Are firms exporting to China and India different from other exporters?

This paper asks whether and why advanced countries differ in their ability to export to China and India. We exploit a newly collected, comparable cross-country survey of 15,000 European manufacturing firms (EFIGE). The dataset contains information on firms' international activities and characteristics such as size and productivity, governance and management structure, workforce, innovation and research activity. We identify the firm characteristics that are correlated with exporting activity in general as well as with exporting to China and India conditional on being an exporter. In line with existing literature, we prove that larger, more productive and innovative firms are more likely to become exporters and to export more. Our results also provide new evidence on the role of governance: while there is not a strong negative effect of family ownership, a higher percentage of family management reduces a firm's export propensity and export volumes. Regarding China and India, we find that firms exporting there are on average larger, more productive and more innovative than firms exporting elsewher

The global operations of European firms : the second EFIGE policy report

Europe's position in the post-crisis world economy depends on the ability of its firms to carry through effective global export and production strategies. New data from 15,000 firms in Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom show that firm size, productivity, skill intensity and the ability to innovate are associated with better export performance and internationalisation, either through foreign direct investment or outsourcing. Export and foreign production are complementary, particularly for entry into fast-growing emerging markets. But foreign production involves high entry costs and is extremely demanding in managerial, organisational and technological terms,. Firms can improve their competitive skills in the European single market, but competing in the next few years will require more than just exporting to neighbouring EU countrie

Approaching an investigation of multi-dimensional inequality through the lenses of variety in models of capitalism

After a synthetic presentation of the state of poverty and inequality in the world and the contradictions incurred by economic theory in this field after decades of globalization and in the midst of a persisting global crisis, in paragraphs 2. and 3. we outline the rational for our theoretical analysis, underlining two main aspects. First of all, in paragraph 2. we recall the reasons which makes inequality a multidimensional phenomenon, while in paragraph 3. we explore the reasons why the models of capitalism theory is relevant for studying multidimensional inequality. These paragraphs emphasise that inequality is a multidimensional and cumulative phenomenon and it should not be conceived only as the result of the processes of personal and functional distribution of income and wealth, which even by themselves are intrinsically multidimensional. The basic idea is that institutions, the cobweb of relations among them and their interaction with the economic structure define the model of capitalism which characterises a specific country and this, in turn, affects the level and the dynamics of inequality. This approach is consistent with the sociological approach by Rehbein and Souza (2014), based on the analytical framework developed by Pierre Bourdieu. In paragraph 4. we outline the rational for our empirical analysis, applying the notion of institutional complementarity and examining the relationship between institutional complementarity, models of capitalism and inequality. Besides, refining Amable’s analysis (2003), we provide empirical evidence on the relationship between inequality in income distribution and models of capitalism. Additionally, basing on cluster analysis, we identify six different models of capitalism in a sample of OECD countries, provide preliminary evidence on the different level of inequality which characterises each model and suggest that no evidence supports of the idea that a single model of capitalism is taking shape in this sphere in EU. In paragraph 5. we give some hints about issues in search for a new interpretation capable to fasten together the process of increasing inequality, the notion of symbolic violence and the models of capitalism theory. In the last paragraph we focus on conclusions useful for carrying on our research agenda