International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning, 1(2), 157–172
Why Learning by Exporting May Not
Be As Common As You Think and
What It Means for Policy
Tomasz Serwach
University of Łódź, Poland
International trade economists are convinced that there is a two-way relation-
ship between productivity and exports – not only the most productive firms
self-select into export markets, but also exporters improve their technology
due to international expansion. In spite of this optimistic view, empirical stud-
ies provide only weak (if any) evidence on learning by exporting. This discrep-
ancy between theory and empirics is usually explained with methodological
problems. However, there are also some theoretical reasons why one may
think that learning by exporting is a wrong or highly limited hypothesis. The
paper presents why learning by exporting may not happen and how policy-
makers can stimulate learning from foreign markets (and hence economic
growth).
Keywords: learning, exporting, heterogeneous firms
Introduction
Since international economists discovered a positive correlation between
firm’s productivity and its export status, myriads of theoretical and empiri-
cal papers have been written aiming at establishing the causality and pro-
viding sound microeconomic mechanisms linking productivity and exports.
Two hypotheses have been developed. The first (self-selection hypothesis)
states that only the most productive firms within an industry engage in in-
ternational trade. In this view, there is no effect of being an exporter on
firm’s productivity. The second hypothesis (learning by exporting hypothesis)
is more optimistic about the consequences of engagement in trade. Firms
operating on foreign markets gain access to better technology, organiza-
tional techniques, different ideas, and so on. In other words, firms learn
from these markets.
It seems that more prominent of both hypotheses is self-selection. There
are two explanations of this state. Firstly, many empirical articles have
proven that more productive firms self-select into export markets. These
studies analyzed different countries during different periods of time (see
for example, Bernard and Jensen (1999) for the United States, Mayer and
Ottaviano (2007) for a sample of Western European countries, and Hage-
mejer (2006) for Poland). Secondly, modeling self-selection mechanism is
www.issbs.si/press/ISSN/2232-5697/1_157-172.pdf
158 Tomasz Serwach
quite easy. New models (establishing the so called New New Trade Theory)
are built upon well-known models (mostly on the New Trade Theory from the
1980s). For example, seminal Melitz (2003) paper developed Krugman’s
(1980) model with the introduction of firm heterogeneity and sunk costs of
entry into foreign markets.
One must bear in mind that strict causal relation between productiv-
ity and exports has been criticized. Armenter and Koren (2009) showed
that while exporters are 4 to 5 times bigger (in terms of sales) than non-
exporters, standard New New Trade Theory models predict differences of
the magnitude of 90–100 to 1. Simply speaking, not only big and very pro-
ductive firms become exporters, but also smaller ones engage in export
activity. Hence, analyzing self-selection should not concentrate on one de-
terminant of firm’s trade (productivity), but on the whole vector of firm char-
acteristics. Several models explaining exports with more than one factor
have been lately developed. This so-called second generation of heteroge-
neous firms’ trade models include Chaney (2005), Hallak and Sivadasan
(2009) and Bernard, Redding and Schott (2010) among others. Despite
this evolution of theoretical models, productivity is still considered as the
main (but not the only) determinant of firm’s trade.
At the same time, learning by exporting hypothesis has gained popularity.
However, evidence of it is not strong. This situation creates a puzzle. Since
Adam Smith and David Ricardo economists have claimed that the whole
economy can gain from greater openness due to more efficient allocation
of resources. It seemed natural to use the same logic in firm-level analysis.
Why should we not think that firms learn from foreign markets and hence
increase their own productivity? Yet, results of a broad range of studies are
confusing.
In this paper, explanations of such a puzzle are presented. It must be
strongly stated that the aim of the paper is to describe only theoretical rea-
sons for ambiguous results of studies. In other words, only the theoretical
mechanism blocking learning from foreign markets is presented. The au-
thor leaves aside methodological reasons for underestimation of learning
by exporting.
The structure of this paper is as follows. The first part summarizes the-
oretical explanations of learning by exporting. The second part is a review
of empirical studies. Next, some mechanisms negating learning by export-
ing are described. Then policy implications are discussed. Conclusions and
summary constitute the last part.
Theoretical Rationale for Learning by Exporting
The idea that firms increase their productivity due to engagement in interna-
tional trade needed sound microfoundations supporting this causality. Many
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Why Learning by Exporting May Not Be As Common As You Think 159
models have been developed to justify learning by exporting. According to
Redding (2010) ideas presented in these models fall into three categories:
•adjustments within multi-product firms,
•usage of better skills and technology,
•formation of international production networks.
Typical models of trade in a monopolistic competition setting only as-
sume the existence of single-product firms. Broadening of this assumption
brings the opportunity to investigate intra-firm consequences of starting ex-
porting. The popular way to explain learning by exporting in a multi-product
firm framework is that, due to exports, these firms concentrate on their
core competence. Firms specialize in the products in which they are the
most productive. This means that less efficient production of many other
products is ceased. These adjustments lead to improvement of firm-level
productivity.
One of the models of this type was presented by Bernard et al. (2010).
They introduced product-specific feature, which affects firm’s behaviour. The
product attribute reflects consumer taste and can be seen as consumer
preference for a particular product. In their working paper (Bernard et al.,
2006) firm-specific feature was not given a demand-side explanation, but
the supply-side one (efficiency of production a particular product rather than
consumer taste). Both specifications lead to similar conclusions. Firms drop
less efficient or less demanded products and this product dropping gener-
ates an opportunity for firms to focus on the core competence.
In growing literature covering multi-product firms, authors analyze the
impact of firm organizational abilities (Nocke & Yeaple, 2006) and flexibil-
ity of product lines (Eckel & Neary, 2010) on firm’s tendency to make ad-
justments within the product portfolio. One must also stress that, in the
above-mentioned models, enterprises produce different products (hence
multi-product firms) but each product has only one variety. That is why some
authors dig deeper to study interactions between different varieties of the
same product. One of the fruitful areas of research touches on the so-called
cannibalization effect when introducing new variety reduces the sales of ex-
isting ones (see, for example, Feenstra & Ma, 2007).
The second mechanism generating learning by exporting rests on the in-
fluence of trade on skills and firm technology. According to Yeaple (2005), in
order to be competitive on foreign markets firm may invest to adopt better
technology. When such a technology provides reduction of variable cost, it
is worth investing. Because exporting activity is connected with additional
variable costs (due to, for example, tariffs and transport) everything that
decreases other components of the whole variable cost is of great impor-
tance. Other models presenting similar mechanisms include Desmet and
Volume 1, Issue 2, 2012
160 Tomasz Serwach
Parente (2006), and Costantini and Melitz (2007). Some authors analyzed
how trade tends to affect investment in R&D (see Atkeson & Burstein,
2008). It is worth mentioning that, in some cases, the term learning to
export is used instead of learning by exporting. The motivation behind the
introduction of the new term is to highlight the time structure of events
and the role of expectations. Firms first invest, only then can they start
exporting. However, it cannot be assumed that causality leads simply from
productivity (increased due to investment) to exporting. The first step is an-
ticipation of export opportunities, then firms invest and, in the end, they
start trading.
Apart from the impact on technology, engagement in exports may enable
a firm to hire more skilled workers. Verhoogen (2008) built the model in
which firms want to export to advanced and more sophisticated markets.
Due to higher incomes, potential consumers are more quality-driven. In or-
der to meet these increased quality requirements, firms must first introduce
better technology, which is inevitably connected with hiring skilled workers.
The last reason to consider of learning by exporting is the impact of trade
on the international production networks. The literature on these networks
is growing exponentially. The main focus is on a firm’s decision whether
to engage in vertical foreign direct investment (FDI) or arm’s length relation-
ship. In other words, models typically study whether a firm should outsource
or insource certain stages of production. In spite of this focus the literature
can help explain learning by exporting. Since exporters must be competitive
on foreign markets, they may slice the production process into separate
stages and locate them in places where each stage would be performed
most efficiently. In the learning by exporting context, an exporter is usually
also an importer. In order to produce exportable goods, firm must import
intermediate goods from foreign affiliate (vertical FDI) or independent sup-
plier (arm’s length relationship). Models examining firm’s supply decisions
include Antras (2003), Antras and Helpman (2004), and Costinot, Oldensky
and Rauch (2011), among others. Each of them emphasize the impact of
contractual frictions on firms’ sourcing decisions.
Review of Empirical Studies
Although previously presented explanations of learning by exporting seem
plausible, the results of empirical studies are far from clar. The results
are inconclusive in that they sometimes support the learning by exporting
hypothesis, but in many cases the impact of exports on firm productivity
is statistically insignificant. Table 1 presents the results of various studies
taken from the review by Wagner (2005).
All these studies present confusing view of learning by exporting hypothe-
sis. Although many analyses investigate the behaviour of firms’ productivity
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Why Learning by Exporting May Not Be As Common As You Think 161
Table 1 Results of empirical studies on learning by exporting
Country Study Results
Canada Baldwin and Gu
(2003)
Exporters are more productive than non-exporters. The gap
is gradually increasing. New entrants into export markets
quickly increase their labour productivity.
Chile Alvarez and
Lopez (2004)
Before exporting firms make conscious efforts to improve
their productivity. The discrepancies between new ex-
porters and non-exporters are usually statistically insignif-
icant.
China Kraay (1999) Previous export status positively correlated with current
labour productivity and TFP. Learning effects among new ex-
porters are usually statistically insignificant or negative.
Colombia Clerides, Lach,
and Tybout
(1998)
Improvement of labour productivity after entry into export
market.
Isgut (2001) In a one-year period, productivity difference between new
exporters and non-exporters was not significant. In a five-
year period, new exporters experienced faster productivity
gains than non-exporters.
Germany Bernard and
Wagner (1997)
Larger increase in labour productivity among new exporters
than non-exporters.
Wagner (2002) Difference in labour productivity between new exporters
and non-exporters was statistically insignificant.
Arnold and
Hussinger
(2004)
Difference in TFP between new exporters and non-
exporters is stable (non-increasing) after a year following
the entry into foreign market.
Indonesia Blalock and
Gertler (2004)
Significant productivity improvements among firms entering
foreign markets.
Korea Aw, Chung, and
Roberts (2000)
Similar productivity (TFP) path of exporters and non-
exporters.
Hahn (2004) Increasing TFP gap between new exporters and non-
exporters, decreasing gap between new exporters and old
exporters.
Mexico Bernard (1995) Similar labour productivity growth of new exporters and
non-exporters.
Continued on the next page
in different countries on a broad level of development, no clear conclusion
can be made. Moreover, in the studies, which covered two-way relationship
between export status and productivity, learning by exporting was often not
found, but self-selection hypothesis was supported.
Mechanisms Blocking Learning from Export Markets
The results of empirical studies often do not support the learning by export-
ing hypothesis. Many researchers concluded that this situation was caused
mainly due to methodological difficulties. Few economists are of a different
Volume 1, Issue 2, 2012
162 Tomasz Serwach
Table 1 Continued from the previous page
Country Study Results
Morocco Clerides et al.
(1998)
Labour productivity improvements after entry into export
market.
Slovenia Damijan,
Polanec, and
Prasnikar
(2004)
No continuous effect of export on new exporters’ productiv-
ity. Short-term effect is observed. Increase in productivity
depends on the destination (firms learn when to export to
advanced markets).
De Loecker
(2004)
New exporters increase their productivity but only in half of
the industries learning by exporting was statistically signifi-
cant.
Spain Delgado,
Farinas, and
Ruano (2002)
No evidence on learning by exporting.
Farinas and
Martin-Marcos
(2003)
Similar growth of labour productivity and TFP of new ex-
porters and non-exporters.
Sweden Greenaway,
Gullstrand, and
Kneller (2003)
No differences between TFP growth of new exporters and
non-exporters.
Hansson and
Lundin (2004)
Lack of evidence on learning by exporting when TFP is an-
alyzed. When labour productivity is applied, new exporters
improve this productivity faster than non-exporters.
Taiwan Aw, Chen, and
Roberts (1997)
Likely positive impact of export on firms productivity.
Liu, Tsou, and
Hamitt (1999)
Faster labour productivity growth among new exporters
than non-exporters.
Aw et al. (2000) TFP differences increasing favoring new exporters.
Liu, Tsou, and
Hammitt (2002)
Significantly faster TFP growth in case of new exporters
than non-exporters.
Turkey Yasar, Garcia,
Nelson, and
Rejesus (2003)
Difference in productivity between new exporters and non-
exporters larger than the difference between all exporters
and non-exporters.
Continued on the next page
opinion – that firms do not learn from export markets due to certain eco-
nomic mechanisms. However, it would not be wise to lose sight of these
mechanisms. Therefore, they are presented below in more detail.
Salomon and Shaver (2005) enumerated three reasons why learning by
exporting may not occur. These are:
• insufficient flow of information from the host market,
•minor impact of export status on process innovations,
• inability of an exporter to wholly appropriate returns from technologi-
cal change.
The first one states that multinational activity may enhance productivity
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Why Learning by Exporting May Not Be As Common As You Think 163
Table 1 Continued from the previous page
Country Study Results
UK Girma,
Greenaway, and
Kneller (2003)
Faster growth of TFP among new exporters than non-
exporters – especially in the first year of exporting.
Greenaway and
Kneller (2003)
Faster growth of labour productivity among new exporters
than non-exporters.
Greenaway and
Kneller (2004a)
Short-term increase in TFP growth among new exporters.
Greenaway and
Kneller (2004b)
Faster productivity growth among new exporters than non-
exporters.
Greenaway and
Yu (2004)
Learning by exporting observed especially among new ex-
porters (chemicals industry analysis).
USA Jensen and
Musick (1996)
Difference in labour productivity growth between new ex-
porters and non-exporters was statistically insignificant.
Bernard and
Jensen (1999)
Sound difference between labour productivity growth of
new exporters and non-exporters.
Bernard and
Jensen (2004)
In the first year of exporting, new exporters increase pro-
ductivity faster than other firms.
Ghana,
Cameroon,
Kenya,
Zimbabwe
Bigsten et al.
(2000)
Export in a particular year enables the increase of produc-
tivity in the next year. Productivity improvements are espe-
cially large in the first year of exporting.
Sample of
countries
from Sub-
Saharan
Africa (9
countries)
Van Biesebroeck
(2003)
Lack of sound differences in labour productivity between
new exporters and continuous exporters. Larger differ-
ences between new exporters and non-exporters than prior
to entry.
Notes Detailed description of above studies can be found in Wagner (2005).
only when a firm engages in more sophisticated operation than simple ex-
port. In order to gain access to foreign knowledge and technology, it would
be better to establish physical presence on the host market, for example
via FDI. It would provide a firm with a contact with a significant pool of ideas
that reside in a particular location. In this view, FDI has an obvious advan-
tage over export. The latter is only supplying foreign market without deep
presence on this market, hence it cannot benefit the firm in the form of
significant flow of information. Being excluded from the knowledge about
better technology, an exporter is unable to increase own productivity.
Although this mechanism seems plausible at first, its power should not
be overemphasized. Exporting activity may be productivity-increasing too.
Suppose that, to benefit from knowledge diffusion, a firm should make a lot
of foreign contacts. The best way to do it is to invest (FDI) and hire foreign
workers in the new affiliate, because these workers convey important ideas.
However, even simple export may provide an access to such knowledge. For
Volume 1, Issue 2, 2012
164 Tomasz Serwach
example, when an exporter develops a distribution chain, creating many
overseas contacts, this firm is then able to gain access to foreign ideas.
It seems that when trade activity is mature enough it can lead to learning
by exporting and when an export is caused only by, for instance, a short-
term beneficial movement of an exchange rate, then this learning is highly
limited. After all, if export could not improve firm’s technology, we would
expect no study to support learning by exporting. As one may recall, some
studies support this hypothesis.
The second limitation of learning by exporting is connected with minor
impact of foreign trade on process innovations. It is stated that the link
between an exporter and new ideas is a consumer. Hence, a firm may gain
knowledge mainly about the demand-side conditions on foreign market. It
may lead to some product innovations, such as launching new product or
quality improvements of the existing one. However, a firm still does not have
the knowledge about better methods of production even if they are applied
by foreign competitors.
Just like previously mentioned criticism of learning by exporting, this one
is not very challenging. Firstly, it is usually hard to separate product and
process innovations. In many cases a firm must improve its equipment
and/or hire more skilled workers prior to the introduction of new goods or
mastering current products. This obviously leads to process innovations.
One may therefore conclude that engagement in export may result directly
in product innovations and indirectly in process innovations. Secondly, even
if a firm is at first exposed mainly to demand-side knowledge, after some
time it can gain access to supply-side ideas; for example, by observing
competitors. The longer it stays in foreign markets, the more opportunity to
observe it has.
The last reason for non-existence of learning by exporting presented by
Salomon and Shaver (2005) is associated with the negative consequences
of spillover effects. Suppose the firm must decide whether it should invest
in better technology anticipating some sales opportunities on foreign mar-
ket. Suppose next the existence of quick and substantial spillovers among
firms within the same country. If an investment is profitable, then other
companies will instantly duplicate it thus significantly reducing the ability of
the first investor to recoup its investment. In this case, all the benefits will
be socialized in the sense that they will not be appropriated by a pioneer. If
instead investment is not profitable, then other companies would not copy it
and only the initial investor would be left with the losses. These losses will
be internalized. It seems that an exporter considering an investment would
be exposed to a risk which may discourage this firm from such an activity.
That is why exporter may treat foreign markets only as a sales platform and
not as a pool of ideas and technology.
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Why Learning by Exporting May Not Be As Common As You Think 165
This explanation of non-existence of learning by exporting is plausible.
However, one may raise some caveats against it. Most importantly, there
is an asymmetry between the effects of intranational and international
spillovers. While diffusion of ideas within the same country is regarded as
a factor discouraging firms from productivity-enhancing activities, diffusion
between countries is not an obstacle. Putting it differently, using this ex-
planation one only describes the detrimental effects of domestic spillovers.
At the same time, nothing is said about why the transmission of knowl-
edge from country A to B does not discourage the firms in country A from
innovative activities.
The problem of negative effects of intranational spillovers has been dis-
cussed by Hausmann and Rodrik (2003) in the context of entrepreneurship.
In their model, a firm has to make some investment to learn its productivity.
However, this investment reveals the true costs of some activities within the
country (firms learn their country’s comparative advantage). It enables other
firms to duplicate this activity, making investment hard to recoup. Wagner
and Zahler (2011) confirm their predictions that pioneer’s success entail
the informational externality in the context of international trade. They built
a model (confirmed empirically using Chilean data) in which the followers
are more likely to enter foreign market when the pioneer survives, and in
which the followers are bigger than pioneer firms – it supports the view that
the first entrant is a data producer (using Wagner’s and Zahler’s terminol-
ogy).
Policy Implications
Having stated that learning by exporting is blocked mostly by intranational
spillovers, it is important to look at the policy implications. It seems that
two types of policy arise. Both are inevitably connected with export concen-
tration.
The first one is limiting intranational diffusion of knowledge and technol-
ogy adopted by the exporters due to international expansion. Theoretically,
it would give the exporters some time needed to recoup their investments.
However, this policy may be seriously flawed. Firstly, intranational diffusion
may be socially desired because it increases the productivity in the country
and enhances the economic growth. Secondly, this policy may lead to export
concentration. For small open economies the result would be the exposure
to firm-level shocks. Last but not least, from a practical point of view, it is al-
most impossible to limit the transfer of foreign knowledge through exporters
to non-exporters.
The second approach is promoting the extensive margin of trade. Be-
cause of the flaws of the above-mentioned policy, it seems that enhancing
the extensive margin is a better way of stimulating learning by exporting.
Volume 1, Issue 2, 2012
166 Tomasz Serwach
The problem with appropriability of returns may be seen as a problem of
intermediation. Learning by exporting is reduced when learning by domes-
tic firms (non-exporters) rests on intermediation provided by the exporters
(exporters link non-exporters with foreign knowledge and technology). How-
ever, this process reduces the exporters’ incentives to invest and adopt
foreign technology. By facilitating the entry of domestic firms into export
markets, these firms would be able to learn directly – not indirectly through
other exporters – from foreign markets. It can be seen on Figure 1. Panel A
graphically presents the standard learning by exporting hypothesis. Panel B
introduces the impact of non-exporters on exporters’ will to learn (learning
by exporting arrow is crossed). Panel C shows entry into export markets by
former non-exporters. Panel D presents the final situation when the intrana-
tional diffusion of foreign knowledge is not an important obstacle to firm’s
learning abilities (and country’s growth prospects).
As was previously mentioned, one way to maximize the effect of learning
by exporting on the growth prospects is to promote the extensive margin of
export. In order to make it achievable, policymakers should take sweeping
actions. Increasing a firm’s tendency to engage in trade requires the use of
incentives other than typical trade instruments. Although these incentives
are in majority widely known, it is important to enumerate them. Developing
an extensive margin of export to promote learning by exporting is a very
peculiar justification for taking these actions.
Firstly, policymakers should facilitate quality upgrading. Many econom-
ists are convinced that only high-quality producers are able to become ex-
porters (see for example Crozet, Head, & Mayer, 2009; Hallak & Sivadasan,
2009). One way to upgrade a firm’s quality is to establish some industry-
specific bodies responsible for quality control. Another way is to increase
competition, for example through FDI inflow (see Harding & Smarzynska-
Javorcik, 2011).
Secondly, many potential exporters face a liquidity constraint. This prob-
lem has been analyzed by Manova (2010) and Chaney (2005) among oth-
ers. Many export entry costs are paid up-front, hence the lack of access to
credit dampens the extensive margin of exports. Tax rebates or preferential
loans to exporters can relax this constraint.
Thirdly, international transactions are connected with higher risk than
transactions between parties from the same country. This problem has
gained some attention. Crozet, Koenig, and Rebeyrol (2008), as well as
Seruga-Cayuela and Villarubia (2008) developed models presenting firms’
export behaviour in the presence of uncertainty. One of the obvious ways
to reduce trade risk is the establishment of an export insurance company.
Another way is promoting the usage of derivatives to reduce exchange rate
risk.
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Why Learning by Exporting May Not Be As Common As You Think 167
Foreign Knowledge and Technology
1 2 3
LBE
Panel A: Learning by
Exporting Hypothesis
Foreign Knowledge and Technology
EXP 1 EXP 2 EXP 3
1 2 3 4 5
LBE
Diffusion Within a Country
Panel B: Non-appropriable
Returns and Learning by
Exporting
Foreign Knowledge and Technology
EXP 1 EXP 2 EXP 3
1 2
3
4 5
LBE
Diffusion Within
a CountryEntry Entry
Panel C: Development of
Extensive Margin of Export
Foreign Knowledge and Technology
1 2 EXP 1 EXP 2 EXP 3 4 5
3
LBE
Diffusion Within a Country
Panel D: Final Situation
Figure 1 Impact of Extensive Margin of Export on Learning by Exporting Effect
Finally, some authors are of opinion that in order to export, a firm must
develop some contacts (see especially Rauch (1996)). Despite the fact
that many models treat the correlation between supply and demand on in-
ternational markets as the black box, this process can be extremely time-
and cost-consuming and it can discourage firms from exporting. Facilitating
trade intermediation would lead to the development of the extensive margin
of export. Moreover, as Volpe Martincus, Estevadeordal, Gallo, and Luna
(2010) have shown, export promotion agencies can be effective in widen-
Volume 1, Issue 2, 2012
168 Tomasz Serwach
ing the international contacts network because they specialize in providing
foreign customers with detailed information about differentiated products.
Summary and Conclusions
The correlation between productivity and export status caused many re-
searchers to theoretically and empirically investigate whether international
expansion in the form of export improves a firm’s technology. Although some
mechanisms were proposed in theoretical literature, econometric studies
provided weak – if any – support to learning by exporting. It is partly caused
by methodological problems, but there are also some economic reasons to
think that this kind of learning may not occur or may be significantly lim-
ited. It seems that the most important one is constituted of intranational
spillover effects. Moreover, developing an extensive margin of trade could
reconcile a firm’s willingness to learn from other markets with the policy-
makers’ obligation to stimulate the economic growth.
The author did not empirically investigate this hypothesis – it will be the
subject of future research. One important suggestion for every future re-
searcher is that endogeneity problem should be controlled. According to
the above hypothesis, the extensive margin of export may positively influ-
ence the economic growth via learning by exporting effect. At the same
time, more advanced economies may be constituted of more productive,
high-quality firms benefiting from developed financial market. In this envi-
ronment it would be relatively easy for firms to start with the export. In
other words, causality would lead from the level of economic advancement
to the extensive margin of export.
References
Alvarez, R., & Lopez, R. A. (2004). Exporting and performance: Evidence from
Chilean plants (Mimeo).
Antras, P. (2003). Firms, contracts, and trade structure. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 118(4), 1375-1418.
Antras, P., & Helpman, E. (2004). Global sourcing. Journal of Political Economy
112(3), 552–580.
Armenter, R., & Koren, M. (2009). Economies of scale and the size of exporters
(Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Working Paper 09-15). Philadel-
phia, PA: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
Arnold, J. M., & Hussinger, K. (2004). Export behaviour and firm productiv-
ity in German manufacturing: A firm-level analysis (Centre for European
Economic Research Discussion Paper No. 04-12). Mannheim, Germany:
Centre for European Economic Research.
Atkeson, A., & Burstein, A. (2010). Innovation, firm dynamics and international
trade (Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Research Department Staff
Report Nr 444). Minneapolis, MN: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Why Learning by Exporting May Not Be As Common As You Think 169
Aw, B. Y., Chen, X., & Roberts, M. J. (1997). Firm-level evidence on productivity
differentials, turnover, and exports in Taiwanese manufacturing (Mimeo).
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Aw, B. Y., Chung, S., & Roberts, M. J. (2000). Productivity and turnover in
the export market: Micro-level evidence from the Republic of Korea and
Taiwan (China). The World Bank Economic Review, 14, 65–90.
Baldwin, J. R., & Gu, W. (2000). Trade and growth: Still disagreement about
the relationships (OECD Economic Department Working Paper ECO/WKP
(2000)37). Paris, France: OECD.
Bernard, A. B. (1995). Exporters and trade liberalization in Mexico: Production
structure and performance (Mimeo). Massachusetts Institute of Technol-
ogy, Cambridge, MA.
Bernard, A. B., & Jensen, J. B. (1999). Exceptional exporter performance:
Cause, effect, or both? Journal of International Economics, 47(1), 1–25.
Bernard, A. B., & Jensen, J. B. (2004). Exporting and productivity in the USA.
Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 20, 343–357.
Bernard, A. B., Redding, S. J., & Schott, P. K. (2010). Multi-product firms
and trade liberalization (Mimeo). Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth
College, Hanover, NH.
Bernard, A. B., & Wagner, J. (1997). Exports and success in German manu-
facturing. Review of World Economics, 133, 134–157.
Bigsten, A., Collier, P., Dercon, S., Fafchamps, M., Gauthier, B., Gunning, J. W.,
Habarurema, J., Oduro, A., Oostendorp, R., Pattillo, C., Soederbom, M.,
Teal, F., & Zeufack, A. (2000). Exports and firm-level efficiency in African
manufacturing (Centre for the Studies of African Economies Working Paper
No. WPS 2000-16). Oxford, England: Oxford University.
Blalock, G., & Gertler, P. J. (2004). Learning by exporting revisited in a less
developed setting. Journal of Development Economics, 75, 397–416.
Chaney, T. (2005). Liquidity constrained exporters (Mimeo). University of
Chicago, Chicago, Il.
Clerides, S. K., Lach J., & Tybout, S. R. (1998). Is learning by exporting im-
portant? Micro-dynamic evidence from Colombia, Mexico and Morocco.
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113, 903–947.
Costantini, J. A., & Melitz, M. J. (2007). The dynamics of firm-level adjustment
to trade liberalization (Mimeo). Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.
Costinot, A., Oldenski L., & Rauch, J. (2011). Adaptation and the boundary
of multinational firm. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(1), 298–
308.
Crozet, M., Head, K., & Mayer, T. (2009). Quality sorting and trade: Firm-
level evidence for French wine (CEPII Working Paper No. 2009-14). Paris,
France: CEPII.
Crozet, M., Koenig P., & Rebeyrol, V. 2008. Exporting to insecure markets: A
firm-level analysis (Mimeo). Universite Paris I Pantheon – Sorbonne, Paris,
France.
Damijan, J. P., Polanec, S., Prasnikar, J. (2004). Self-selection, export market
heterogeneity and productivity improvements: Firm level evidence from
Volume 1, Issue 2, 2012
170 Tomasz Serwach
Slovenia (LICOS Discussion Paper No. 148/2004). Leuven, Belgium:
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
Delgado, M. A., Farinas, J. C., & Ruano, S. (2002), Firm productivity and
export markets: A non-parametric approach. Journal of International Eco-
nomics, 57, 397–422.
De Loecker, J. (2007). Do exports generate higher productivity? Evidence from
Slovenia. Journal of International Economics, 73, 69–98.
Desmet, K., Parente, K. L. (2006). Bigger is better: Market size, demand elas-
ticity and resistance to technology adoption (CEPR Discussion Paper Nr
5825). London, England: CEPR.
Eckel, C., Neary, J. P. (2010). Multi-product firms and flexible manufacturing
in the global economy. Review of Economic Studies, 77(1), 188–217.
Farinas, J. C., Martin-Marcos, A. (2003). Exporting and economic perfor-
mance: Firm-level evidence for Spanish manufacturing (Mimeo). Madrid,
Spain: Universidad Complutense and UNED.
Feenstra, R., & Ma, H. (2007). Optimal choice of product scope for multi-
product firms under monopolistic competition (NBER Working Paper No.
13703). Cambridge, MA: NBER.
Girma, S., Greenaway, D., & Kneller, R. (2004). Does exporting increase pro-
ductivity? A microeconometric analysis of matched firms. Review of Inter-
national Economics, 12, 855–866.
Greenaway, D., Gullstrand, J., & Kneller, R. (2003). Exporting may not always
boost firm level productivity (University of Nottingham GEP Research Paper
No. 2003/21). Nottingham, England: University of Nottingham.
Greenaway, D., & Kneller, R. (2003). Exporting, productivity, and agglomer-
ation: A difference in difference analysis of matched firms (University of
Nottingham GEP Research Paper No. 2003/45). Nottingham, England:
University of Nottingham.
Greenaway, D., & Kneller, R. (2004a). Exporting and productivity in the United
Kingdom. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 20, 358–371.
Greenaway, D., & Kneller, R. (2004b). Industry differences in the effect of ex-
port market entry: Learning by exporting? (University of Nottingham GEP
Research Paper No. 2004/33). Nottingham, England: University of Not-
tingham.
Greenaway, D., & Yu, Z. (2004). Firm-level interactions between exporting
and productivity: Industry specific evidence. Review of World Economics,
140(3), 376–392.
Hahn, C. H. (2004), Exporting and performance of plants: Evidence from Ko-
rean manufacturing (NBER Working Paper No. 10208). Cambridge, MA:
NBER.
Hallak, J. C., & Sivadasan, J. (2009). Firms’ exporting behaviour under quality
constraints (NBER Working Paper No. 14928). Cambridge, MA: NBER.
Hagemejer, J. (2006). Czynniki wpływające na decyzję przedsiębiorstw o ek-
sporcie: Analiza danych mikroekonomicznych. Bank i Kredyt, No. 7.
Hansson, P., & Lundin, N. N. (2004). Exports as an indicator on or promoter
of successful Swedish manufacturing firms in the 1990s. Review of World
Economics, 140(4), 415–445.
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Why Learning by Exporting May Not Be As Common As You Think 171
Harding, T., & Smarzynska-Javorcik, B. (2011). FDI and export upgrading (Eco-
nomic Series Working Paper No. 526). Oxford: University of Oxford.
Hausmann, R., & Rodrik, D. (2003). Economic development as self-discovery.
Journal of Development Economics, 72(2), 603–633.
Isgut, A. E. (2001). What’s different about exporters? Evidence from Colom-
bian manufacturing. Journal of Development Studies, 37, 57–82.
Jensen, B., & Musick, N. (1996). Trade, technology, and plant performance
(Working Papers on Industrial and Economic Performance), Washington,
DC: US Department of Commerce.
Kraay, A. (1999). Expectations et performances economiques: Etude d’un
panel d’enterprises Chinoises [Exports and economic performance: Evi-
dence from the panel of Chinese enterprises]. Revue d’Economie Du De-
veloppement, No. 1–2, 183–207.
Krugman, P. R. (1980). Scale economies, product differentiation, and the pat-
tern of trade. American Economic Review, 70(5), 950–959.
Liu, J.-T., Tsou, M.-W., & Hammitt, J. K. (1999). Export activity and productivity:
Evidence from the Taiwan electronics industry. Review of World Economics,
135, 675–691.
Liu J.-T., Tsou, M.-W., & Hammitt, J. K. (2002). Exporting and productivity
(Mimeo). Harvard School of Public Health, Cambridge, MA.
Manova, K. (2010). Credit constraints and the adjustment to trade reform.
In G. Porto & B. M. Hoekman (Eds.), Trade adjustment costs in develop-
ing countries: Impacts, determinants and policy responses (pp. 315–329).
London, England: CEPR; Washington, DC: World Bank.
Mayer, T., & Ottaviano, G. (2007). The happy few: The internationalization of
European firms; New facts based on firm-level evidence (Bruegel Blueprint
Series, 3). London, England: CEPR.
Melitz, M. J. (2003). The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and
aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica, 71(6), 1695–1725.
Nocke, V., & Yeaple, S. R. (2006). Globalization and endogenous firm scope
(NBER Working Paper No. 12322). Cambridge, MA: NBER.
Rauch, J. E. (1996). Trade and search: Social capital, sogo shosha, and
spillovers (NBER Working Paper No. 5618). Cambridge, MA: NBER.
Redding, S. J. (2010). Theories of heterogeneous firms and trade (CEP Discus-
sion Paper No. 994). London, England: CEP.
Salomon, R. M., & Shaver, J. M. (2005). Learning by exporting: New insights
from examining firm innovation. Journal of Economics & Management Strat-
egy, 14(2), 431–460.
Segura-Cayuela, R., & Vilarrubia, J. M. (2008). Uncertainty and entry into ex-
port markets (Banco de España Working Paper No. 0811). Madrid, Spain:
Banco de España.
Van Biesebroeck, J. (2003). Exporting raises productivity in sub-saharan manu-
facturing plants (NBER Working Paper No. 10020). Cambridge, MA: NBER.
Verhoogen, E. A. (2008). Trade, quality upgrading and wage inequality in the
mexican manufacturing sector. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(2),
489–530.
Volume 1, Issue 2, 2012
172 Tomasz Serwach
Volpe Martincus, C., Estevadeordal, A., Gallo, A., & Luna, J. (2010), Informa-
tion barriers, export promotion, institutions, and the extensive margin of
trade (IDB Working Paper No. 200). Washington, DC: IDB.
Wagner, J. (2002). The causal effect of exports on firm size and labour pro-
ductivity: First evidence from a matching approach. Economic Letters, 77,
287–292.
Wagner, J. (2005). Exports and productivity: A survey of the evidence from firm
level data (University of Lüneburg Working Paper Series in Economics Nr
4). Lüneburg, Germany: University of Lüneburg.
Wagner, R., & Zahler, A. (2011). New exports from emerging markets: Do fol-
lowers benefit from pioneers? Retrieved from http://mpra.ub.uni
-muenchen.de/30312/1/Pioneers_Jan_2011.pdf
Yasar, M., Garcia, P., Nelson, C., & Rejesus, R. 2007. Is there evidence
of learning-by-exporting in two Turkish manufacturing industries? Interna-
tional Review of Applied Economics, 21(2), 293–305.
Yeaple, S. R. (2005). A simple model of firm heterogeneity, international
trade, and wages. Journal of International Economics, 65(1), 1–20.
Tomasz Serwach is a PhD candidate at the University of Lodz. He is also an
assistant researcher at the Department of International Trade (the Faculty of
Economics and Sociology, University of Lodz. His main research interests in-
clude international trade, growth theory and industrial organization. serwach-
tomasz@gmail.com
This paper is published under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning