that yi1 is random and specifies the distribution of i conditional on yi1 and xi.

20 1 1 2 1

* '1 1 0 1 1 2

0, and uncorrelated to and i i i i i i i

it it it i i i it

y x iid N y x

y x y y x u

: (2)

The second problem in dynamic models such as (1) is related to time-series correlation, which can arise from

either true state dependence or unobserved individual heterogeneity (i). These two possible origins lead to

quite different interpretations of correlation over time and therefore have different policy implications

(Cameron and Trivedi, 2005, p. 763). On the one hand, true state dependence occurs when correlation over

time is due to the causal mechanism that the decision last period determines the decision this period

[ 1ity ity ]. This dependence is relatively large if the individual effect i 0 as then 1,it itCorr y y .

This occurs when is very small relative to u . On the other hand, correlation can be caused by unobserved

individual heterogeneity. In that case, even if there is not a causal mechanism (=0), the correlation between

6 In model (1), even when itu are assumed serially independent, the composite error term i itu is correlated over

time due to the individual-specific time invariant i term.

18

ity and 1ity is different from zero, leading to spurious state dependence.7 Precisely, a desirable feature of

random effects dynamic binary-choice models is that it allows distinguishing between unobserved

heterogeneity and genuine state dependence.

Given that both export status and innovation activity are highly serially correlated and their

interdependence of the two decisions (as they are both dependent and explanatory variables in equation (1)),

the error terms of the two participation equations are likely to be correlated. To deal with it, we estimate the

two participation decisions simultaneously by estimating a dynamic bivariate binary choice model. This

model allows examining the sources of cross-persistence (see Alessie et al., 2005). The following equations,

in which firm indexes are suppressed, extend the previous univariate model to a bivariate context:

'1 11 1, 1 12 2, 1 1 1 1 1

'2 21 1, 1 22 2, 1 1 2 2 2

1, 21 0(3)

2,...,0

(4)

(5)

jtjt

t t t t t

t t t t t

jyy

t Telse

y y y x u

y y y x u

where the dependent variables are binary variables that refer to exporting ( 1ty ) and innovation ( 2ty ). As in the

univariate case, the same independent variables are used in the two participation equations, while (1, 2) is

assumed to be bivariate normal with variances 1

2 and

2

2 and covariance

1 2 . Finally, error terms

(u1t,u2t) are assumed to be bivariate standard normal with covariance and to be independent over time. It is

also assumed that (1, 2), ujt and xt-1 are independent.

The empirical model given by equations (3)-(5) relates probabilities of exporting and innovating in

period t to lagged firm characteristics. Lagged dummy for innovation is the key variable of interest in the

exporting equation. The corresponding coefficient captures whether innovating firms are more or less likely to

be exporters. The explanatory variable of particular interest in the innovation equation is the lagged export

status.

Some special cases emerge. First, if 12 = 0, the equation for exports does not contain the lagged

innovation participation dummy. In this case, the parameters 1

21 11, and can be estimated consistently by

considering only equation (4). This is the standard univariate panel data probit model for binary choice, with

state dependence as well as unobserved heterogeneity. Similarly, equation (5) can be estimated as a univariate

model if 21 = 0. Secondly, if 2, 1ty enters equation (4) but error terms and random effects in the fourth

equation are independent of error terms and random effects in the fifth equation, then 2, 1ty is weakly

exogenous in the equation for 1ty . In this case (4) could be treated as a univariate model with (weakly)

7 Specifically, 2 2 2

1, /( )it it uCorr y y

19

exogenous regressors only. Similar arguments are applied to equation (5). In this paper we estimate a dynamic

bivariate probit model in which the two components of the error terms are pooled.

5. Results

The descriptive analysis in section 3 pointed out that export and innovation activities exhibit a high degree of

persistence and are highly correlated. This result can be due to a genuine effect of past behavior on future

activities or to underlying differences in firm characteristics (observed and unobserved) that are permanent.

The former mechanism is identified as “true” state dependence, versus the “spurious” state dependence that

defines the latter (Heckman, 1981). The preliminary evidence in section 3.3 also showed remarkable

differences in some firm-level characteristics according to firms’ degree of involvement in both activities.

The goal of this section is to investigate the factors driving the observed persistence when controlling

for a number of firm-level characteristics. We proceed in three steps. First, each decision is separately

examined by means of a univariate approach. Secondly, both decisions are jointly considered using a bivariate

framework. Finally, some sensitivity analyses are carried out by introducing import and product/process

innovations as alternative measures of internationalization and innovation decisions, respectively.

5.1. Univariate results

In this section we start with the simplest approach to model the decisions to export and to innovate. Table 8

depicts the results obtained from the estimation of univariate probit models for export (panel A) and

innovation (panel B) participation decisions. The explanatory variables are innovation, export, foreign

ownership, age, productivity, size and advertising. All of them are included with one lag to reduce potential

endogeneity problems, so we assume that these variables constitute the set of 1itx exogeneous explanatory

variables. We also include a set of industry and time dummies.

20

Table 8

Results: univariate probit Panel A: Exports

Static Dynamic Pooled

(1) Pooled

Mundlak (2)

RE (3)

Pooled (4)

RE Wooldridge (5)

Export t-1 0.836 0.600 (63.65) (32.28) Innovate t-1 0.238 0.227 0.082 0.108 0.091 (12.19) (11.55) (5.43) (8.35) (5.79) Foreign t-1 0.195 0.176 0.083 0.089 0.070 (6.9) (6.02) (4.71) (5.08) (3.11) Size t-1 0.284 0.269 0.510 0.130 0.137 (11.03) (10.41) (9.16) (8.45) (6.04) Age t-1 0.214 0.200 0.314 0.067 0.113 (3.75) (3.48) (3.76) (2.32) (2.55) Productivity t-1 0.021 0.001 0.002 0.008 0.001 (4.4) (0.25) (1.24) (3.25) (0.36) Advertising t-1 0.151 0.147 0.053 0.054 0.056 (8.12) (7.92) (3.96) (4.38) (3.61) Mproducti 0.034 0.025 (4.12) (4.22) Export 1 0.461 (17.15) Windustries (p-value) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 Wtime (p-value) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.003 Wald chi2 (p-value)

842.4 (0.000)

854.7 (0.000)

990.7 (0.000)

6536.6 (0.000)

4498.8 (0.000)

Pseudo R2 0.2853 0.2897 0.7106 Obs. Prob 61.42 61.42 61.42 61.42 61.42 Pred. Prob 68.68 69.56 58.95 72.50 62.07 σu 3.163 0.887 ρ (p-value)

0.909 (0.000)

0.441 (0.000)

Posit. pred.(%) 81.99 82.29 80.06 96.21 94.00 Negat. pred.(%) 68.57 69.24 65.35 92.07 91.91 N. observations 19884

21

Table 8 (Continued) Panel B: Innovation

Static Dynamic Pooled

(1) Pooled

Mundlak (2)

RE (3)

Pooled (4)

RE Wooldridge (5)

Innovate t-1 0.753 0.530 (59.98) (35.6) Export t-1 0.232 0.232 0.129 0.110 0.102 (11.94) (11.92) (8.17) (9.04) (6.77) Foreign t-1 0.017 0.016 0.026 0.002 0.004 (0.66) (0.64) (1.25) (0.17) (0.21) Size t-1 0.308 0.308 0.682 0.146 0.207 (12.56) (12.54) (18.73) (10.65) (8.55) Age t-1 0.139 0.139 0.231 0.059 0.065 (3.16) (3.18) (3.66) (2.54) (1.78) Productivity t-1 0.022 0.022 0.012 0.012 0.010 (6.22) (6.17) (4.99) (5.56) (4.41) Advertising t-1 0.112 0.112 0.066 0.052 0.047 (6.22) (6.23) (5.4) (4.29) (3.41) Mproducti 0.000 0.000 (1.63) (1.2) Innovate 1 0.385 (15.24) Windustries (p-value) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 Wtime (p-value) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 Wald chi2 (p-value)

1030.70 (0.000)

1033.8 (0.000)

870.2 (0.000)

6128.9 (0.000)

4456.9 (0.000)

Pseudo R2 0.2897 0.2898 0.6080 Obs. Prob 36.19 36.19 36.19 36.19 36.19 Pred. Prob 31.13 31.12 31.65 28.28 34.11 σu 1.970 0.801 ρ (p-value)

0.795 (0.000)

0.391 (0.000)

Posit. Pred.(%) 72.58 72.56 71.92 88.84 87.41 Negat. pred.(%) 82.00 82.00 80.35 93.50 90.32 N. observations 19884

Estimators:

1. Static Pooled Probit 2. Static pooled probit with Mundlak (1978) correction for correlated individual effects 3. Static standard Random Effects Probit (initial condition taken to be exogenous) 4. Dynamic Pooled probit 5. Dynamic Random Effects Probit: Wooldridge (2005) estimator

Notes:

1. Marginal effects are reported, with t-ratios in brackets 2. Robust standard errors in pooled probit model, adjusted for clustering on firms. 3. A constant (significant at the 1% level in all cases) as well as time and industry dummies are included

in each regression, but not reported

22

Columns 1-3 of Table 8 present the results from static probit models. In all cases partial effects,

evaluated at the sample means of the regressors, are presented to make easier the interpretation of results. In

pooled regression (columns 1 and 2) coefficients are consistent and standard errors are robust to intra-group

(firm) correlation. All variables have a significant effect on the decision to export and to innovate. The results

of column 1 indicate that firms that innovated at t-1 have a 23.8 % higher probability of exporting at t than

non-innovators in the previous period, conditional on average values of the rest of variables. The effect of past

exports on current innovation is similar, as shown in panel B. The main difference between the two decisions

relates to the effect of foreign ownership, which is non-significant in the innovation decision. Industrial and

time effects are always jointly significant, while average predicted probability overestimates (underestimates)

the observed proportion of exporters (innovators).

In column 1, explanatory variables and the idiosyncratic error term ( i ) are assumed to be

independent. Column 2 reports the results using Mundlak (1978) approach to deal with the possible

correlation between them. We include the within-individual mean of productivity as an additional explanatory

variable. The results are fairly similar to those in the previous column, except for the marginal effect of lagged

productivity that loses its significance in the export decision. The differences in productivity between firms

are larger than within firms, which is likely driving the observed reduction in the productivity coefficient.

The estimates in columns 1 and 2 have not made use of the panel dimension of the dataset. As is well

known, the common approach with a probit is a random-effects model, because there is not a sufficient

statistic for a conditional fixed-effect model. The RE probit model provides more efficient estimates and

allows assessing how much of the random volatility in both decisions is attributable to the unobservable

individual effect. The results of column (3) show that, though significance remains, partial effects are

generally reduced when individual random effects are considered. 8 Only the partial effects for size and age

are larger.9. The intra-class correlation coefficient is large (close to one) and highly significant. This

implies that a high percentage of the unexplained variation both in exporting and innovation is attributed to

the individual effect, suggesting that it could explain a relevant fraction of the persistence in the two decisions.

The natural next step is to estimate a dynamic random effect probit model. However, in a dynamic

context two main econometric issues emerge: unobserved heterogeneity and initial conditions. As described in

Section 4, the problem with unobserved firm heterogeneity is that it can also exhibit persistence over time

that, if it is not properly controlled for, leads to an overstatement of the true state dependence in each strategy

(innovate or export). In that section, we sketched out two approaches proposed to deal with both issues, based

on Heckman (1981) and Wooldridge (2005).

8 We tested the stability of results using different quadrature points in reported regressions. Some initial instability led us to increase the number to 24. It improves the accuracy of results at the cost of slowing down convergence. 9 A basic assumption of this model is that errors are not correlated with the regressors. Again, the solution in this context is to parameterize the effect by augmenting the RE model with the Mundlak specification to allow for individual effects that are correlated with the within-individual means of the regressors.

23

Columns 4-5 of Table 8 report the results when the lagged dependent variable is included in the set of

explanatory variables in order to capture state dependence. As a benchmark, column (4) provides the results

from a dynamic pooled probit model robust to clustering within individuals. Column 5 presents the results

using the method proposed by Wooldridge (2005). Even after accounting for individual unobserved

heterogeneity, the lagged dependent variable remains highly significant, supporting the hypotheses of true

state dependence. There is some reduction in the partial effect of lagged dependent variable when the

adjustment for initial conditions is included. The rest of explanatory variables reduce their marginal effect,

although they are still significant. Besides, innovation (exports) at t-1 has a positive effect on current exports

(innovation). Interestingly, the intra-class correlation coefficient ρ sharply falls (when compared to the results

in the random effects static model of column 3), pointing out that introducing the lagged dependent variable

reduces the importance of unobserved heteregoneity in exports and innovation models. The results further

show that the initial condition is also highly significant in both decisions. This implies a substantial correlation

between firms’ initial export status and the unobserved heterogeneity.

A potential shortcoming of Wooldridge (2005) approach is that it specifies a complete model for the

individual unobserved effects (i), so that the estimates could be sensitive to mis-specification of this effect.

We have compared the estimated coefficients in table 8 to those obtained using the approach proposed by

Heckman (1981), which rely on weaker assumptions.10 Coefficients do not show large differences with those

obtained using Wooldridge (2005) approach.

In sum, previous results indicate that the partial effect of the lagged dependent variable is large;

reflecting that even after accounting for individual unobserved heterogeneity, past behaviour has a relevant

effect on current decisions both for exports and R&D. This true state dependence can be caused by the

presence of sunk costs or learning-by-doing effects. Particularly, sunk entry costs in both export and R&D

represent a barrier for entry and exit and, as consequence, can induce state dependence. Peters (2007) also

emphasizes a kind of “success breads success” effect as an important factor to explain why state dependence

is expected for innovation, suggesting that successful innovations stimulate subsequent innovations due to

increasing market power or broader technological opportunities. Another potential reason could be the risky

nature of innovation projects and asymmetric information, which may lead to financial constraints that are

probably less severe for those firms that had previously succeeded.

10 The Heckman estimator of dynamic random effects probit model has been obtained using the redpace Stata command by Stewart (2006). In the reduced form for the initial period we included a binary variable that takes value one when the firm belongs to a group.

24

Table 9 Predicted probabilities of exporting (panel A) and innovation (panel B)

a) Export

Export: Yt-1=0 Yt-1=1 Innovation: Yt-1=0 Yt-1=1 Yt-1=0 Yt-1=1

Firm effect -2σ 0.0110 0.0250 0.3883 0.5187- σ 0.0803 0.1418 0.7271 0.82510 0.3033 0.4269 0.9322 0.9658+σ 0.6454 0.7591 0.9913 0.9966+2σ 0.8963 0.9442 0.9995 0.9998

b) Innovation

Innovation: Yt-1=0 Yt-1=1 Export: Yt-1=0 Yt-1=1 Yt-1=0 Yt-1=1

Firm effect -2σ 0.0001 0.0029 0.0702 0.1274-σ 0.0110 0.0253 0.2504 0.36790 0.0683 0.1245 0.5509 0.6785+σ 0.2459 0.3625 0.8236 0.8970+2σ 0.5452 0.6734 0.9582 0.9806

Note: Predicted probabilities are calculated using the results in column 5 of Table 8.

Table 9 presents predicted probabilities of exporting and innovating for different lagged status of

export and innovation (columns) and different points along the distribution of unobserved firm effects (rows),

after controlling for the rest of observable exogenous determinants (at their sample means). The predictions

are derived using the dynamic random effect estimations in column 5 of Table 8. The comparison of panels A

and B point out that innovation is a less likely outcome than exporting. The results suggest a considerable

state dependence in both decisions. For example, for those firms with an unobserved permanent effect equal to

zero, the predicted probability of exporting in period t for firms that neither exported nor innovated in t-1 is

30.3%. If the firm exported in t-1 (but did not simultaneously innovate) the probability increases to 93.2%. To

carry out innovative activities has also a positive effect on the predicted probability of exporting irrespectively

of previous exporting status, though its effect is relatively larger for non-exporters in t-1 (the predicted value

raises from 30.3% to 42.7%) than for exporters (it increases from 93.2% to 96.6%). As we move downwards

through Table 9 the predictions correspond to firms that are above-the-mean permanent firm component μi.

For these firms expected profits for exporting (and innovating) are higher and, accordingly, predicted

probabilities are also higher. It is noteworthy that the increase in the predicted probability over the distribution

of the permanent firm component is greater than that corresponding to state dependence for firms with similar

characteristics and μi=0. For example, in panel B the predicted probability of innovating at t for an exporter (at

25

t-1) varies from 12.4% for non-innovators at t-1 to 67.8% for innovators at t-1. This increase of 55.4

percentage points is smaller than 67.0 (=67.34 - 0.29), which is the variation in the probability of innovation at

t for a firm that moves rightwards from the lower tail of the distribution of unobservables (-2σ) to the upper

tail (+2σ). These results are in line to those obtained by Roberts and Tybout (1997) and Kaiser and Kongsted

(2008) for Colombian and German export firms, respectively.11

5.2. Bivariate results

The univariate dynamic random effects model estimated in previous section allows assessing the relative

importance of unobserved heterogeneity and genuine state dependence in explaining persistence in the

decision to export and to innovate. In addition, the univariate regression results also pointed out to the

existence of strong correlation between export and innovation, which is consistent with the preliminary

evidence in section 3. The bivariate model permits the joint estimation of the two decisions allowing for

correlation between the error terms in the export and innovation equations.

Table 10 reports the results of the dynamic pooled bivariate model that consists of the export and

innovation decision equations. Equation (3)-(5) specify that a firm’s export (R&D) participation decision in

year t depends on the firm’s participation choice of both exports and R&D in previous year, as well as on

other profit-shifting characteristics. Notice that this specification does not include intertemporal correlation

but it does permit the contemporaneous correlation between the two choices, Corr (1it, 2it), to be non-zero.

The top panel of table 10 presents estimated coefficients. Previous experience in one activity has a significant

effect on current participation in that activity. In addition, the results point out a positive and significant effect

of past participation in exports (R&D) on current participation in R&D (exports). As for the control variables,

larger, older, more productive firms that engaged in advertising in t-1, are more likely to participate in export

and R&D activities in t. Foreign capital participation has a positive effect on export participation, but not in

innovation. The estimated value of the correlation between the error terms of the two equations of the

bivariate model is positive (0.179) and statistically significant. This implies that unobservable factors that

make a firm participate in one activity tend to lead it to participate in both simultaneously.

Notwithstanding, the interpretation of bivariate binary choice model is not straightforward (Greene,

2008). Table 10 presents some relevant results in Panel A to C. Panel A shows the predicted probabilities for

combinations of status at period t. Exporting is more common than innovating. Panel B reports the predicted

probability of either exporting or innovating at t, conditional on exporting and innovation status at t-1. The

results point out that, after controlling for explanatory variables, both decisions remain remarkably persistent.

Yet, the effect of past experience is larger for exports than for innovation. The results also suggest the

11 These authors split the columns according to 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles of the observables index. In contrast to them, most of the explanatory variables in our paper are binary, so these percentiles are less representative than average values. We have calculated Table 9 introducing these three percentiles for productivity, which is a continuous variable, and results remain qualitatively similar.

26

existence of cross-persistence in these activities. That is, the probability of exporting (innovating) at t is higher

when the firm innovated (exported) at t-1 than when it did not innovate (export), independently of the export

(innovation) status at t-1. For example, the probability of exporting at t when the firm innovated at t-1 is

16.8%, whereas this probability falls to 9.6% when the firm did not innovate at t-1.

Table 10 Export and innovation: bivariate probit

Export Innovation Coeff. t-ratio Coeff. t-ratio

Export t-1 2.899 63.62 0.338 9.16

Innovate t-1 0.341 8.57 2.383 59.99

Foreign t-1 0.277 5.01 0.007 0.16

Size t-1 0.407 8.42 0.415 10.61

Age t-1 0.200 2.32 0.172 2.51

Productivity t-1 0.024 3.26 0.036 5.60

Advertising t-1 0.160 4.41 0.157 4.28

Corr (1it, 2it) LR Chi2 (p-value)

0.179 41.2 (0.000)

Windustries 0.000 0.000 0.000

Wtime 0.000 0.000 0.000 Wald chi2

(prob > chi2) 12,273.5 (0.000)

Panel A: Predicted probabilities (%) of export (t), innovation (t): (1,1) 31.84 (1,0) 29.60 (0,1) 4.38 (0,0) 34.18

Panel B: Predicted probabilities (%): (export t-1,innovation t-1) Export t Innovation t

(1,1) 97.50 87.29 (1,0) 94.72 9.61 (0,1) 16.78 78.52 (0,0) 9.60 4.90

Panel C: Marginal effects: Export t-1 Export t Innovation t

No 0.8377 0.0396 Yes 0.7715 0.0561

Innovate t-1 No 0.0440 0.6890 Yes 0.0254 0.7301

N. observations 19,884

Notes: Marginal effects in Panel C are calculated, using coefficients of Table 10, as the average change in the probability over all firms related to the variable v (i.e, Export t-1 and Innovate t-1): ATE= Ф [Xγd + βd] - Ф[Xγd] if v = 0 ATE= Ф [Xγd] - Ф[Xγd- βd] if v = 1 where the superscript d indicates the decision equation (1 for the exporting decision; 2 for the innovating decision), X are firm-specific values, γd is the vector of estimated parameters for each equation, and βd is the (scalar) estimated parameter related to the v variable.

27

Finally, Panel C shows the average treatment effect of past export and innovation status on current

probabilities of exporting and innovating. For example, the effect of exporting at t-1 for a non-exporter is an

increase in the probability of exporting at t of 83.8%. Similarly, the reduction in the probability of exporting at

t for an exporter in t-1, if it had not exported, would have been of 77.1%. The results of table 10 reinforce the

findings of strong effects of past behaviour on current status and interdependence between both decisions.

5.3. Alternative measures of internationalization and innovation

In previous sections we have analyzed extensively the export “side” of firms’ internationalization activities.

This is the approach followed by the vast majority of theoretical and empirical work devoted to examine self-

selection and learning-by-exporting hypotheses in relation to efficiency heterogeneity across firms/plants.

However, as discussed in Section 2, the import “side” could provide useful insights about the relationship

between innovation and internationalization. On the one hand, import links could have a positive effect on

innovative activities of firms channelled through knowledge externalities that accrue from contact with

foreign providers. For example, rather commonly a firm innovation arises from collaboration with either

foreign or domestic suppliers. Indeed, the ESEE database indicates that technological collaboration with

providers is the most frequent way of collaboration. Specifically, 54.7% of firms that invested in R&D in

2006 claimed to have technological collaboration with their suppliers.12 However, the opposite direction of

this causality (from innovation to imports) is less evident.

It is important to bear in mind that imports are not the mirror image of exports. Thus, when assessing

imports at the firm level two broad considerations are in order. First, industrial firms tend to export their

internally-produced goods, so there is an obvious connection between production and sales in foreign and

domestic markets. However, imports are more heterogeneous that exports, Firms can import three main types

of goods:13 intermediate inputs, machinery and final goods. The first category refers to the type of

international outsourcing that the literature has recently emphasized. Firms acquire technology that is

incorporated in these intermediate good, which are later transformed, or in equipment goods. In addition, even

though we are dealing with manufacturing firms, some of them also engage in wholesaling activities. In fact,

the line distinguishing a “manufacturer” from a “trader” is some times very thin. For example, many footwear

manufacturers use their domestic sales network to distribute their own brands as well as other foreign brands.

Pharmaceutical companies also import some final products from their parent companies or affiliated in foreign

countries, while they elaborate some products for domestic markets. Secondly, the acquisition of foreign

inputs is not necessarily carried out by the final user, but it can be channelled through a domestic

intermediary. In such a case, intermediate consumption is not longer qualified as imports. A similar problem

12 Collaboration with clients (44.4%) and with universities and technological centres (37.2%) are other relevant ways of technological collaboration. Much less important are collaboration with competitors (3.8%) and joint-ventures (5.6%). 13 We do not consider import of services, due to the lack of data. Complementary evidence suggests that, though the outsourcing of services is relevant, it is basically domestic. See Merino and Rodriguez (2007) for a discussion.

28

emerges for exports, as sometimes they use other domestic firms, usually within the same group, to channel

their sales into foreign markets.14 The evidence suggests that the extent of vertical relationships in imports is

smaller.

Bernard et al (2007) point out that importing is relatively less common than exporting across firms.

In contrast to their findings, Table A2 suggests the existence of a high coincidence between participation in

export and import activities at the firm level. This correlation is particularly high for large firms: only about

10% of them exported but did not import, or vice versa, for selected years. The increase in the percentage of

firms involved in both exports and imports is parallel to the decrease in the percentage corresponding of firms

involved neither in exports nor in imports. Table A3 points out a remarkable difference between both “sides”

of internalization: imports are more volatile than exports. The percentage of switchers in imports ranges

between 13.7 and 28.9 for large firms and SMEs, respectively, which exceeds the corresponding figures for

exports in 4 and 8. The percentage of “ones” for switching SMEs is very similar in both trade activities:

44.5% and 45.7% for export and imports, respectively. The difference is larger for large firms: 67.4% and

74.3% for exports and imports, suggesting that a switching pattern correspond to a more intensive import

activity (with respect to export) for large firms (and in both cases more intensive than for SMEs).

With regard to the proxy for innovation, we have used so far a dummy variable that takes value one if

R&D expenses (internal or external) are positive. This variable has been quite often used in the literature (see,

for instance, Aw et al., 2007). However, R&D expenses could be more adequate to measure innovative

activity in large firms. In that sense, Roper (1998) pointed out that large firms undertake frequent research

activities that require a larger degree of formality (i.e., laboratories), in which cost accounting may be simpler.

However, costs related to more informal innovative activities could be accounted as general costs by firms,

and they would not be reflected as R&D investments. An open question remains whether alternative indicators

could lead to different results of the dynamic relationship between internationalization and innovation. This

concern may rest upon theoretical grounds, which relates with the plausible relationship between

product/process innovation and the product life cycle theories as discussed in Section 2.

Table A4 shows the degree of coincidence of participation in R&D, product and process innovation

for some years in the period 1991-2006.15 For smaller firms, in about 75-85% of cases the result is the same

irrespectively of the indicator used. In any year, about 10% of SMEs do not innovate but claim to incur R&D

expenses. That percentage is much higher for large firms. The explanation for these results may be twofold.

On the one hand, some R&D outlays may not result in innovations. On the other hand, even if R&D leads to

innovation, this outcome may arise in future periods. Both reasons seem play even a bigger role for large

14 For that reason the ESEE survey includes exports channelled through other companies belonging to the same group. This seems to be an increasing strategy in the context of multinational groups. 15 Other potential distinction is that between in-house R&D expenditures and outsourced R&D. The first one is probably more relevant to build up a firm’s knowledge stock. If that is the case, we would expect a larger impact on export activity. This distinction has not been dealt with in this paper.

29

firms. A doubt remains on whether smaller firms introduce an upwards bias in the innovations results. The

results in Table A4 suggest that R&D expenses may underestimate innovation activities of SMEs because the

percentage of firms that never involved in R&D is clearly higher than the corresponding figures for both

product and process innovations.

The non-simultaneity of R&D investment and innovation outcomes could also explain partially that

some firms indicate that they do not incur R&D expenses but, at the same time, they claim to have attained

innovations, particularly process innovations. In this case, some actions other than R&D outlays taken by

firms may explain the innovation result. The ESEE provides information (every four years) about

complementary actions to obtain innovation resources (such as the use of scientific and technical information

services, standardization and quality control work, efforts for assimilating imported technologies, market

research and others). We obtain that almost all firms that declare not to invest in R&D but to obtain

innovations are involved in some of these complementary activities. That group of innovators not

simultaneously involved in R&D is reduced over the analyzed period.

The results obtained from the estimation of the dynamic random effects probit models using

Wooldridge (2005) for alternative measures of internationalization and innovation are showed in table 11.

These results are qualitatively similar to those obtained with R&D and export variables. The positive

correlation between innovation and internalization appears to be a robust result, irrespective of the proxies

used to measure these activities. In addition, the effect of the explanatory variables are quantitatively fairly

similar in the export equation (panel A), whereas some differences arise in the innovation equation (panel B)

when alternative proxies of internalization and innovation are considered. In particular, the positive effect of

age and productivity on export (and also on imports) when we use the R&D proxy (columns 1 and 2 of panel

B) vanishes when we proxy innovation activities with either product or process innovations. This result

provides support to the argument that R&D outlays boosts productivity, which is a major driver of the

relationship between innovation and internationalization activities.

30

Table 11

Robustness analysis: Import, product and process innovations

Dynamic Random Effects Probit using Wooldridge (2005) estimator Panel A: Internationalization

Export Import R&D Product

innovation Process

innovation R&D Product

innovation Process

innovation Internationalization t-1 0.600 0.603 0.602 0.555 0.556 0.551 (32.28) (32.58) (32.36) (30.49) (30.4) (29.97) Innovation t-1 0.091 0.058 0.041 0.079 0.046 0.036 (5.79) (4.05) (3.32) (5.46) (3.5) (3.12) Foreign t-1 0.070 0.072 0.074 0.111 0.111 0.112 (3.11) (3.25) (3.31) (5.75) (5.69) (5.73) Size t-1 0.137 0.152 0.152 0.204 0.219 0.220 (6.04) (6.91) (6.86) (10.61) (11.68) (11.59) Age t-1 0.113 0.122 0.126 0.133 0.140 0.144 (2.55) (2.76) (2.81) (3.5) (3.67) (3.73) Productivity t-1 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.008 0.009 0.008 (0.36) (0.49) (0.42) (2.42) (2.65) (2.59) Advertising t-1 0.056 0.059 0.059 0.062 0.065 0.065 (3.61) (3.76) (3.78) (4.38) (4.51) (4.5) Mproducti 0.025 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.029 0.029 (4.22) (4.5) (4.45) (5.05) (5.34) (5.32) Export 1 0.461 0.468 0.476 0.243 0.253 0.259 (17.15) (17.44) (17.73) (11.67) (12.06) (12.25) Windustries (p-value) 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 Wald chi2 (p-value)

4498.8 (0.000)

4520.8 (0.000)

4470.8 (0.000)

4478.4 (0.000)

4424.6 (0.000)

4356.7 (0.000)

Obs. Prob 61.42 61.42 61.42 61.97 61.97 61.97 Pred. Prob 62.07 62.22 62.22 62.14 62.17 62.19 σu 0.888 0.887 0.901 0.798 0.813 0.829 Ρ (p-value)

0.441 (0.000)

0.440 (0.000)

0.448 (0.000)

0.389 (0.000)

0.398 (0.000)

0.407 (0.000)

Posit. pred.(%) 94.00 93.89 93.76 93.08 93.10 93.01 Negat. pred.(%) 91.91 92.04 91.84 89.08 89.19 89.02 N. observations 19884

31

Table 11 (Continued) Panel B: Innovation

R&D Product innovation Process innovation Export Import Export Import Export Import

Innovation t-1 0.530 0.533 0.353 0.354 0.368 0.368 (35.6) (35.74) (28.02) (27.98) (37.53) (37.48) Internationalization t-1 0.102 0.063 0.052 0.038 0.030 0.030 (6.77) (4.16) (5.52) (4.04) (2.76) (2.73) Foreign t-1 0.004 0.008 -0.009 -0.008 0.006 0.006 (0.21) (0.4) (-0.84) (-0.75) (0.45) (0.42) Size t-1 0.207 0.217 0.052 0.054 0.106 0.105 (8.55) (8.86) (3.85) (3.99) (6.99) (6.94) Age t-1 0.065 0.074 -0.029 -0.026 -0.077 -0.077 (1.78) (2) (-1.38) (-1.24) (-3.21) (-3.21) Productivity t-1 0.010 0.011 -0.001 -0.001 0.000 0.000 (4.41) (4.5) (-0.68) (-0.65) (-0.14) (-0.19) Advertising t-1 0.047 0.051 0.037 0.039 0.019 0.020 (3.41) (3.76) (4.5) (4.77) (1.93) (1.99) Mproducti 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 (1.2) (1.29) (1.04) (1.11) (-0.98) (-0.96) Export 1 0.385 0.393 0.150 0.155 0.138 0.138 (15.24) (15.45) (10.75) (11.01) (9.73) (9.79) Windustries (p-value) 0.011 0.000 0.011 0.011 0.012 0.010 Wald chi2 (p-value)

4457.0 (0.000)

4460.7 (0.000)

2259.0 (0.000)

2530.4 (0.000)

2570.9 (0.000)

2568.9 (0.000)

Obs. Prob 36.19 36.19 24.78 24.78 32.65 32.65 Pred. Prob 34.11 34.14 15.91 15.91 22.75 22.67 σu 0.801 0.801 0.603 0.610 0.468 0.469 ρ (p-value)

0.391 (0.000)

0.391 (0.000)

0.267 (0.000)

0.271 (0.000)

0.180 (0.000)

0.180 (0.000)

Posit. pred.(%) 87.41 87.52 74.71 74.65 73.63 73.56 Negat. pred.(%) 90.32 90.41 84.67 84.36 79.42 79.35 N. observations 19884

Notes:

1. Marginal effects are reported, with t-ratios in brackets 2. A constant (significant at the 1% level in all cases) as well as time and industry dummies are included

in each regression, but not reported

32

6. Conclusions

The findings of this paper indicate the existence of true state dependence in both export and innovation status.

Firms with prior export and innovation experience are more likely to participate in export and innovation,

respectively. After controlling for unobservable heterogeneity, this suggests that adjustment costs, sunk entry

costs, self-enhancing success and/or learning may important factors in explaining the observed persistence.

The empirical findings are consistent with the hypothesis of self-selection of more efficient firms into export.

Besides, the results give also support to the hypothesis of learning-by-exporting through the innovation

channel: export participation boosts innovation (R&D outlays, process as well as product innovation) given

that the larger export market provides higher returns to R&D (as modeled by Lileeva and Trefler, 2007, and

Constantini and Melitz, 2007), which stimulates productivity growth. Besides, the firm decisions to export and

innovate are positively affected by firm productivity, size, advertising and age. These findings are broadly

consistent with most previous empirical literature.

Furthermore, we find strong correlation between export and innovation and cross-persistence between

the two activities. Prior innovation (exporting) is positively correlated with current export (innovation)

participation. The estimation results point out a positive and significant correlation between the error terms in

the innovation and export equation. Next step is to estimate a dynamic bivariate random effects model in order

to disentangle the sources of cross-persistence: firm observed/unobserved heterogeneity and/or true state

dependence.

Finally, it is important to point out what's behind (cross) persistence for both its policy implications

and the implications on the literature on the export and productivity link (learning versus ex ante “ability” or

self-selection). From a policy standpoint, it is important to disentangle the different sources of true persistence

(sunk costs, learning, self-enhancing success). For instance, the distinction between permanent innovation

activities due to firm-inherent factors and true state dependence has some important implications. If

innovation is state dependent, innovation–stimulating policy measures such as government support

programmes are supposed to have a more profound effect because they do not only affect the current

innovation activities but are also likely to induce a permanent change in favour of innovation. If, on the other

hand, individual heterogeneity induces persistent behaviour, support programmes are unlikely to have long–

lasting effects and economic policy should concentrate more on measures which have the potential to improve

innovation–relevant firm–specific factors.

33

References

Alessie, R., Hochguertel, S., and Van Soest, A. (2004), “Ownership of stocks and mutual funds: A panel data analysis”, The Review of Economics and Statistics 86: 783-796.

Altomonte, C. and Bekes, G. (2008), “Trading activities, firms and productivity”, mimeo.

Atkeson, Andrew and Ariel Burstein (2007), "Innovation, Firm Dynamics, and International Trade", NBER Working Paper 13326.

Aw, B. Y., Roberts, M.J. and Xu, D.Y. (2008), "R&D Investments, Exporting, and the Evolution of Firm Productivity," American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 98: 451-456.

Aw, B.Y., Roberts, M.J. and Winston, T. (2007), “Export Market Participation, Investments in R&D and Worker Training, and the Evolution of Firm Productivity”, The World Economy 14: 83-104.

Becker, S. and Egger P. (2007), “Endogenous Product Versus Process Innovation and a Firm’s Propensity to Export”, CESIFO Working Paper No. 1906.

Bernard, A.B. and Jensen, J.B. (1999), “Exceptional Exporter Performance: Cause, Effect, or Both?”, Journal of International Economics 47: 1-25.

Bernard, A.B. and Jensen, J.B. (2004), "Why Some Firms Export", The Review of Economics and Statistics 86: 561-569.

Bernard, A.B., Jensen, J.B., Redding, S.J. and Schott, P. (2007), “Firms in International Trade”, Journal of Economic Perspectives 21: 105-130.

Bloomfield, A. (1994): Essays in the history of international trade theory, Edward Elgar.

Braunerhjelm, P. (1996), “The relation between firm-specific intangibles and exports”, Economic Letters 53: 213-219.

Cameron, A.C. and Trivedi, P.K. (2005), “Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications”, Cambridge University Press, New York.

Cassiman B. and Golovko, E. (2007), “Innovation and the export-productivity link”, IESE Business School, mimeo.

Castellani, D., Serti, F. and Tomasi, C. (2008), “Firms in International Trade: Importers and Exporters Heterogeneity in the Italian Manufacturing Industry”, mimeo.

Chamberlain G. (1984), “Panel data”, in Handbook of Econometrics, ed. by Z. Griliches and M. Intrilligator, Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Clerides, S. K., Lach, S., and Tybout, J.R. (1998), “Is learning by exporting important? Microdynamic evidence from Colombia, Mexico, and Morocco”, Quarterly Journal of Economics 113: 903-947.

Constantini, James A., and Melitz, M.J. (2008), “The Dynamics of Firm-Level Adjustment to Trade Liberalization”, in The Organization of Firms in a Global Economy, E. Helpman, D. Marin, and T. Verdier (eds.), Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Damijan, J.P., Kostevc, C., and Polanec, S. (2008), “From innovation to exporting or vice versa? Causal link between innovation activity and exporting in Slovenian microdata”, LICOS Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance Discussion paper 204/2008.

Geroski, P.A., Van Reenen, J. and Walters, C.F., (1997), “How persistenly do firms innovate?”, Research Policy 26: 33-48

Girma, S., Görg, H., Hanley, A. (2008), “R&D and exporting: A comparison of British and Irish firms”, Review of World Economics 144: 749-772

Greene, W. (2008), “Discrete Choice Modeling,” The Handbook of Econometrics: Vol. 2, Applied Econometrics, Part 4.2., ed. T. Mills and K. Patterson, Palgrave, London

34

Greenaway, D. and Kneller, R. (2007), “Firm heterogeneity, exporting and foreign direct investment”, Economic Journal 117:134-161.

Griffith, R. Huergo, E., Mairesse, J. and Peters, B. (2006), “Innovation and productivity across four European Countries”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy 22: 483-498.

Grossman, G.M. and Helpman, E. (1991), “Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy”, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Grossman, G.M. and Helpman, E. (1995): “Technology and Trade”, Handbook of International Economics III: 1279-1337.

Grossman, G.M. and Helpman, E. (2002), “Integration versus outsourcing in industry equilibrium”, Quarterly Journal of Economics 117: 85-120.

Heckman, J. (1981), “The Incidental Parameters Problem and the Problem of Initial Conditions in Estimating a Discrete Time-Discrete Data Stochastic Process,” in C.F. Manski and D.L. McFadden (eds.), Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications, MIT Press, London, 179–195.

Hummels, D., Ishii, J. and Yi, K. (2001), “The nature and growth of vertical specialization in world trade”, Journal of International Economics 54: 75–96.

Jovanovic, B. (1982), “Selection and the Evolution of Industry”, Econometrica 50: 649-70.

Kaiser, U. and Kongsted, H. C. (2008), “True versus spurious state dependence in firm performance: The case of German exports”, Empirical Economics 35: 207-28.

Kasahara, H. and Lapham, B. (2008), “Productivity and the decision to import and export: Theory and evidence”, CESifo Working Paper 2240.

Kasahara, H., and Rodrigue, J., (2005), “Does the Use of Imported Intermediates Increase Productivity? Plant-Level Evidence”, University of Western Ontario, RBC Financial Group Economic Policy Research Institute Working Paper No. 20057.

Klepper, S. (1996), ”Entry, Exit, Growth, and Innovation over the Product Life Cycle”, American Economic Review 86: 562-583.

Kumar, N. and Siddhartan, N.S. (1994), “Technology, firm size and export behaviour in developing countries: the case of Indian enterprise”, Journal of Development Studies 32: 288-309.

Lee, L.F. (1997), “Simulated Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Dynamic Discrete Choice Statistical Models Using some Monte Carlo Results,” Journal of Econometrics 82: 1-35.

Lileeva, A. and Trefler, D. (2007), “Improved access to foreign markets raises plant-level productivity ... for some plants”, NBER working paper series, 13297.

Melitz, M.J. (2003), “The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity” Econometrica 71: 1695-1725.

Merino, F. and Rodríguez, D. (2007), “Outsourcing of business services: theory and evidence”, Industrial and Corporate Change 16: 1147-1173.

Mundlak, Y. (1978), “On the Pooling of Time Series and Cross Sectional Data.” Econometrica, 56: 69–86.

Peters, B. (2007): “Persistence of Innovation: Stylised Facts and Panel Data Evidence", The Journal of Technology Transfer (forthcoming).

Posner, M.V. (1961), “International trade and technological progress”, Oxford Economic Papers 13: 323-341.

Roberts, M.J. and Tybout, J.R. (1997), “The Decision to Export in Colombia: An Empirical Model of Entry with Sunk Costs”, American Economic Review 87: 545-564.

Roper, S. (1998), “Under-Reporting of R&D in Small Firms: The Impact on International R&D Comparisons”, Small Business Economics 12: 131-135.

35

Stewart, M. (2007), “The interrelated dynamics of unemployment and low-wage employment”, Journal of Applied Econometrics 22: 511-531.

Salomon, R.M. (2006), “Spillovers to foreign market participants: assessing the impact of export strategies on innovative productivity”, Strategic Organization 4: 135-164.

Vernon, R. (1966), “International investment and international trade in product cycle”, Quarterly Journal of Economics 80: 190-207.

Wagner, J. (2007), “Exports and Productivity: A Survey of the Evidence from Firm-level Data”, The World Economy 30: 60-82.

Wakelin, K. (1998a), “The Role of Innovation in Bilateral OECD Trade Performance”, Applied Economics 30: 1334-46.

Wakelin, K. (1998b), ”Innovation and export behaviour at the firm level”, Research Policy 26: 829-841.

36

Appendix:

Table A1 Variable definitions

Variable Type Definition Alternative dependent variables Export 0/1 1 if the firm exported at t, directly or channelling

those exports through an affiliated of the group Import 0/1 1 if the firm imported at t, directly or channelling

those imports through an affiliated of the group R&D 0/1 1 if the firm invested in R&D at t (internal or

external expenses) Product innovation 0/1 1 if the firm obtained a product innovation at t.

Encompasses completely new products, or with modifications such that they are different from those produced earlier

Process innovation 0/1 1 if the firm introduced a process innovation at t Explanatory variables Size 0/1 1 if a firm i has more than 200 employees at t Productivity Continuous Added value (defined as the sum of the sales, the

variation in stocks and other management income, minus the purchases and external services) per employee at 1990 constant price

Foreign 0/1 1 if the firm’s social capital was directly or

indirectly participated by foreign capital at t Age Continuous Number of years since the firm was created Adv 0/1 1 if the firm spent on advertising and/or public

relations at t Group 0/1 1 if the firm i is part of a companies’ group

37

Table A2 Export and Import in Spanish manufacturing firms

(per cent of firms of each column total)

Year 1991 1996 2001 2006 SMEs firms (Nº of observations) 656 913 971 691 Export & Import 20.7 30.6 38.1 39.4 Export & No Import 11.6 13.9 12.5 13.7 No Export & Import 13.7 10.8 11.5 12.6 No Export & No Import 54.0 44.7 37.9 34.3 Large firms (Nº of observations) 371 499 480 332 Export & Import 77.9 86.4 90.0 88.6 Export & No Import 5.4 3.4 3.7 3.6 No Export & Import 10.2 7.2 4.78 6.0 No Export & No Import 6.5 3.0 1.5 1.8

Table A3

Persistent and non-persistent behaviour (1990-2006; per cent of column total)

Export Import R&D Product Process SMEs Large SMEs Large SMEs Large SMEs Large SMEs Large Persistent - Never 37.1 2.5 32.9 0.3 57.0 10.8 44.8 20.1 24.9 7.7 - Always 27.0 78.7 23.5 76.6 6.4 42.1 1.7 5.2 1.1 6.1 No persistent - Entrants 11.6 6.5 10.4 6.5 6.0 9.7 4.0 8.8 2.8 7.7 - Exiters 4.0 3.1 4.2 2.8 5.0 7.9 6.9 9.0 7.6 11.8 - Switchers 20.3 9.2 28.9 13.7 25.6 29.6 42.5 56.8 63.6 66.8

Table A4 R&D and Innovation processes in Spanish manufacturing firms

(per cent of firms of each column total)

Product Innovation Process Innovations 1991 1996 2001 2006 1991 1996 2001 2006

SMEs firms (Nº of observations) 656 913 971 691 656 913 971 691 R&D & Innovation 9.6 9.2 9.7 11.6 10.4 8.1 9.2 9.8 R&D & No Innovation 10.5 10.0 10.7 11.0 9.8 11.1 11.2 12.7 No R&D & Innovation 10.1 11.1 6.1 4.6 18.1 16.6 15.8 9.7 No R&D & No Innovation 69.8 69.7 73.5 72.8 61.7 64.2 63.8 67.7 Large firms (Nº of observations) 371 499 480 332 371 499 480 332 R&D & Innovation 34.2 31.7 33.9 27.7 42.3 38.7 40.6 32.2 R&D & No Innovation 34.5 32.5 34.2 39.8 26.4 25.4 27.5 35.2 No R&D & Innovation 5.1 5.0 4.0 4.2 13.2 10.0 7.9 6.9 No R&D & No Innovation 26.2 30.9 27.9 28.3 18.1 25.8 24.0 25.6

455/2009 Does playing several competitions influence a team’s league performance? Evidence from Spanish professional football Andrés J. Picazo-Tadeo & Francisco González-Gómez

456/2009 Does accessibility affect retail prices and competition? An empirical application Juan Luis Jiménez and Jordi Perdiguero

457/2009 Cash conversion cycle in smes Sonia Baños-Caballero, Pedro J. García-Teruel and Pedro Martínez-Solano

458/2009 Un estudio sobre el perfil de hogares endeudados y sobreendeudados: el caso de los hogares vascos Alazne Mujika Alberdi, Iñaki García Arrizabalaga y Juan José Gibaja Martíns

459/2009 Imposing monotonicity on outputs in parametric distance function estimations: with an application to the spanish educational production Sergio Perelman and Daniel Santin

460/2009 Key issues when using tax data for concentration analysis: an application to the Spanish wealth tax José Mª Durán-Cabré and Alejandro Esteller-Moré

461/2009 ¿Se está rompiendo el mercado español? una aplicación del enfoque de feldstein –horioka Saúl De Vicente Queijeiro, José Luis Pérez Rivero y María Rosalía Vicente Cuervo

462/2009 Financial condition, cost efficiency and the quality of local public services Manuel A. Muñiz & José L. Zafra

463/2009 Including non-cognitive outputs in a multidimensional evaluation of education production: an international comparison Marián García Valiñas & Manuel Antonio Muñiz Pérez

464/2009 A political look into budget deficits.The role of minority governments and oppositions Albert Falcó-Gimeno & Ignacio Jurado

465/2009 La simulación del cuadro de mando integral. una herramienta de aprendizaje en la materia de contabilidad de gestión Elena Urquía Grande, Clara Isabel Muñoz Colomina y Elisa Isabel Cano Montero

466/2009 Análisis histórico de la importancia de la industria de la desalinización en España Borja Montaño Sanz

467/2009 The dynamics of trade and innovation: a joint approach Silviano Esteve-Pérez & Diego Rodríguez

FUNDACIÓN DE LAS CAJAS DE AHORROS

DOCUMENTOS DE TRABAJO

Últimos números publicados

159/2000 Participación privada en la construcción y explotación de carreteras de peaje Ginés de Rus, Manuel Romero y Lourdes Trujillo

160/2000 Errores y posibles soluciones en la aplicación del Value at Risk Mariano González Sánchez

161/2000 Tax neutrality on saving assets. The spahish case before and after the tax reform Cristina Ruza y de Paz-Curbera

162/2000 Private rates of return to human capital in Spain: new evidence F. Barceinas, J. Oliver-Alonso, J.L. Raymond y J.L. Roig-Sabaté

163/2000 El control interno del riesgo. Una propuesta de sistema de límites riesgo neutral Mariano González Sánchez

164/2001 La evolución de las políticas de gasto de las Administraciones Públicas en los años 90 Alfonso Utrilla de la Hoz y Carmen Pérez Esparrells

165/2001 Bank cost efficiency and output specification Emili Tortosa-Ausina

166/2001 Recent trends in Spanish income distribution: A robust picture of falling income inequality Josep Oliver-Alonso, Xavier Ramos y José Luis Raymond-Bara

167/2001 Efectos redistributivos y sobre el bienestar social del tratamiento de las cargas familiares en el nuevo IRPF Nuria Badenes Plá, Julio López Laborda, Jorge Onrubia Fernández

168/2001 The Effects of Bank Debt on Financial Structure of Small and Medium Firms in some Euro-pean Countries Mónica Melle-Hernández

169/2001 La política de cohesión de la UE ampliada: la perspectiva de España Ismael Sanz Labrador

170/2002 Riesgo de liquidez de Mercado Mariano González Sánchez

171/2002 Los costes de administración para el afiliado en los sistemas de pensiones basados en cuentas de capitalización individual: medida y comparación internacional. José Enrique Devesa Carpio, Rosa Rodríguez Barrera, Carlos Vidal Meliá

172/2002 La encuesta continua de presupuestos familiares (1985-1996): descripción, representatividad y propuestas de metodología para la explotación de la información de los ingresos y el gasto. Llorenc Pou, Joaquín Alegre

173/2002 Modelos paramétricos y no paramétricos en problemas de concesión de tarjetas de credito. Rosa Puertas, María Bonilla, Ignacio Olmeda

174/2002 Mercado único, comercio intra-industrial y costes de ajuste en las manufacturas españolas. José Vicente Blanes Cristóbal

175/2003 La Administración tributaria en España. Un análisis de la gestión a través de los ingresos y de los gastos. Juan de Dios Jiménez Aguilera, Pedro Enrique Barrilao González

176/2003 The Falling Share of Cash Payments in Spain. Santiago Carbó Valverde, Rafael López del Paso, David B. Humphrey Publicado en “Moneda y Crédito” nº 217, pags. 167-189.

177/2003 Effects of ATMs and Electronic Payments on Banking Costs: The Spanish Case. Santiago Carbó Valverde, Rafael López del Paso, David B. Humphrey

178/2003 Factors explaining the interest margin in the banking sectors of the European Union. Joaquín Maudos y Juan Fernández Guevara

179/2003 Los planes de stock options para directivos y consejeros y su valoración por el mercado de valores en España. Mónica Melle Hernández

180/2003 Ownership and Performance in Europe and US Banking – A comparison of Commercial, Co-operative & Savings Banks. Yener Altunbas, Santiago Carbó y Phil Molyneux

181/2003 The Euro effect on the integration of the European stock markets. Mónica Melle Hernández

182/2004 In search of complementarity in the innovation strategy: international R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Bruno Cassiman, Reinhilde Veugelers

183/2004 Fijación de precios en el sector público: una aplicación para el servicio municipal de sumi-nistro de agua. Mª Ángeles García Valiñas

184/2004 Estimación de la economía sumergida es España: un modelo estructural de variables latentes. Ángel Alañón Pardo, Miguel Gómez de Antonio

185/2004 Causas políticas y consecuencias sociales de la corrupción. Joan Oriol Prats Cabrera

186/2004 Loan bankers’ decisions and sensitivity to the audit report using the belief revision model. Andrés Guiral Contreras and José A. Gonzalo Angulo

187/2004 El modelo de Black, Derman y Toy en la práctica. Aplicación al mercado español. Marta Tolentino García-Abadillo y Antonio Díaz Pérez

188/2004 Does market competition make banks perform well?. Mónica Melle

189/2004 Efficiency differences among banks: external, technical, internal, and managerial Santiago Carbó Valverde, David B. Humphrey y Rafael López del Paso

190/2004 Una aproximación al análisis de los costes de la esquizofrenia en españa: los modelos jerár-quicos bayesianos F. J. Vázquez-Polo, M. A. Negrín, J. M. Cavasés, E. Sánchez y grupo RIRAG

191/2004 Environmental proactivity and business performance: an empirical analysis Javier González-Benito y Óscar González-Benito

192/2004 Economic risk to beneficiaries in notional defined contribution accounts (NDCs) Carlos Vidal-Meliá, Inmaculada Domínguez-Fabian y José Enrique Devesa-Carpio

193/2004 Sources of efficiency gains in port reform: non parametric malmquist decomposition tfp in-dex for Mexico Antonio Estache, Beatriz Tovar de la Fé y Lourdes Trujillo

194/2004 Persistencia de resultados en los fondos de inversión españoles Alfredo Ciriaco Fernández y Rafael Santamaría Aquilué

195/2005 El modelo de revisión de creencias como aproximación psicológica a la formación del juicio del auditor sobre la gestión continuada Andrés Guiral Contreras y Francisco Esteso Sánchez

196/2005 La nueva financiación sanitaria en España: descentralización y prospectiva David Cantarero Prieto

197/2005 A cointegration analysis of the Long-Run supply response of Spanish agriculture to the com-mon agricultural policy José A. Mendez, Ricardo Mora y Carlos San Juan

198/2005 ¿Refleja la estructura temporal de los tipos de interés del mercado español preferencia por la li-quidez? Magdalena Massot Perelló y Juan M. Nave

199/2005 Análisis de impacto de los Fondos Estructurales Europeos recibidos por una economía regional: Un enfoque a través de Matrices de Contabilidad Social M. Carmen Lima y M. Alejandro Cardenete

200/2005 Does the development of non-cash payments affect monetary policy transmission? Santiago Carbó Valverde y Rafael López del Paso

201/2005 Firm and time varying technical and allocative efficiency: an application for port cargo han-dling firms Ana Rodríguez-Álvarez, Beatriz Tovar de la Fe y Lourdes Trujillo

202/2005 Contractual complexity in strategic alliances Jeffrey J. Reuer y Africa Ariño

203/2005 Factores determinantes de la evolución del empleo en las empresas adquiridas por opa Nuria Alcalde Fradejas y Inés Pérez-Soba Aguilar

204/2005 Nonlinear Forecasting in Economics: a comparison between Comprehension Approach versus Learning Approach. An Application to Spanish Time Series Elena Olmedo, Juan M. Valderas, Ricardo Gimeno and Lorenzo Escot

205/2005 Precio de la tierra con presión urbana: un modelo para España Esther Decimavilla, Carlos San Juan y Stefan Sperlich

206/2005 Interregional migration in Spain: a semiparametric analysis Adolfo Maza y José Villaverde

207/2005 Productivity growth in European banking Carmen Murillo-Melchor, José Manuel Pastor y Emili Tortosa-Ausina

208/2005 Explaining Bank Cost Efficiency in Europe: Environmental and Productivity Influences. Santiago Carbó Valverde, David B. Humphrey y Rafael López del Paso

209/2005 La elasticidad de sustitución intertemporal con preferencias no separables intratemporalmente: los casos de Alemania, España y Francia. Elena Márquez de la Cruz, Ana R. Martínez Cañete y Inés Pérez-Soba Aguilar

210/2005 Contribución de los efectos tamaño, book-to-market y momentum a la valoración de activos: el caso español. Begoña Font-Belaire y Alfredo Juan Grau-Grau

211/2005 Permanent income, convergence and inequality among countries José M. Pastor and Lorenzo Serrano

212/2005 The Latin Model of Welfare: Do ‘Insertion Contracts’ Reduce Long-Term Dependence? Luis Ayala and Magdalena Rodríguez

213/2005 The effect of geographic expansion on the productivity of Spanish savings banks Manuel Illueca, José M. Pastor and Emili Tortosa-Ausina

214/2005 Dynamic network interconnection under consumer switching costs Ángel Luis López Rodríguez

215/2005 La influencia del entorno socioeconómico en la realización de estudios universitarios: una aproxi-mación al caso español en la década de los noventa Marta Rahona López

216/2005 The valuation of spanish ipos: efficiency analysis Susana Álvarez Otero

217/2005 On the generation of a regular multi-input multi-output technology using parametric output dis-tance functions Sergio Perelman and Daniel Santin

218/2005 La gobernanza de los procesos parlamentarios: la organización industrial del congreso de los di-putados en España Gonzalo Caballero Miguez

219/2005 Determinants of bank market structure: Efficiency and political economy variables Francisco González

220/2005 Agresividad de las órdenes introducidas en el mercado español: estrategias, determinantes y me-didas de performance David Abad Díaz

221/2005 Tendencia post-anuncio de resultados contables: evidencia para el mercado español Carlos Forner Rodríguez, Joaquín Marhuenda Fructuoso y Sonia Sanabria García

222/2005 Human capital accumulation and geography: empirical evidence in the European Union Jesús López-Rodríguez, J. Andrés Faíña y Jose Lopez Rodríguez

223/2005 Auditors' Forecasting in Going Concern Decisions: Framing, Confidence and Information Proc-essing Waymond Rodgers and Andrés Guiral

224/2005 The effect of Structural Fund spending on the Galician region: an assessment of the 1994-1999 and 2000-2006 Galician CSFs José Ramón Cancelo de la Torre, J. Andrés Faíña and Jesús López-Rodríguez

225/2005 The effects of ownership structure and board composition on the audit committee activity: Span-ish evidence Carlos Fernández Méndez and Rubén Arrondo García

226/2005 Cross-country determinants of bank income smoothing by managing loan loss provisions Ana Rosa Fonseca and Francisco González

227/2005 Incumplimiento fiscal en el irpf (1993-2000): un análisis de sus factores determinantes Alejandro Estellér Moré

228/2005 Region versus Industry effects: volatility transmission Pilar Soriano Felipe and Francisco J. Climent Diranzo

229/2005 Concurrent Engineering: The Moderating Effect Of Uncertainty On New Product Development Success Daniel Vázquez-Bustelo and Sandra Valle

230/2005 On zero lower bound traps: a framework for the analysis of monetary policy in the ‘age’ of cen-tral banks Alfonso Palacio-Vera

231/2005 Reconciling Sustainability and Discounting in Cost Benefit Analysis: a methodological proposal M. Carmen Almansa Sáez and Javier Calatrava Requena

232/2005 Can The Excess Of Liquidity Affect The Effectiveness Of The European Monetary Policy? Santiago Carbó Valverde and Rafael López del Paso

233/2005 Inheritance Taxes In The Eu Fiscal Systems: The Present Situation And Future Perspectives. Miguel Angel Barberán Lahuerta

234/2006 Bank Ownership And Informativeness Of Earnings. Víctor M. González

235/2006 Developing A Predictive Method: A Comparative Study Of The Partial Least Squares Vs Maxi-mum Likelihood Techniques. Waymond Rodgers, Paul Pavlou and Andres Guiral.

236/2006 Using Compromise Programming for Macroeconomic Policy Making in a General Equilibrium Framework: Theory and Application to the Spanish Economy. Francisco J. André, M. Alejandro Cardenete y Carlos Romero.

237/2006 Bank Market Power And Sme Financing Constraints. Santiago Carbó-Valverde, Francisco Rodríguez-Fernández y Gregory F. Udell.

238/2006 Trade Effects Of Monetary Agreements: Evidence For Oecd Countries. Salvador Gil-Pareja, Rafael Llorca-Vivero y José Antonio Martínez-Serrano.

239/2006 The Quality Of Institutions: A Genetic Programming Approach. Marcos Álvarez-Díaz y Gonzalo Caballero Miguez.

240/2006 La interacción entre el éxito competitivo y las condiciones del mercado doméstico como deter-minantes de la decisión de exportación en las Pymes. Francisco García Pérez.

241/2006 Una estimación de la depreciación del capital humano por sectores, por ocupación y en el tiempo. Inés P. Murillo.

242/2006 Consumption And Leisure Externalities, Economic Growth And Equilibrium Efficiency. Manuel A. Gómez.

243/2006 Measuring efficiency in education: an analysis of different approaches for incorporating non-discretionary inputs. Jose Manuel Cordero-Ferrera, Francisco Pedraja-Chaparro y Javier Salinas-Jiménez

244/2006 Did The European Exchange-Rate Mechanism Contribute To The Integration Of Peripheral Countries?. Salvador Gil-Pareja, Rafael Llorca-Vivero y José Antonio Martínez-Serrano

245/2006 Intergenerational Health Mobility: An Empirical Approach Based On The Echp. Marta Pascual and David Cantarero

246/2006 Measurement and analysis of the Spanish Stock Exchange using the Lyapunov exponent with digital technology. Salvador Rojí Ferrari and Ana Gonzalez Marcos

247/2006 Testing For Structural Breaks In Variance Withadditive Outliers And Measurement Errors. Paulo M.M. Rodrigues and Antonio Rubia

248/2006 The Cost Of Market Power In Banking: Social Welfare Loss Vs. Cost Inefficiency. Joaquín Maudos and Juan Fernández de Guevara

249/2006 Elasticidades de largo plazo de la demanda de vivienda: evidencia para España (1885-2000). Desiderio Romero Jordán, José Félix Sanz Sanz y César Pérez López

250/2006 Regional Income Disparities in Europe: What role for location?. Jesús López-Rodríguez and J. Andrés Faíña

251/2006 Funciones abreviadas de bienestar social: Una forma sencilla de simultanear la medición de la eficiencia y la equidad de las políticas de gasto público. Nuria Badenes Plá y Daniel Santín González

252/2006 “The momentum effect in the Spanish stock market: Omitted risk factors or investor behaviour?”. Luis Muga and Rafael Santamaría

253/2006 Dinámica de precios en el mercado español de gasolina: un equilibrio de colusión tácita. Jordi Perdiguero García

254/2006 Desigualdad regional en España: renta permanente versus renta corriente. José M.Pastor, Empar Pons y Lorenzo Serrano

255/2006 Environmental implications of organic food preferences: an application of the impure public goods model. Ana Maria Aldanondo-Ochoa y Carmen Almansa-Sáez

256/2006 Family tax credits versus family allowances when labour supply matters: Evidence for Spain. José Felix Sanz-Sanz, Desiderio Romero-Jordán y Santiago Álvarez-García

257/2006 La internacionalización de la empresa manufacturera española: efectos del capital humano genérico y específico. José López Rodríguez

258/2006 Evaluación de las migraciones interregionales en España, 1996-2004. María Martínez Torres

259/2006 Efficiency and market power in Spanish banking. Rolf Färe, Shawna Grosskopf y Emili Tortosa-Ausina.

260/2006 Asimetrías en volatilidad, beta y contagios entre las empresas grandes y pequeñas cotizadas en la bolsa española. Helena Chuliá y Hipòlit Torró.

261/2006 Birth Replacement Ratios: New Measures of Period Population Replacement. José Antonio Ortega.

262/2006 Accidentes de tráfico, víctimas mortales y consumo de alcohol. José Mª Arranz y Ana I. Gil.

263/2006 Análisis de la Presencia de la Mujer en los Consejos de Administración de las Mil Mayores Em-presas Españolas. Ruth Mateos de Cabo, Lorenzo Escot Mangas y Ricardo Gimeno Nogués.

264/2006 Crisis y Reforma del Pacto de Estabilidad y Crecimiento. Las Limitaciones de la Política Econó-mica en Europa. Ignacio Álvarez Peralta.

265/2006 Have Child Tax Allowances Affected Family Size? A Microdata Study For Spain (1996-2000). Jaime Vallés-Giménez y Anabel Zárate-Marco.

266/2006 Health Human Capital And The Shift From Foraging To Farming. Paolo Rungo.

267/2006 Financiación Autonómica y Política de la Competencia: El Mercado de Gasolina en Canarias. Juan Luis Jiménez y Jordi Perdiguero.

268/2006 El cumplimiento del Protocolo de Kyoto para los hogares españoles: el papel de la imposición sobre la energía. Desiderio Romero-Jordán y José Félix Sanz-Sanz.

269/2006 Banking competition, financial dependence and economic growth Joaquín Maudos y Juan Fernández de Guevara

270/2006 Efficiency, subsidies and environmental adaptation of animal farming under CAP Werner Kleinhanß, Carmen Murillo, Carlos San Juan y Stefan Sperlich

271/2006 Interest Groups, Incentives to Cooperation and Decision-Making Process in the European Union A. Garcia-Lorenzo y Jesús López-Rodríguez

272/2006 Riesgo asimétrico y estrategias de momentum en el mercado de valores español Luis Muga y Rafael Santamaría

273/2006 Valoración de capital-riesgo en proyectos de base tecnológica e innovadora a través de la teoría de opciones reales Gracia Rubio Martín

274/2006 Capital stock and unemployment: searching for the missing link Ana Rosa Martínez-Cañete, Elena Márquez de la Cruz, Alfonso Palacio-Vera and Inés Pérez-Soba Aguilar

275/2006 Study of the influence of the voters’ political culture on vote decision through the simulation of a political competition problem in Spain Sagrario Lantarón, Isabel Lillo, Mª Dolores López and Javier Rodrigo

276/2006 Investment and growth in Europe during the Golden Age Antonio Cubel and Mª Teresa Sanchis

277/2006 Efectos de vincular la pensión pública a la inversión en cantidad y calidad de hijos en un modelo de equilibrio general Robert Meneu Gaya

278/2006 El consumo y la valoración de activos Elena Márquez y Belén Nieto

279/2006 Economic growth and currency crisis: A real exchange rate entropic approach David Matesanz Gómez y Guillermo J. Ortega

280/2006 Three measures of returns to education: An illustration for the case of Spain María Arrazola y José de Hevia

281/2006 Composition of Firms versus Composition of Jobs Antoni Cunyat

282/2006 La vocación internacional de un holding tranviario belga: la Compagnie Mutuelle de Tram-ways, 1895-1918 Alberte Martínez López

283/2006 Una visión panorámica de las entidades de crédito en España en la última década. Constantino García Ramos

284/2006 Foreign Capital and Business Strategies: a comparative analysis of urban transport in Madrid and Barcelona, 1871-1925 Alberte Martínez López

285/2006 Los intereses belgas en la red ferroviaria catalana, 1890-1936 Alberte Martínez López

286/2006 The Governance of Quality: The Case of the Agrifood Brand Names Marta Fernández Barcala, Manuel González-Díaz y Emmanuel Raynaud

287/2006 Modelling the role of health status in the transition out of malthusian equilibrium Paolo Rungo, Luis Currais and Berta Rivera

288/2006 Industrial Effects of Climate Change Policies through the EU Emissions Trading Scheme Xavier Labandeira and Miguel Rodríguez

289/2006 Globalisation and the Composition of Government Spending: An analysis for OECD countries Norman Gemmell, Richard Kneller and Ismael Sanz

290/2006 La producción de energía eléctrica en España: Análisis económico de la actividad tras la liberali-zación del Sector Eléctrico Fernando Hernández Martínez

291/2006 Further considerations on the link between adjustment costs and the productivity of R&D invest-ment: evidence for Spain Desiderio Romero-Jordán, José Félix Sanz-Sanz and Inmaculada Álvarez-Ayuso

292/2006 Una teoría sobre la contribución de la función de compras al rendimiento empresarial Javier González Benito

293/2006 Agility drivers, enablers and outcomes: empirical test of an integrated agile manufacturing model Daniel Vázquez-Bustelo, Lucía Avella and Esteban Fernández

294/2006 Testing the parametric vs the semiparametric generalized mixed effects models María José Lombardía and Stefan Sperlich

295/2006 Nonlinear dynamics in energy futures Mariano Matilla-García

296/2006 Estimating Spatial Models By Generalized Maximum Entropy Or How To Get Rid Of W Esteban Fernández Vázquez, Matías Mayor Fernández and Jorge Rodriguez-Valez

297/2006 Optimización fiscal en las transmisiones lucrativas: análisis metodológico Félix Domínguez Barrero

298/2006 La situación actual de la banca online en España Francisco José Climent Diranzo y Alexandre Momparler Pechuán

299/2006 Estrategia competitiva y rendimiento del negocio: el papel mediador de la estrategia y las capacidades productivas Javier González Benito y Isabel Suárez González

300/2006 A Parametric Model to Estimate Risk in a Fixed Income Portfolio Pilar Abad and Sonia Benito

301/2007 Análisis Empírico de las Preferencias Sociales Respecto del Gasto en Obra Social de las Cajas de Ahorros Alejandro Esteller-Moré, Jonathan Jorba Jiménez y Albert Solé-Ollé

302/2007 Assessing the enlargement and deepening of regional trading blocs: The European Union case Salvador Gil-Pareja, Rafael Llorca-Vivero y José Antonio Martínez-Serrano

303/2007 ¿Es la Franquicia un Medio de Financiación?: Evidencia para el Caso Español Vanesa Solís Rodríguez y Manuel González Díaz

304/2007 On the Finite-Sample Biases in Nonparametric Testing for Variance Constancy Paulo M.M. Rodrigues and Antonio Rubia

305/2007 Spain is Different: Relative Wages 1989-98 José Antonio Carrasco Gallego

306/2007 Poverty reduction and SAM multipliers: An evaluation of public policies in a regional framework Francisco Javier De Miguel-Vélez y Jesús Pérez-Mayo

307/2007 La Eficiencia en la Gestión del Riesgo de Crédito en las Cajas de Ahorro Marcelino Martínez Cabrera

308/2007 Optimal environmental policy in transport: unintended effects on consumers' generalized price M. Pilar Socorro and Ofelia Betancor

309/2007 Agricultural Productivity in the European Regions: Trends and Explanatory Factors Roberto Ezcurra, Belen Iráizoz, Pedro Pascual and Manuel Rapún

310/2007 Long-run Regional Population Divergence and Modern Economic Growth in Europe: a Case Study of Spain María Isabel Ayuda, Fernando Collantes and Vicente Pinilla

311/2007 Financial Information effects on the measurement of Commercial Banks’ Efficiency Borja Amor, María T. Tascón and José L. Fanjul

312/2007 Neutralidad e incentivos de las inversiones financieras en el nuevo IRPF Félix Domínguez Barrero

313/2007 The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility Perceptions on The Valuation of Common Stock Waymond Rodgers , Helen Choy and Andres Guiral-Contreras

314/2007 Country Creditor Rights, Information Sharing and Commercial Banks’ Profitability Persistence across the world Borja Amor, María T. Tascón and José L. Fanjul

315/2007 ¿Es Relevante el Déficit Corriente en una Unión Monetaria? El Caso Español Javier Blanco González y Ignacio del Rosal Fernández

316/2007 The Impact of Credit Rating Announcements on Spanish Corporate Fixed Income Performance: Returns, Yields and Liquidity Pilar Abad, Antonio Díaz and M. Dolores Robles

317/2007 Indicadores de Lealtad al Establecimiento y Formato Comercial Basados en la Distribución del Presupuesto Cesar Augusto Bustos Reyes y Óscar González Benito

318/2007 Migrants and Market Potential in Spain over The XXth Century: A Test Of The New Economic Geography Daniel A. Tirado, Jordi Pons, Elisenda Paluzie and Javier Silvestre

319/2007 El Impacto del Coste de Oportunidad de la Actividad Emprendedora en la Intención de los Ciu-dadanos Europeos de Crear Empresas Luis Miguel Zapico Aldeano

320/2007 Los belgas y los ferrocarriles de vía estrecha en España, 1887-1936 Alberte Martínez López

321/2007 Competición política bipartidista. Estudio geométrico del equilibrio en un caso ponderado Isabel Lillo, Mª Dolores López y Javier Rodrigo

322/2007 Human resource management and environment management systems: an empirical study Mª Concepción López Fernández, Ana Mª Serrano Bedia and Gema García Piqueres

323/2007 Wood and industrialization. evidence and hypotheses from the case of Spain, 1860-1935. Iñaki Iriarte-Goñi and María Isabel Ayuda Bosque

324/2007 New evidence on long-run monetary neutrality. J. Cunado, L.A. Gil-Alana and F. Perez de Gracia

325/2007 Monetary policy and structural changes in the volatility of us interest rates. Juncal Cuñado, Javier Gomez Biscarri and Fernando Perez de Gracia

326/2007 The productivity effects of intrafirm diffusion. Lucio Fuentelsaz, Jaime Gómez and Sergio Palomas

327/2007 Unemployment duration, layoffs and competing risks. J.M. Arranz, C. García-Serrano and L. Toharia

328/2007 El grado de cobertura del gasto público en España respecto a la UE-15 Nuria Rueda, Begoña Barruso, Carmen Calderón y Mª del Mar Herrador

329/2007 The Impact of Direct Subsidies in Spain before and after the CAP'92 Reform Carmen Murillo, Carlos San Juan and Stefan Sperlich

330/2007 Determinants of post-privatisation performance of Spanish divested firms Laura Cabeza García and Silvia Gómez Ansón

331/2007 ¿Por qué deciden diversificar las empresas españolas? Razones oportunistas versus razones económicas Almudena Martínez Campillo

332/2007 Dynamical Hierarchical Tree in Currency Markets Juan Gabriel Brida, David Matesanz Gómez and Wiston Adrián Risso

333/2007 Los determinantes sociodemográficos del gasto sanitario. Análisis con microdatos individuales Ana María Angulo, Ramón Barberán, Pilar Egea y Jesús Mur

334/2007 Why do companies go private? The Spanish case Inés Pérez-Soba Aguilar

335/2007 The use of gis to study transport for disabled people Verónica Cañal Fernández

336/2007 The long run consequences of M&A: An empirical application Cristina Bernad, Lucio Fuentelsaz and Jaime Gómez

337/2007 Las clasificaciones de materias en economía: principios para el desarrollo de una nueva clasificación Valentín Edo Hernández

338/2007 Reforming Taxes and Improving Health: A Revenue-Neutral Tax Reform to Eliminate Medical and Pharmaceutical VAT Santiago Álvarez-García, Carlos Pestana Barros y Juan Prieto-Rodriguez

339/2007 Impacts of an iron and steel plant on residential property values Celia Bilbao-Terol

340/2007 Firm size and capital structure: Evidence using dynamic panel data Víctor M. González and Francisco González

341/2007 ¿Cómo organizar una cadena hotelera? La elección de la forma de gobierno Marta Fernández Barcala y Manuel González Díaz

342/2007 Análisis de los efectos de la decisión de diversificar: un contraste del marco teórico “Agencia-Stewardship” Almudena Martínez Campillo y Roberto Fernández Gago

343/2007 Selecting portfolios given multiple eurostoxx-based uncertainty scenarios: a stochastic goal pro-gramming approach from fuzzy betas Enrique Ballestero, Blanca Pérez-Gladish, Mar Arenas-Parra and Amelia Bilbao-Terol

344/2007 “El bienestar de los inmigrantes y los factores implicados en la decisión de emigrar” Anastasia Hernández Alemán y Carmelo J. León

345/2007 Governance Decisions in the R&D Process: An Integrative Framework Based on TCT and Know-ledge View of The Firm. Andrea Martínez-Noya and Esteban García-Canal

346/2007 Diferencias salariales entre empresas públicas y privadas. El caso español Begoña Cueto y Nuria Sánchez- Sánchez

347/2007 Effects of Fiscal Treatments of Second Home Ownership on Renting Supply Celia Bilbao Terol and Juan Prieto Rodríguez

348/2007 Auditors’ ethical dilemmas in the going concern evaluation Andres Guiral, Waymond Rodgers, Emiliano Ruiz and Jose A. Gonzalo

349/2007 Convergencia en capital humano en España. Un análisis regional para el periodo 1970-2004 Susana Morales Sequera y Carmen Pérez Esparrells

350/2007 Socially responsible investment: mutual funds portfolio selection using fuzzy multiobjective pro-gramming Blanca Mª Pérez-Gladish, Mar Arenas-Parra , Amelia Bilbao-Terol and Mª Victoria Rodríguez-Uría

351/2007 Persistencia del resultado contable y sus componentes: implicaciones de la medida de ajustes por devengo Raúl Iñiguez Sánchez y Francisco Poveda Fuentes

352/2007 Wage Inequality and Globalisation: What can we Learn from the Past? A General Equilibrium Approach Concha Betrán, Javier Ferri and Maria A. Pons

353/2007 Eficacia de los incentivos fiscales a la inversión en I+D en España en los años noventa Desiderio Romero Jordán y José Félix Sanz Sanz

354/2007 Convergencia regional en renta y bienestar en España Robert Meneu Gaya

355/2007 Tributación ambiental: Estado de la Cuestión y Experiencia en España Ana Carrera Poncela

356/2007 Salient features of dependence in daily us stock market indices Luis A. Gil-Alana, Juncal Cuñado and Fernando Pérez de Gracia

357/2007 La educación superior: ¿un gasto o una inversión rentable para el sector público? Inés P. Murillo y Francisco Pedraja

358/2007 Effects of a reduction of working hours on a model with job creation and job destruction Emilio Domínguez, Miren Ullibarri y Idoya Zabaleta

359/2007 Stock split size, signaling and earnings management: Evidence from the Spanish market José Yagüe, J. Carlos Gómez-Sala and Francisco Poveda-Fuentes

360/2007 Modelización de las expectativas y estrategias de inversión en mercados de derivados Begoña Font-Belaire

361/2008 Trade in capital goods during the golden age, 1953-1973 Mª Teresa Sanchis and Antonio Cubel

362/2008 El capital económico por riesgo operacional: una aplicación del modelo de distribución de pérdidas Enrique José Jiménez Rodríguez y José Manuel Feria Domínguez

363/2008 The drivers of effectiveness in competition policy Joan-Ramon Borrell and Juan-Luis Jiménez

364/2008 Corporate governance structure and board of directors remuneration policies: evidence from Spain Carlos Fernández Méndez, Rubén Arrondo García and Enrique Fernández Rodríguez

365/2008 Beyond the disciplinary role of governance: how boards and donors add value to Spanish founda-tions Pablo De Andrés Alonso, Valentín Azofra Palenzuela y M. Elena Romero Merino

366/2008 Complejidad y perfeccionamiento contractual para la contención del oportunismo en los acuerdos de franquicia Vanesa Solís Rodríguez y Manuel González Díaz

367/2008 Inestabilidad y convergencia entre las regiones europeas Jesús Mur, Fernando López y Ana Angulo

368/2008 Análisis espacial del cierre de explotaciones agrarias Ana Aldanondo Ochoa, Carmen Almansa Sáez y Valero Casanovas Oliva

369/2008 Cross-Country Efficiency Comparison between Italian and Spanish Public Universities in the period 2000-2005 Tommaso Agasisti and Carmen Pérez Esparrells

370/2008 El desarrollo de la sociedad de la información en España: un análisis por comunidades autónomas María Concepción García Jiménez y José Luis Gómez Barroso

371/2008 El medioambiente y los objetivos de fabricación: un análisis de los modelos estratégicos para su consecución Lucía Avella Camarero, Esteban Fernández Sánchez y Daniel Vázquez-Bustelo

372/2008 Influence of bank concentration and institutions on capital structure: New international evidence Víctor M. González and Francisco González

373/2008 Generalización del concepto de equilibrio en juegos de competición política Mª Dolores López González y Javier Rodrigo Hitos

374/2008 Smooth Transition from Fixed Effects to Mixed Effects Models in Multi-level regression Models María José Lombardía and Stefan Sperlich

375/2008 A Revenue-Neutral Tax Reform to Increase Demand for Public Transport Services Carlos Pestana Barros and Juan Prieto-Rodriguez

376/2008 Measurement of intra-distribution dynamics: An application of different approaches to the Euro-pean regions Adolfo Maza, María Hierro and José Villaverde

377/2008 Migración interna de extranjeros y ¿nueva fase en la convergencia? María Hierro y Adolfo Maza

378/2008 Efectos de la Reforma del Sector Eléctrico: Modelización Teórica y Experiencia Internacional Ciro Eduardo Bazán Navarro

379/2008 A Non-Parametric Independence Test Using Permutation Entropy Mariano Matilla-García and Manuel Ruiz Marín

380/2008 Testing for the General Fractional Unit Root Hypothesis in the Time Domain Uwe Hassler, Paulo M.M. Rodrigues and Antonio Rubia

381/2008 Multivariate gram-charlier densities Esther B. Del Brio, Trino-Manuel Ñíguez and Javier Perote

382/2008 Analyzing Semiparametrically the Trends in the Gender Pay Gap - The Example of Spain Ignacio Moral-Arce, Stefan Sperlich, Ana I. Fernández-Saínz and Maria J. Roca

383/2008 A Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Two-Sided Card Market Santiago Carbó Valverde, David B. Humphrey, José Manuel Liñares Zegarra and Francisco Rod-riguez Fernandez

384/2008 A Fuzzy Bicriteria Approach for Journal Deselection in a Hospital Library M. L. López-Avello, M. V. Rodríguez-Uría, B. Pérez-Gladish, A. Bilbao-Terol, M. Arenas-Parra

385/2008 Valoración de las grandes corporaciones farmaceúticas, a través del análisis de sus principales intangibles, con el método de opciones reales Gracia Rubio Martín y Prosper Lamothe Fernández

386/2008 El marketing interno como impulsor de las habilidades comerciales de las pyme españolas: efectos en los resultados empresariales Mª Leticia Santos Vijande, Mª José Sanzo Pérez, Nuria García Rodríguez y Juan A. Trespalacios Gutiérrez

387/2008 Understanding Warrants Pricing: A case study of the financial market in Spain David Abad y Belén Nieto

388/2008 Aglomeración espacial, Potencial de Mercado y Geografía Económica: Una revisión de la litera-tura Jesús López-Rodríguez y J. Andrés Faíña

389/2008 An empirical assessment of the impact of switching costs and first mover advantages on firm performance Jaime Gómez, Juan Pablo Maícas

390/2008 Tender offers in Spain: testing the wave Ana R. Martínez-Cañete y Inés Pérez-Soba Aguilar

391/2008 La integración del mercado español a finales del siglo XIX: los precios del trigo entre 1891 y 1905 Mariano Matilla García, Pedro Pérez Pascual y Basilio Sanz Carnero

392/2008 Cuando el tamaño importa: estudio sobre la influencia de los sujetos políticos en la balanza de bienes y servicios Alfonso Echazarra de Gregorio

393/2008 Una visión cooperativa de las medidas ante el posible daño ambiental de la desalación Borja Montaño Sanz

394/2008 Efectos externos del endeudamiento sobre la calificación crediticia de las Comunidades Autóno-mas Andrés Leal Marcos y Julio López Laborda

395/2008 Technical efficiency and productivity changes in Spanish airports: A parametric distance func-tions approach Beatriz Tovar & Roberto Rendeiro Martín-Cejas

396/2008 Network analysis of exchange data: Interdependence drives crisis contagion David Matesanz Gómez & Guillermo J. Ortega

397/2008 Explaining the performance of Spanish privatised firms: a panel data approach Laura Cabeza Garcia and Silvia Gomez Anson

398/2008 Technological capabilities and the decision to outsource R&D services Andrea Martínez-Noya and Esteban García-Canal

399/2008 Hybrid Risk Adjustment for Pharmaceutical Benefits Manuel García-Goñi, Pere Ibern & José María Inoriza

400/2008 The Team Consensus–Performance Relationship and the Moderating Role of Team Diversity José Henrique Dieguez, Javier González-Benito and Jesús Galende

401/2008 The institutional determinants of CO2 emissions: A computational modelling approach using Arti-ficial Neural Networks and Genetic Programming Marcos Álvarez-Díaz , Gonzalo Caballero Miguez and Mario Soliño

402/2008 Alternative Approaches to Include Exogenous Variables in DEA Measures: A Comparison Using Monte Carlo José Manuel Cordero-Ferrera, Francisco Pedraja-Chaparro and Daniel Santín-González

403/2008 Efecto diferencial del capital humano en el crecimiento económico andaluz entre 1985 y 2004: comparación con el resto de España Mª del Pópulo Pablo-Romero Gil-Delgado y Mª de la Palma Gómez-Calero Valdés

404/2008 Análisis de fusiones, variaciones conjeturales y la falacia del estimador en diferencias Juan Luis Jiménez y Jordi Perdiguero

405/2008 Política fiscal en la uem: ¿basta con los estabilizadores automáticos? Jorge Uxó González y Mª Jesús Arroyo Fernández

406/2008 Papel de la orientación emprendedora y la orientación al mercado en el éxito de las empresas Óscar González-Benito, Javier González-Benito y Pablo A. Muñoz-Gallego

407/2008 La presión fiscal por impuesto sobre sociedades en la unión europea Elena Fernández Rodríguez, Antonio Martínez Arias y Santiago Álvarez García

408/2008 The environment as a determinant factor of the purchasing and supply strategy: an empirical ana-lysis Dr. Javier González-Benito y MS Duilio Reis da Rocha

409/2008 Cooperation for innovation: the impact on innovatory effort Gloria Sánchez González and Liliana Herrera

410/2008 Spanish post-earnings announcement drift and behavioral finance models Carlos Forner and Sonia Sanabria

411/2008 Decision taking with external pressure: evidence on football manager dismissals in argentina and their consequences Ramón Flores, David Forrest and Juan de Dios Tena

412/2008 Comercio agrario latinoamericano, 1963-2000: aplicación de la ecuación gravitacional para flujos desagregados de comercio Raúl Serrano y Vicente Pinilla

413/2008 Voter heuristics in Spain: a descriptive approach elector decision José Luís Sáez Lozano and Antonio M. Jaime Castillo

414/2008 Análisis del efecto área de salud de residencia sobre la utilización y acceso a los servicios sanita-rios en la Comunidad Autónoma Canaria Ignacio Abásolo Alessón, Lidia García Pérez, Raquel Aguiar Ibáñez y Asier Amador Robayna

415/2008 Impact on competitive balance from allowing foreign players in a sports league: an analytical model and an empirical test Ramón Flores, David Forrest & Juan de Dios Tena

416/2008 Organizational innovation and productivity growth: Assessing the impact of outsourcing on firm performance Alberto López

417/2008 Value Efficiency Analysis of Health Systems Eduardo González, Ana Cárcaba & Juan Ventura

418/2008 Equidad en la utilización de servicios sanitarios públicos por comunidades autónomas en España: un análisis multinivel Ignacio Abásolo, Jaime Pinilla, Miguel Negrín, Raquel Aguiar y Lidia García

419/2008 Piedras en el camino hacia Bolonia: efectos de la implantación del EEES sobre los resultados académicos Carmen Florido, Juan Luis Jiménez e Isabel Santana

420/2008 The welfare effects of the allocation of airlines to different terminals M. Pilar Socorro and Ofelia Betancor

421/2008 How bank capital buffers vary across countries. The influence of cost of deposits, market power and bank regulation Ana Rosa Fonseca and Francisco González

422/2008 Analysing health limitations in spain: an empirical approach based on the european community household panel Marta Pascual and David Cantarero

423/2008 Regional productivity variation and the impact of public capital stock: an analysis with spatial interaction, with reference to Spain Miguel Gómez-Antonio and Bernard Fingleton

424/2008 Average effect of training programs on the time needed to find a job. The case of the training schools program in the south of Spain (Seville, 1997-1999). José Manuel Cansino Muñoz-Repiso and Antonio Sánchez Braza

425/2008 Medición de la eficiencia y cambio en la productividad de las empresas distribuidoras de electri-cidad en Perú después de las reformas Raúl Pérez-Reyes y Beatriz Tovar

426/2008 Acercando posturas sobre el descuento ambiental: sondeo Delphi a expertos en el ámbito interna-cional Carmen Almansa Sáez y José Miguel Martínez Paz

427/2008 Determinants of abnormal liquidity after rating actions in the Corporate Debt Market Pilar Abad, Antonio Díaz and M. Dolores Robles

428/2008 Export led-growth and balance of payments constrained. New formalization applied to Cuban commercial regimes since 1960 David Matesanz Gómez, Guadalupe Fugarolas Álvarez-Ude and Isis Mañalich Gálvez

429/2008 La deuda implícita y el desequilibrio financiero-actuarial de un sistema de pensiones. El caso del régimen general de la seguridad social en España José Enrique Devesa Carpio y Mar Devesa Carpio

430/2008 Efectos de la descentralización fiscal sobre el precio de los carburantes en España Desiderio Romero Jordán, Marta Jorge García-Inés y Santiago Álvarez García

431/2008 Euro, firm size and export behavior Silviano Esteve-Pérez, Salvador Gil-Pareja, Rafael Llorca-Vivero and José Antonio Martínez-Serrano

432/2008 Does social spending increase support for free trade in advanced democracies? Ismael Sanz, Ferran Martínez i Coma and Federico Steinberg

433/2008 Potencial de Mercado y Estructura Espacial de Salarios: El Caso de Colombia Jesús López-Rodríguez y Maria Cecilia Acevedo

434/2008 Persistence in Some Energy Futures Markets Juncal Cunado, Luis A. Gil-Alana and Fernando Pérez de Gracia

435/2008 La inserción financiera externa de la economía francesa: inversores institucionales y nueva gestión empresarial Ignacio Álvarez Peralta

436/2008 ¿Flexibilidad o rigidez salarial en España?: un análisis a escala regional Ignacio Moral Arce y Adolfo Maza Fernández

437/2009 Intangible relationship-specific investments and the performance of r&d outsourcing agreements Andrea Martínez-Noya, Esteban García-Canal & Mauro F. Guillén

438/2009 Friendly or Controlling Boards? Pablo de Andrés Alonso & Juan Antonio Rodríguez Sanz

439/2009 La sociedad Trenor y Cía. (1838-1926): un modelo de negocio industrial en la España del siglo XIX Amparo Ruiz Llopis

440/2009 Continental bias in trade Salvador Gil-Pareja, Rafael Llorca-Vivero & José Antonio Martínez Serrano

441/2009 Determining operational capital at risk: an empirical application to the retail banking Enrique José Jiménez-Rodríguez, José Manuel Feria-Domínguez & José Luis Martín-Marín

442/2009 Costes de mitigación y escenarios post-kyoto en España: un análisis de equilibro general para España Mikel González Ruiz de Eguino

443/2009 Las revistas españolas de economía en las bibliotecas universitarias: ranking, valoración del indicador y del sistema Valentín Edo Hernández

444/2009 Convergencia económica en España y coordinación de políticas económicas. un estudio basado en la estructura productiva de las CC.AA. Ana Cristina Mingorance Arnáiz

445/2009 Instrumentos de mercado para reducir emisiones de co2: un análisis de equilibrio general para España Mikel González Ruiz de Eguino

446/2009 El comercio intra e inter-regional del sector Turismo en España Carlos Llano y Tamara de la Mata

447/2009 Efectos del incremento del precio del petróleo en la economía española: Análisis de cointegración y de la política monetaria mediante reglas de Taylor Fernando Hernández Martínez

448/2009 Bologna Process and Expenditure on Higher Education: A Convergence Analysis of the EU-15 T. Agasisti, C. Pérez Esparrells, G. Catalano & S. Morales

449/2009 Global Economy Dynamics? Panel Data Approach to Spillover Effects Gregory Daco, Fernando Hernández Martínez & Li-Wu Hsu

450/2009 Pricing levered warrants with dilution using observable variables Isabel Abínzano & Javier F. Navas

451/2009 Information technologies and financial prformance: The effect of technology diffusion among competitors Lucio Fuentelsaz, Jaime Gómez & Sergio Palomas

452/2009 A Detailed Comparison of Value at Risk in International Stock Exchanges Pilar Abad & Sonia Benito

453/2009 Understanding offshoring: has Spain been an offshoring location in the nineties? Belén González-Díaz & Rosario Gandoy

454/2009 Outsourcing decision, product innovation and the spatial dimension: Evidence from the Spanish footwear industry José Antonio Belso-Martínez

455/2009 Does playing several competitions influence a team’s league performance? Evidence from Spanish professional football Andrés J. Picazo-Tadeo & Francisco González-Gómez

456/2009 Does accessibility affect retail prices and competition? An empirical application Juan Luis Jiménez and Jordi Perdiguero

457/2009 Cash conversion cycle in smes Sonia Baños-Caballero, Pedro J. García-Teruel and Pedro Martínez-Solano

458/2009 Un estudio sobre el perfil de hogares endeudados y sobreendeudados: el caso de los hogares vascos Alazne Mujika Alberdi, Iñaki García Arrizabalaga y Juan José Gibaja Martíns

459/2009 Imposing monotonicity on outputs in parametric distance function estimations: with an application to the spanish educational production Sergio Perelman and Daniel Santin

460/2009 Key issues when using tax data for concentration analysis: an application to the Spanish wealth tax José Mª Durán-Cabré and Alejandro Esteller-Moré

461/2009 ¿Se está rompiendo el mercado español? Una aplicación del enfoque de feldstein –horioka Saúl De Vicente Queijeiro, José Luis Pérez Rivero y María Rosalía Vicente Cuervo

462/2009 Financial condition, cost efficiency and the quality of local public services Manuel A. Muñiz & José L. Zafra

463/2009 Including non-cognitive outputs in a multidimensional evaluation of education production: an international comparison Marián García Valiñas & Manuel Antonio Muñiz Pérez

464/2009 A political look into budget deficits.The role of minority governments and oppositions Albert Falcó-Gimeno & Ignacio Jurado

465/2009 La simulación del cuadro de mando integral. Una herramienta de aprendizaje en la materia de contabilidad de gestión Elena Urquía Grande, Clara Isabel Muñoz Colomina y Elisa Isabel Cano Montero

466/2009 Análisis histórico de la importancia de la industria de la desalinización en España Borja Montaño Sanz

467/2009 The dynamics of trade and innovation: a joint approach Silviano Esteve-Pérez & Diego Rodríguez