بین المللی شدن شرکت ها و رشد بهره وری

From a theoretical perspective it is well stated that firms involved in international markets should exhibit higher productivity levels. There is also empirical evidence that supports this result. This paper extends this relationship to a dynamic perspective. It provides evidence on how productivity evolves in more internationalized firms distinguishing different degrees of international involvement both in qualitative as well as in quantitative terms. The results show that productivity evolves differently in those firms that are doing international business, although without differences between large exporters and multinationals.

There is a fruitful research line that analyzes firms' productivity according to the international activities they develop. The theoretical rationale for the highest productivity levels of those firms more involved in international markets includes a double explanation. On one hand, international markets suppose a more competitive situation, so firms stress their resources in order to be more productive. On the other hand, a self-selection mechanism may be present and only the most productive firms decide to start an internationalization strategy. The empirical literature has confirmed the higher productivity levels of exporters versus non-exporters (see ISGEP (2008) for a large international survey) as well as of multinational firms than domestic firms (see Ramondo, 2009 and Barbosa and Louri, 2005). Notwithstanding, the effect of the international activities over the productivity evolution (i.e. whether more internationalized firms increase their productivity at a higher pace than those that are domestically dedicated) has not been so widely studied. The aim of this paper is to contribute to fill this gap, analyzing the differences on the productivity evolution among different groups of firms that present different international involvement. For doing so, an analysis of the evolution of the productivity of Spanish manufacturing firms distinguishing domestic-oriented, exporters and multinationals is developed and presented. The interest of the research of the productivity dynamics is twofold. On one hand, we find the reasons that justify the productivity–internationalization literature: it helps to understand the productivity level of an economy and highlights the existence of different groups of firms with problems to coexist in the long run. On the other hand, the analysis of the productivity evolution may help to understand if the differences we observe in a moment of time are to be held (so it seems that the reason is due to a self-selection), increased (then, being present in foreign markets is really moving firms to be more and more competitive) or decreased (the gap will tend to disappear). The paper is organized as follows. Next section summarizes the theoretical reasons that justify a higher productivity for internationalized firms. Section 3 discusses the methodological issues for the analyses presenting the database and the statistical analyses. Section 4 presents the results and the last one concludes.

Very often empirical studies have concluded that multinational firms have a better performance than domestic firms. The comparison between the TPF evolution of Spanish multinational firms and the rest of firms shows that, although they present higher productivity levels, the pace at what productivity evolves does not differ significantly. However, the Uppsala School stresses that internationalization is a gradual process where firms increase their knowledge and experience through qualitatively different stages. It remarks that exporting becomes an intermediate stage where firms may be in a qualitatively different situation. Then, the analysis has distinguished those firms that export. The comparison of the evolution of the productivity among Multinationals, Exporters and Domestic firms reveals a different situation: while the productivity evolves at a similar pace for multinationals and exporters, the situation differs for domestically dedicated firms. Although the Uppsala framework establishes qualitatively different stages in firms' internationalization processes, a quantitative element may be also present in the productivity evolution. Once the weight of the international activities is taken into account the previous results can be modified: small exporters (those firms whose international sales do not suppose 25% of total sales) show a similar productivity evolution than domestic firms, while large exporters' productivity evolves as multinationals. Then, for Spanish manufacturing firms during 2000–2007, the qualitatively different activities that firms develop abroad is not enough to observe a different productivity evolution, but it is necessary to pay attention to the importance that such international activities have for the firm. Beyond the need to confirm these conclusions in different environments, the presented results suggests future research lines: On one hand, it is necessary to pay attention to the market characteristics that can explain such different productivity paths, given that the results indicate that it is not a question of the location of the production. On the other hand, the observed different paces for firms in the same industry may affect its future structure. Finally, as it happens with the productivity differentials, additional studies on the causality will provide a better knowledge of this topic.