Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 393–414 | Cite as

Spillover Effects from Inward FDI on the Exporting Decisions of Chilean Manufacturing Plants



We study the presence of spillover effects on three exporting decisions (likelihood, quantity, propensity) of Chilean manufacturing firms during the period 2001–2004. Evidence suggests that Chilean firm’s export likelihood is positively affected by other domestic firms’ exports. In contrast, exports by MNEs operating in Chile negatively affect Chilean firm’s export likelihood, although MNE-employment generates positive spillover effects, suggesting externalities in human capital. We also find evidence of spillovers from MNE activity on the proportion of production the firm exports (export propensity), but not on how much they decide to export (export quantity).


Export decisions Spillover effects Inward FDI Firm heterogeneity 

JEL Classification

F14 D21 C25 O54 


  1. Aitken B, Hanson GH, Harrison AE (1997) Spillovers, foreign investment, and export behavior. J Int Econ 43(1):103–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aitken B, Harrison AE (1999) Do domestic firms benefit from direct foreign investment? Evidence from Venezuela. Am Econ Rev 89(3):605–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alatorre JE, Razo C (2010) Inward FDI in Chile and its policy context, vale Columbia center on sustainable international investmentGoogle Scholar
  4. Alvarez R, Görg H (2009) Multinationals and plan exit: evidence from Chile. Int Rev Econ Finance 18:45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alvarez R, Lopez R (2005) Exporting and performance: evidence from Chilean plants. Can J Econ 38(4):1384–1400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrios S, Görg H, Strobl E (2003) Explaining firms’s export behavior: R&D, spillovers, and the destination market. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 63(4):475–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernard AB, Jensen JB (2004) Why some firms export. Rev Econ Stat 86(2):561–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clerides SK, Lach S, Tybout JR (1998) Is learning by exporting important? Micro-dynamic evidence from Colombia, Mexico, and Morocco. Q J Econ 113(3):903–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Girma S (2005) Absorptive capacity and productivity spillovers from FDI: a threshold regression analysis. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 67(3):281–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Girma S, Görg H (2005) Foreign direct investment, spillovers and absorptive capacity: evidence from quantile regression. Discussion Paper Series 1: Econometric Studies, No. 13, Deutsche BundesbankGoogle Scholar
  11. Görg H, Greenaway D (2004) Much ado about nothing? Do domestic firms really benefit from foreign direct investment. World Bank Res Obser 19(2):171–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greenaway D, Sousa N, Wakelin K (2004) Do domestic firms learn to export from multinationals. Eur J Polit Econ 1:1027–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heckman J (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47:153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lawless M (2009) Firm export dynamics and the geography of trade. J Int Econ 77(2):245–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Levinsohn J, Petrin A (2003) Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables. Rev Econ Stud 70(2):317–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Roberts MJ, Tybout JR (1997) The decision to export in Colombia: an empirical model of entry with sunk costs. Am Econ Rev 87(4):545–564Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Prince Sultan UniversityRiyadhKSA
  2. 2.Western Michigan UniversityKalamazooUSA

Personalised recommendations