World Development 138 (2021) 105151

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

World Development
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev

Regular Research Article

Production fragmentation and upgrading opportunities for exporters: An

empirical assessment of the case of Brazil
Caio Torres Mazzi a,⇑, Neil Foster-McGregor a, Glaucia Estefânia de Sousa Ferreira b
a
UNU-MERIT/Maastricht Graduate School of Governance and Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
b
IPEA - Institute of Applied Economic Research, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper studies how production fragmentation has affected the performance of Brazilian exporters in
Accepted 18 August 2020 the manufacturing sector. We begin by combining existing classifications of internationally traded prod-
ucts to identify four different categories of goods, of which one (‘customized intermediates’) we associate
more closely with suppliers connected to fragmented trade. We then proceed to compare the productiv-
JEL Codes: ity premium of international traders for these different categories. Our results confirm that exporting
F14 customized intermediates is associated with a superior performance in comparison to other intermedi-
F12
ates; although there is a strong influence of sector specificities. We also investigate the existence of
Keywords: learning-by-exporting effects and, unlike previous evidence for Brazil, we find limited evidence of
Exports learning-by-exporting for overall exporters; and no such evidence is found for firms that export exclu-
Productivity sively customized intermediates. Instead, we observe that exporting customized products in general –
Production fragmentation i.e. both final and intermediate goods – relates to continuous and significant ex-post gains in terms of per-
Global Value Chains formance; and that these trends are explained by firms that sell final goods. These facts indicate that frag-
mentation, by promoting trade in customized intermediates, can benefit developing countries and their
firms by providing them with opportunities to export a range of industrial goods associated with higher
productivity levels, but that performance gains after entry are not necessarily facilitated by this process.
Our can findings therefore provide relevant insights regarding the actual benefits and the challenges of
promoting GVC participation for developing countries.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The use of trade data to compute international flows of ‘parts

One prominent aspect of globalization has been the emergence
of Global Value Chains (GVCs). The term and its variations1 refer to
the remarkable increase in the fragmentation of production chains
across international borders in recent times. Baldwin (2012) refers
to this process as the second ‘unbundling’ of globalization, in which
production stages previously performed in close proximity or within
the same facility are being dispersed across international borders.
This phenomenon has received considerable attention in several
fields of academic discussion and in the business community but
measuring its exact size and importance has proven challenging
for scholars.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: torres@merit.unu.edu (C. Torres Mazzi), foster@merit.unu.edu
(N. Foster-McGregor).
1
‘‘Global production networks”, ‘‘fragmentation”, and ‘‘vertical specialization”,
among others, have been used to refer to the same or closely related phenomena
(Hummels et al., 2001).
and components’ or intermediary products – a method pioneered
by Yeats (1999) and later followed and improved by others
(Jones, Kierzkowski, & Lurong, 2005; Lall, Albaladejo, & Zhang,
2004; Ng & Yeats, 1999; Sturgeon & Memedovic, 2010; among
others) – was likely the first approach attempting to quantify
GVCs. The picture that emerges from these studies points to impor-
tant changes in the nature of cross border flows of goods and ser-
vices. Trade in ‘parts and components’, a subset of intermediates
mainly associated with machinery products, are found to represent
a growing share of international trade (Jones et al., 2005; Yeats,
1998), with electronics being responsible for most of this growth.
The increasing role of developing countries in overall trade is also
shown to be driven to a large extent by ‘parts and components’ and
‘customized’ intermediary products – a group of more complex
intermediates that characterize supplier–buyer relationships in
GVCs (Sturgeon & Memedovic, 2010).
The objective of this paper is to study the effect of these trends
on the performance of exporters in the context of developing coun-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105151
0305-750X/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Torres Mazzi et al.
tries, and the particular context of Brazil. Our contribution is con-
nected to two streams of literature that we see as closely related
and complementary, but that have developed largely indepen-
dently. Our approach expands the firm-level international trade lit-
erature in a novel way by identifying heterogeneous effects of
trade on the performance of firms according to the specific charac-
teristics of the products they export and their association with the
process of production fragmentation. The literature on trade and
firm-level performance has grown dramatically since the pioneer-
ing work of Bernard and Jensen (1999), establishing several empir-
ical regularities regarding the performance of exporters and
importers. Studies almost unanimously find that international tra-
ders – either exporters or importers – outperform firms that are
restricted to local markets. While a recent strand of this literature
has begun to explore the importance of heterogeneity in the way
that firms engage in trade – for example, by considering the impor-
tance of the extensive and intensive margins of trade, the number
of traded products, export destinations and import origins, and the
role of distance, amongst other factors (see Wagner, 2016, for a
review of this evidence) – our approach focusses on trade in the
context of fragmented trade. Although our empirical approach
does not adopt a strict causal framework, we do consider how
the productivity premia for exporters of complex intermediate
goods differs from that for exporters of other product types such
as final goods, further examining whether any effects and any dif-
ferences are driven by the self-selection of more productive firms
into GVCs or through a higher rate of learning-by-exporting within
GVCs.
We further contribute to emerging firm-level empirical studies
affiliated to the GVC approach (Brancati, Brancati, & Maresca,
2017b; Gereffi, Humphrey, & Sturgeon, 2005; Giuliani, Pietrobelli,
& Rabellotti, 2005; Giunta, Nifo, & Scalera, 2012; Humphrey &
Schmitz, 2002). This literature highlights the impact of participa-
tion, governance and positioning within GVCs on firm perfor-
mance, but had traditionally relied on case studies until a recent
wave of micro econometric studies. Our approach follows the pio-
neers of this literature and concentrates on ‘customized’ interme-
diates and ‘parts and components’ as the product types that most
closely indicate participation in fragmented trade for the firms that
export them. This allows us to compare the productivity of firms
that trade these products with firms that trade other types of prod-
ucts as well as with firms that do not trade at all. Our main hypoth-
esis is that participating in GVC-related trade is associated with a
significant performance premium for suppliers (i.e. exporters) of
customized intermediates and parts and components, both before
and after entry in export markets, due to the existence of more
stringent entry requirements for these firms and to increased
opportunities for learning after entry. We therefore provide new
evidence from a large developing country relating the influence
of GVCs on firm performance both before and after entry in foreign
markets, dimensions that are frequently overlooked in the GVC
literature.
In our empirical analysis we consider manufacturing firms in
Brazil, a large and diversified developing economy. The rapid
expansion of GVCs has impacted upon Brazil largely by increasing
demand for primary products and resource-based manufactures in
which the country has historically enjoyed comparative advantage.
However, exports of industrial products have also expanded vigor-
ously, with a large number of manufacturing sectors and firms con-
tinuing to thrive in international markets. Our results confirm that
Brazilian exporters perform significantly better than non-exporters
before and after entering in export markets, and that exporting
customized intermediates is associated with higher performance
levels compared to exporters of other types of intermediates. Dif-
ferent to other firm-level studies for Brazil, we find limited evi-
dence of learning-by-exporting for overall exporters, with no
2
World Development 138 (2021) 105151
such evidence found for firms that exclusively export customized
intermediates. Instead, we observe that exporting customized
products more broadly – i.e. both final and intermediate goods –
is associated with continuous, significant ex-post gains in terms
of firm performance, with these gains being limited to firms that
sell final goods.
The higher productivity premium found for exporters of cus-
tomized intermediates compared to producers of other intermedi-
ates lends support to evidence showing that GVC participation is
associated with a smaller performance disadvantage of suppliers
relative to producers of final goods. (Agostino et al., 2015, 2019;
Brancati, Brancati, & Maresca, 2017a; Giuliani et al., 2005). Indeed,
the productivity premia for exporters of customized intermediates
and final goods we find tend to be quite similar. However, the lim-
ited evidence in favor of learning indicates that while fragmenta-
tion, by promoting trade in customized intermediates, can
provide relevant opportunities for firms in developing countries
to export a new range of industrial goods with higher productivity
levels, upgrading is not necessarily facilitated after firms become
part of GVCs. These results are compatible with previous findings
in the GVC literature, mostly from highly detailed case studies,
indicating that additional factors, such as the governance structure
of the value chain, firm capabilities and the local innovation sys-
tem will influence successful upgrading by suppliers, although
these are hypotheses our dataset does not allow us to test here
(Morrison, Pietrobelli, & Rabellotti, 2008; Pietrobelli, Rabellotti, &
Pietrobelli, 2011).
We organize the remainder of this paper in the following way:
Section 2 discusses related literature as a means of elucidating our
main hypotheses; Section 3 discusses our methodology for obtain-
ing estimates of the export premia and distinguishing between the
self-selection and learning-by-exporting hypotheses; Section 4
describes our dataset and discusses the construction of the differ-
ent product categories; Section 5 reports results; and Section 6
concludes.
2. Related literature
The firm-level international trade literature has expanded dra-
matically since the pioneering work of Bernard and Jensen
(1999). Its most significant result continues to be that exporters
almost always perform better than non-exporters in terms of
productivity (as well as other performance indicators). Two non-
mutually exclusive arguments are usually proposed for such a pos-
itive relationship. The first is that productivity differences arise due
to self-selection, with only the most productive firms able to enter
foreign markets. Melitz (2003) demonstrated in a general equilib-
rium framework how higher fixed costs of entry into foreign mar-
kets creates a hierarchy among heterogeneous firms, with only the
most productive firms exporting. The second is that firm perfor-
mance improves after entry in to exporting through a process of
learning-by-exporting, with firms benefiting from their foreign
buyer’s technological or managerial expertise for example. The
majority of existing empirical studies find support for the self-
selection hypothesis, with much less support for the learning-by-
exporting hypothesis. The evidence for learning-by-exporting
tends to be dependent upon the econometric methods employed
and the characteristics of the countries and firms under analysis.
Wagner (2007, 2012, 2013, 2016) provide extensive overviews of
the main branches and results of this literature. In general, confir-
matory evidence appears to be more frequent for developing coun-
tries, whose firms tend to be farther away from the technological
frontier or use older vintages of capital goods, and that can thus
benefit more from knowledge transfers from more advanced
economies (Foster-McGregor, Isaksson, & Kaulich, 2014b). In the
C. Torres Mazzi et al.
case of Brazil, there exist a number of recent studies suggesting the
presence of learning-by-exporting, especially for firms that are
able to maintain their export status (Araújo, 2016; De Araújo &
Hiratuka, 2006; Kannebley, Porto, & Pazello, 2005; Kannebley,
2011).
A parallel microlevel research agenda in international trade
focuses on the importance of governance and positioning within
GVCs (Gereffi et al., 2005; Giuliani et al., 2005; Humphrey &
Schmitz, 2002). Following the transaction costs literature (Coase,
1937; Williamson, 1985), these authors recognize that transac-
tional complexity increases costs and tends to make value chain
leaders – usually large mutinational companies (MNCs) – vertically
integrate production tasks, moving away from arms-length market
relationships. However, their main insight is in recognizing that
these costs can also be managed through intermediate governance
structures when local suppliers are capable enough or the informa-
tion required for the transaction is sufficiently codifiable.
Although still scarce, available studies appear to point to a pos-
itive correlation between participation in GVCs and firm-level per-
formance. In general, there is a presumption that GVC participation
favors learning because the firms that lead value chains promote –
explicitly or tacitly – knowledge transfers and upgrading opportu-
nities for their suppliers, especially in ‘relational’ value chains
where coordination is stronger, and both engagement by leaders
and supplier capability are higher (Agostino et al., 2015, 2019;
Brancati, Brancati, & Maresca, 2017a; Giuliani et al., 2005). These
ideas are also present in the mainstream international trade liter-
ature, with Blalock and Gertler (2004) advocating for the existence
of learning-by-exporting in the case of firms in developing coun-
tries involved in supply relationships with high degrees of cus-
tomization or ‘extended coordination’.
The literature on value chain participation has also shown that a
firm’s positioning within a value chain is an important determinant
of the relationship between value chain participation and firm
level performance, with upstream suppliers usually suffering a
productivity penalty relative to producers of final goods
(Accetturo and Giunta, 2018; Agostino et al., 2016, 2019; Giunta
et al., 2012; Kimura, 2002). These general results hide an important
distinction between firms in a value chain that supply other
domestic firms and those that supply firms in foreign markets,
with upstream suppliers integrating into foreign markets benefit-
ting to a greater extent from value chain integration than firms
serving domestic suppliers only. While in some cases the perfor-
mance disadvantage is reduced for suppliers involved in GVCs, in
others it can completely disappear, especially amongst more cap-
able firms that are able to both innovate and export (Agostino,
Giunta, Nugent, Scalera, & Trivieri, 2015; Agostino, Brancati,
Giunta, Scalera, & Trivieri, 2019).
Despite emphasizing the potential of GVCs as conduits for
learning, these studies have not paid much attention to disentan-
gling learning and self-selection effects. Nonetheless, there are
good reasons to assume that learning is not the only relevant factor
in the context of fragmented trade. First, trade in GVCs is charac-
terized by higher transactional complexity, which entails higher
relationship-specific investments, for example, in the development
and adaptation of products and production plants to the specific
needs of buyers (Antràs & Chor, 2013). Second, because these rela-
tionships involve higher quality standards and specification
requirements, international buyers will tend to ‘cherry pick’ the
most capable suppliers to avoid production line delays and quality
debasements caused by problems in the supply base. Third, some
studies indicate that transactional frictions related to distance –
such as transportation and communication costs, trade barriers,
language and cultural differences – can be more intense for trade
in intermediates, parts and components (Jones et al., 2005;
Kimura, Takahashi, & Hayakawa, 2007), which directly relates to
3
World Development 138 (2021) 105151
the costs of entry that firms face when entering international
markets.
The data that we have available does not allow us to study in
depth some of the relevant dimensions in the context of the GVC
literature – e.g. governance and firms’ innovation efforts – which
is an important limitation and prevents us from providing a more
fine-grained analysis of the determinants of firm performance and
learning in GVCs. Nevertheless, by distinguishing between the
types of products that a firm’s export when estimating the export
premia and learning-by-exporting effects, the paper establishes a
fruitful connection between the international trade literature and
the GVC approach. In that way, we demonstrate the existence of
heterogeneous performance and learning trajectories for interna-
tional traders related to their participation and position in GVC-
related trade.
3. Empirical methodology
The starting point for our empirical analysis is the methodology
developed by Bernard and Jensen (1999) and later adaptations
used to estimate the export premia for different categories of firms
classified according to their export destinations (Pisu, 2008; Serti,
2009). The main departure from this existing literature is the
extension to consider exports of different product types rather
than export destinations.
We follow much of the existing firm-level literature by adopting
the following semi-logarithmic regression equation:
LnTFPit ¼ a0 þ bX it þ UZ it þ at þ eit ð1Þ
where TFPit indicates total factor productivity (which in some spec-
ifications is replaced by the ratio of value-added to employment),
X it designates a vector of variables capturing export participation
of firm i in time t, Z it indicates a vector of controls and at are year
fixed effects. In our analysis, X it designates a vector of five dummies
indicating if firm i exports one of the four product categories or the
residual unclassified group2 at time t. We define these categories
and the explain our methodology to obtain them in Section 4.2.
The productivity premium is defined as the difference in pro-
ductivity between firms that export a positive value of a given type
of product and those that do not export that same product type,
conditional on firm-level controls that include variables capturing
whether firms export other types of products. Different trade
behaviors are not mutually exclusive: firms can – and frequently
do – export more than one product category (see Section 4.2. and
Appendix A). Coefficients on the dummy variable capturing the
presence of exports of a particular export type are thus conditioned
upon the export of other product types. The fact that firms can
export different product types with different intensities can create
an important source of heterogeneity, for which the dummy vari-
able approach cannot control. As a robustness test therefore, we
also estimated models that control for the intensive margin of
exports by export categories and for total exports – i.e. the ratio
of the export revenue to total firm revenue. These exercises, how-
ever, did not alter our results significantly. We include the latter in
the results section, while estimates including the margins for each
export category are not depicted but available upon request.
Depending on the specification, the controls include 3-digit sec-
tor (CNAE - National Classification of Economic Activities) and
state dummies, size (log number of employees), firm age, firm
age squared, human capital (years of study of employees), a vector
of dummies for import categories, and the intensive margin of
exports (defined as the ratio of total export revenue to firm rev-
2
We maintain the residual group in the regressions for control. For simplicity,
however, these are omitted in the depiction of results, although naturally available
upon request.
C. Torres Mazzi et al.
enue). Besides these more standard controls, we also control for
the import status of firms, following various studies indicating that
importing is also associated with a productivity premium. In the
context of fragmented trade, importing intermediates can also be
crucial as a ‘‘ticket” to participate in global value chains, as well
as being a source of input variety, quality and technology that
impacts upon firms productivity (Bas & Strauss-Kahn, 2014;
Pierola, Fernandes, & Farole, 2018). For robustness, we also esti-
mate export premia excluding these and other covariables that
may correlate with both exporting and performance, and which
may lead to an underestimation of the association between export-
ing and productivity. We will see that in most cases our results
remain qualitatively unchanged, although the magnitude of the
coefficients can change substantially.
Finally, in some specifications we further include firm fixed
effects. While the inclusion of firm fixed effects allows us to control
for unobserved firm characteristics, their inclusion has the draw-
back of subsuming all time invariant firm characteristics, including
the presence in export markets of firms that always export during
the sample period. Nonetheless, we perform fixed effects estima-
tions and depict the main results below.
The above specification allows us to test for the presence of an
export premium and to examine whether the premium differs by
the type of products exported. It does not allow us to shed any light
on the question of whether any differences are due to self-selection
or learning-by-exporting effects, however, or whether the extent of
these two effects differs by product type exported. To address
these questions, we adopt existing methodologies to examine
pre-entry differences in productivity between export starters and
non-exporters (i.e. to test the self-selection hypothesis) and post-
entry differences between export starters and non-exporters (i.e.
to test the learning-by-exporting hypothesis) (see Wagner (1997)
for a description of these existing approaches). In particular, we
adopt a leads-and-lags approach to evaluate the export premia of
firms in our sample. The approach involves estimating a model of
the following form:
X
8 of the smaller firms from our sample implies that we are not consid-
LnTFPit ¼ a0 þ bs X i;ts þ UZ it þ at þ eit
s¼8
The regression model is very similar to that above except that
the exporter variable for a particular product type, X it , now takes
the value one in the year that the firm begins to export only (i.e.
it captures export starters only), with up to eight leads and lags
of this variable also included in the regression model3. Coefficients
on these leads and lags will provide evidence of whether there are
productivity differences between export starters and non-exporters
prior to entry into exporting and whether any differences in produc-
tivity performance at the time of exporting persist or become stron-
ger. In the results section, we concentrate on the eleven-year period
before and after entry [b-5, b-4, . . ., b5] because the number of obser-
vations for starters reduces as we move away from the year of entry,
rendering estimates increasingly imprecise. The vector Z it again
includes controls for 3-digit sector and state dummies, size (log of
number of employees), firm age, firm age squared, human capital
(years of study of employees) and importer variables.
This method is designed to explore two main aspects in the rel-
atively long (eleven-year) panel available. Firstly, it permits us to
estimate a long-term ‘‘learning curve” for firms, tracking their pro-
ductivity premium trajectory many years before and after entry,
which provides a picture of longer run trends. Secondly, it maxi-
mizes the number of comparable observations for export entries
in each export category due to the fact we can analyze entries that
3 5
Eight years is the maximum number of years firms can export after entry in an
eleven-year sample in which we only allow valid entries from the third year.
World Development 138 (2021) 105151
happen in different years. We drop all firms that start exporting in
their first two years in the sample to avoid capturing export star-
ters with intermittent behaviors. We also choose to drop all firms
that appear less than five consecutive years in the sample to
increase the probability of observing exporters both before and
after entry in export markets.
We recognize that dropping firms that stay less than five con-
secutive years in the sample, as well as those that start exporting
in their first two years in the sample, although helpful for our pur-
poses, is arbitrary and might be a too stringent selection criteria,
possibly creating bias in our results. Indeed, we lose more than half
of the initial sample by adopting this approach. Because of this, in
Appendix C we present results when eliminating only firms that
stay for more than two consecutive years out of the sample, which
allows us to keep a much higher percentage of the complete sam-
ple (71%)4. Despite this considerable difference in sample size, our
main results are not affected by the use of this different criteria
and we make reference to these additional results in the results
section.
4. Data
4.1. Firm-level data sources
Data for this paper comes from three sources: (i) the Brazilian
Annual Industrial Survey (PIA); (ii) the Annual Registry of Social
Information (RAIS); and (iii) the registry of foreign trade of the Sec-
retary of Foreign Trade (Secex). PIA annually collects detailed busi-
ness information (revenues, expenses, personnel, wages,
investments, etc.) on Brazilian firms in manufacturing and extrac-
tive industries. All firms with more than 29 employees or revenues
above R$ 13.6 million in the previous year are surveyed, while
firms below these thresholds are sampled. These smaller firms
usually appear in the sample for only one period and are excluded
from our sample since our analysis is focused on firms that are
observed for at least five consecutive years5. While the exclusion
ð2Þ ering a large share of firms in the Brazilian manufacturing sector, our
sample does account for the vast majority of employment, sales, pro-
duction and value-added in the Brazilian economy. Table 1, for
example, reports the shares in key manufacturing indicators of firms
with more than 29 employees for three years (1997, 2001, and
2007). The table reveals this stratum covers around 80% of employ-
ment in Brazilian manufacturing and more than 90% of sales, produc-
tion and value-added. While we should be careful in extending the
implications of our results to small firms in Brazil, we can be confi-
dent that our sample reflects a broad share of the Brazilian manufac-
turing sector.
Data from the PIA is merged with information on firm age, the
number of employees and their average years of schooling taken
from RAIS, which collects employment information from all active
Brazilian firms. Finally, the resulting sample is merged with the
registry of foreign trade (Secex), which contains information for
all exporting and importing firms (value, product, quantity and
destination). We concentrate on the eleven-year period between
1997 and 2007, which results in an unbalanced panel containing
61,879 firms in total that are responsible for approximately 77%
of Brazilian accumulated exports during the period. All data were
4
Nevertheless, it is inevitable to impose some selection criteria in the sample
because we need be able to determine, for example, if firms are indeed starting to
export for the first time or if they continued to export after starting in some cases. The
alternative selection criteria we use assumes only that firms export behavior in the
year they left the sample is the same as in the (observable) preceding year.
We also exclude firms from extractive industries to concentrate on
manufacturing.
4
C. Torres Mazzi et al.
Table 1
Contribution of Medium and Large Firms to Key Aggregate Manufacturing Outcomes (%).
Year Total firms Employees
1997 22.1 82
2001 20.5 79
2007 20.8 81
Source: PIA - Annual Industrial Survey. Notes: the table reports the share of key manufacturing outcomes accounted for by firms with more than 30 employees. The key
outcomes considered are: (i) number of firms; (ii) number of employees; (iii) net sales; (iv) production value; and (v) value-added.
accessed at the Brazilian Statistical Office (IBGE) safe room and
confidentiality procedures were followed.
Our main performance measure is the log of total factor produc-
tivity (Ln TFP-LP) estimated according to Levinsohn and Petrin
(2003). This method, as well as other semiparametric approaches
that have become widespread in the literature (Ackerberg, Caves,
& Frazer, 2006; Olley & Pakes, 1996), corrects for the bias caused
by the endogeneity between variable inputs and unobserved firm
productivity. When constructing this measure of TFP, we deflate
revenues by 3-digit sector level price indexes (IPA-OG) and the cost
of industrial operations by the intermediate products price index
(IPA-EP). Production functions for firm value-added are then esti-
mated separately for each 2-digit sector. As alternatives, we also
use an alternative simple TFP estimate that includes firm fixed
effects, but that doesn’t correct for for endogeneity (TFP-FE), as
well as value added per worker (VAE). Both of the TFP measures
that we use were also employed in Araújo (2016) and Messa
(2014).
To provide an initial indication as to the differences in charac-
teristics between non-exporters and exporters (and the different
types of exporters), Table 2 reports the mean and median value
of TFP, the number of employees (Personnel), the age of the firm,
and the average education level of employees for these different
groups of firms, using data for all firm-year observations. As
expected, exporters have higher average levels of TFP, as well as
being larger, older and having higher levels of human capital in
their workforce. The descriptive statistics for exporters of final
goods and customized intermediates are very similar. Interest-
ingly, exporters of non-customized and primary goods show signif-
icantly higher values of TFP than exporters of final goods and
customized intermediates, also tending to be larger and older,
and to possess more human capital In the following sections we
will see that this picture changes once we control for firm-level
characteristics in the regression analysis6.
4.2. Product classification
To undertake our empirical analysis we need to split up the
products in which firms export into different product types that
allow us to distinguish between GVC and non-GVC exports, also
capturing to an extent their position within GVCs. Our first step
in doing this is to divide products into three categories according
to their end-use using the United Nations Broad Economic Cate-
gories classification (BEC), namely: (i) industrial intermediates;
(ii) primary intermediates (foods and beverages, fuels and primary
industrial supplies); and (iii) final products (capital and consump-
tion goods). Industrial intermediates, however, will still not reflect
fragmented trade because the group is too aggregated and includes
standardized products traded through arms-length relationships.
We are interested in complex intermediates that are either part
of intrafirm trade or exchanged in networks, involving higher
degrees of customization and coordination between firms, since
these are the relationships that characterize GVCs. There is no easy
6
Additional descriptive evidence on the prevalence of exporting in Brazilian
manufacturing over time is provided in Appendix I.
5
World Development 138 (2021) 105151
Net sales Gross production value Value added
93.5 93.5 93.7
93.1 93.1 93.2
94.3 94.2 93.9
way to observe this type of trade directly in the data. Our approach
is to create classifications based on ad hoc taxonomies of interna-
tionally traded goods, dividing intermediates into (GVC-related)
customized and non-customized products.
We employ the conservative version of the Rauch (1999)
classification of differentiated products, which has become quite
popular in the literature as a measure of complexity or ‘contract-
intensity’ of products (Andersson & Weiss, 2012; Antràs & Chor,
2013). His methodology consists of dividing products in three cat-
egories: (i) traded in organized exchanges; (ii) reference priced in
trade publications; and (iii) all others. The first two categories indi-
cate homogeneous products traded in dense markets, while the
residual identifies differentiated products more likely to be traded
on the basis of networks.
A second classification we use is the recently published 5th ver-
sion of the UN COMTRADE Broad Economic Categories (BEC5), the
main novelty of which is to include, besides the traditional end-use
categories widely used in trade analysis, a taxonomy of ‘‘generic”
and ‘‘specific” intermediates, the later explicitly meant to identify
GVC-related trade. The biggest disadvantage of BEC5 is that it
was produced for the most recent Harmonized System (HS) edi-
tions, whereas our firm-level data is mostly classified using the
1996 and 2002 versions, which causes us to lose quite a few obser-
vations after the correspondence procedures. As such, we focus on
the Rauch classification for the firm-level analysis, using the BEC5
classification for robustness.
Nevertheless, both taxonomies result in four categories of prod-
ucts plus a small residual group of not-classified products7: (i) cus-
tomized industrial intermediates; (ii) non-customized industrial
intermediates; (iii) primary intermediates (foods and beverages,
fuels and primary industrial supplies); and (iv) final products (capi-
tal and consumption goods). This subdivision is applied to Brazil’s
exports and imports and we call the list derived from Rauch
(1999) the ‘RCON’ classification henceforth.
The Brazilian trade registry is stored in different HS editions
depending on the year, so we use correspondence tables to adapt
our taxonomy and classify products in different editions. In the
HS 2002 edition, which is the most used in our sample, the RCON
classification results in 1549 customized intermediates out of a
total of 5222 listed products, while BEC5 has 1600 products of
the same class out of a total of 4883 listed products, though only
858 products are considered customized in both lists. In Appendix
A we compare the taxonomies, observing that there are significant
differences in the classification of products, particularly in the case
of customized and non-customized intermediates, and emphasiz-
ing the need to consider more than one classification in our analy-
sis. We also show how developing countries have been increasing
their share in world trade of customized intermediates faster than
in other product categories.
7
The residual represents<1% of products and a little more than 1% in traded value.
We ignore it throughout this work, although we maintain controls for these products
in all regressions.
C. Torres Mazzi et al.
Table 2
Summary statistics by type of exported product (Means and Medians).
Category Freq TFP-LP
Non-exporters 213,983 12.70 (12.59)
Exporters 78,435 14.51 (14.27)
Finals 45,296 14.11 (14.02)
Cust. Inter 51,306 14.11 (14.05)
Non-Cust. Inter. 23,705 14.86 (14.83)
Primary Inter. 8,485 15.41 (15.37)
Notes: Means and medians (between parentheses). TFP estimated according to the Levinsohn and Petrin (2003) methodology. Export categories are non-exclusive, therefore
the sum for categories of exporters is higher than the total number of exporters. Values are calculated over the total number of observations between 1997 and 2007.
5. Results
Our analysis proceeds in three steps. In the first sub-section we
report information on trends in the export performance of the
Brazilian economy, both in general terms but also with respect to
the positioning within GVCs. The second and third sub-sections
then report results from our firm-level productivity regressions
using the methodology discussed above, the second sub-section
focusing on the export premia and the third discussing the evi-
dence on learning-by-exporting.
5.1. Brazil’s export and GVC performance
This sub-section presents information at the aggregate level on
Brazil’s performance in terms of exports and GVC participation. The
analysis confirms the statements in the introduction suggesting
that Brazil has to a large extent been engaged in exporting and
GVCs through primary and resource-based manufacturing activi-
ties. We begin the discussion in Fig. 1, which reports the value of
Brazilian exports for the period 1996–2018 using CEPII’s BACI data-
base. Using a correspondence between the BEC5 classification and
the HS96 classification we further report the split of exports into
different product categories. In terms of export values, the figure
shows a pattern for Brazil that is similar to that for world trade –
i.e. a rapidly rising trend in export values up to the financial crisis
followed by stagnation. Considering the decomposition of exports
into categories, we observe that the share of primary products in
total export values has increased significantly over time, with the
shares of all other categories declining as a result8.
Moving beyond export values to consider the specialization of
Brazil, Fig. 2 reports information on the number products in which
Brazil has a Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA). The figure
shows that in the late 1990s, Brazil had around 800 products in
which it had a comparative advantage (out of around 5000 six-
digit products in the HS96 classification), with that number drop-
ping to around 550 by 2018. Over time there has been a relative
decline in the share of products with RCA for customized interme-
diates (from around 30% to around 22%), with a corresponding rise
in the share of final products and relative stability for other
categories9.
Finally, Fig. 3 provides an indication of Brazil’s involvement in
GVCs at the aggregate level. The figure reports indicators of
upstream and downstream participation in GVCs. FVA captures
8
At the sectoral level we observe that sectors such as Food, Machinery, Metals and
to a lesser extent Minerals and Vegetables were the dominant export sectors in 1996.
These sectors continue to account for a large share of exports in 2018 – particularly
Minerals and Vegetables, with the Transport and Animals sectors also growing rapidly
from a smaller initial level.
9
Considering, again, developments by sector we observe that Brazil’s comparative
advantages tend to lie in Chemicals, Metals and to a lesser extent Machinery and
Textiles. It is also these sectors – with the exception of Machinery – that have seen the
biggest drop in the number of products with RCA over time, however. Indeed, there
are very few sectors in which new comparative advantages have been developed over
time.
6
World Development 138 (2021) 105151
Personnel Age Schooling
56 (48) 13.18 (11.00) 7.72 (7.78)
164 (1 3 0) 26.65 (25.19) 8.65 (8.60)
162 (1 3 3) 25.55 (24.17) 8.56 (8.50)
153 (1 2 8) 25.96 (24.99) 8.56 (8.59)
226 (1 9 2) 28.40 (27.74) 8.82 (8.93)
321 (2 7 9) 30.27 (29.99) 8.47 (8.53)
the foreign value-added embodied in the exports of Brazil (as a
share of Brazil’s overall exports) and is used as a measure of down-
stream involvement in GVCs (i.e. as a recipient of intermediates
from other countries). Conversely, DVX captures the domestic
value-added that is embodied in the exports of third countries
(again as a share of Brazil’s overall exports). This variable is used
as an indicator of upstream participation in GVCs (i.e. as a supplier
of intermediates to third countries). Data for these indicators is
taken from the 2016 version of WIOD (www.wiod.org), with the
figure also reporting the average values of FVA and DVX for the full
sample of 44 WIOD countries. The figure reveals that Brazil is inte-
grated into GVCs largely as a supplier. This is true when consider-
ing the relative size of the FVA and DVX variables for Brazil, as well
as when comparing the DVX values for Brazil with the averages for
the full WIOD sample, particularly in the latter period. Conversely,
values for FVA are relatively small, both in comparison to the val-
ues for DVX and to the average for all WIOD countries. There is lit-
tle evidence of a positive trend in the FVA variable for Brazil,
further suggesting that Brazil has not been able to move towards
more downstream activities within GVCs10.
The conclusion from these aggregate descriptive variables is
that Brazil’s participation in GVCs has been increasingly oriented
upstream, reflecting the country’s growing participation in exports
of primary goods. This is in direct contrast with the trends
observed for developing countries overall, which have increasingly
enjoyed opportunities to participate in GVCs as suppliers of cus-
tomized intermediates. In the following sub-section, we examine
whether the Brazilian firms that have been able to enter GVCs as
customized intermediate suppliers have performed relatively well
in comparison to exporters of other product types.
5.2. Econometric analysis: Export premia
Table 3 presents initial results from estimating Eq. (1) for Ln
TFP-LP. Tables B.1 and B.2 in Appendix B present versions of this
table for the alternative measures of performance, Ln TFP-FE and
Ln VAE respectively. Column (1) is the most parsimonious formu-
lation and includes only the export categories alongside sector,
state and time fixed effects. All export premia are positive and sig-
nificant, as expected. Exporting customized intermediates is asso-
ciated with the highest export premium, followed by exports of
final goods, although the difference between the two is not statis-
tically significant. Exporting primary intermediates is associated
with the lowest premium relative to non-exporters, although the
10
Considering indicators of upstream and downstream GVC participation at the
sectoral level, we observe that Brazil is heavily engaged in upstream GVC activity in a
number of manufacturing sectors including Textiles, Wood, Paper, Rubber, Fabricated
metals, Other manufacturing and most notably Printing. Such results are consistent
with the patterns reported for the aggregate in Figure 3. The sectoral results further
reveal, however, that there are manufacturing sectors in which Brazil is more
integrated into GVCs downstream rather than upstream. Sectors including Electron-
ics, Electrical equipment, Machinery, Motor vehicles, Other transport, and Coke &
petroleum are sectors where Brazil is a relatively downstream participant in GVCs.
C. Torres Mazzi et al. World Development 138 (2021) 105151

Fig. 1. Brazilian Export Values and Decomposition into Export Categories Note: The figure reports the value of Brazil’s using data from CEPII’s BACI database, along with the
split of exports into the different BEC5 categories.

100% 900

90% 800
80%
700
70%
600
60%
500
50%
400
40%
300
30%

20% 200

10% 100

0% 0
96 97 98 99 01 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Cust. Int. Finals Non-C ust. Int. Primary Total (right axis)
Fig. 2. Number of RCAs by BEC5 Categories Note: The figure reports the total number of products with Revealed Comparative Advantages in Brazil using data from CEPII’s
BACI database (right-hand axis), along with the split of these RCAs into the different BEC5 categories.

productivity difference with regard to non-exporters remains large
and highly significant (about 74%)11. In Column (2) we add a num-
ber of controls that are more standard in the literature. The signifi-
cant coefficients on firm age and its squared term indicate slightly
decreasing returns to firm age. Coefficients on the remaining control
variables take positive and significant values, consistent with results
found in the literature. The productivity hierarchy with regards to
different types of exporters also does not change: exporters of cus-
11
We transform estimates in column (1) using 100  ðeb  1Þ to arrive at this
number.
tomized intermediates and final goods have the highest coefficients,
followed by non-customized intermediates, with exporters of pri-
mary intermediates having the lowest premium. Wald tests (not
depicted) indicate that the differences in coefficients are significant
at the 5% level at least, except between final goods and customized
intermediates where the difference in coefficients is not significant.
While the pattern of results in columns (1) and (2) are largely simi-
lar, the size of the coefficients in Column (2) are substantially lower,
suggesting that some of the effect of exporting appears through
some of our control variables. Exporting customized intermediate
goods is associated with a 41% productivity premium, exporting final

7
C. Torres Mazzi et al. World Development 138 (2021) 105151

Fig. 3. GVC Participation of Brazil Notes: The figure uses global input–output tables from WIOD (www.wiod.org) to construct indicators of upstream (DVX) and downstream
(FVA) participation for Brazil. The figure also reports information on the average values of FVA and DVX for the full sample of WIOD countries.

Table 3
Export premia for TFP-LP with different combinations of covariables, RCON classification (Full Sample).

Dependent Variable: Ln TFP-LP

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Export Cust. Inter. 0.724 0.346 0.178 0.176 0.121 0.084
(0.012)*** (0.010)*** (0.009)*** (0.010)*** (0.0066)*** (0.006)***
Export Non-Cust. Inter. 0.686 0.283 0.148 0.147 0.091 0.061
(0.017)*** (0.013)*** (0.012)*** (0.012)*** (0.008)*** (0.007)***
Export Finals 0.706 0.332 0.229 0.227 0.129 0.092
(0.012)*** (0.009)*** (0.009)*** (0.009)*** (0.007)*** (0.006)***
Export Primary Inter. 0.555 0.216 0.156 0.154 0.091 0.057
(0.030)*** (0.022)*** (0.021)*** (0.021)*** (0.0137)*** (0.013)***
Ln Personnel 0.514 0.427 0.427 0.318
(0.004)*** (0.004)*** (0.004)*** (0.007)***
Schooling 0.142 0.112 0.112 0.033
(0.002)*** (0.002)*** (0.002)*** (0.002)***
Age 0.029 0.027 0.027 0.008
(0.001)*** (0.001)*** (0.001)*** (0.001)***
Age^2 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0001
(0.000)*** (0.000)*** (0.000)*** (0.000)***
Import Cust. Inter. 0.322 0.322
(0.009)*** (0.009)***
Import Non-Cust. Inter. 0.265 0.264
(0.010)*** (0.010)***
Import Finals 0.257 0.258
(0.008)*** (0.008)***
Import Primary Inter. 0.183 0.183
(0.015)*** (0.015)***
Exp Intensity 0.0201
(0.029)
Observations 292,418 292,418 292,418 2,92,418 292,418 292,418
R-squared 0.53 0.65 0.67 0.67 0.02 0.07
F-Statistic 2351 3693 3870 3846 30.35 24
State FE YES YES YES YES NO NO
Year FE YES YES YES YES YES YES
Sector FE YES YES YES YES NO NO
Firm FE NO NO NO NO YES YES

*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0. Notes: standard errors clustered at the firm level between parentheses. Export/import residual category omitted.

goods correlates with a 39% productivity increase, while the pre- reported in the literature on an overall export dummy – for example,
mium from exporting non-customized intermediates is around 33% the premia of 36% found for a sample of African countries by Foster-
and that from exporting primary intermediates is estimated at McGregor, Isaksson, and Kaulich (2014a) – and somewhat larger
24%. These estimated coefficients are in line with other results than many of the estimates found for developed countries and sum-

8
C. Torres Mazzi et al.
marized in table A1 of Wagner (2007). In Column (3) we add impor-
ter dummies for the same categories. Exporting final goods now has
the highest impact, while non-customized and primary intermediate
goods have the lowest impact. The pattern of coefficients on the
importer variables show a somewhat different pattern, with
customized intermediates having the highest coefficient, non-
customized intermediates and final goods having similar coeffi-
cients, and primary intermediates having the smallest coefficient.
All coefficients for imports are larger in size than their counterparts
for exports, which is compatible with the previous results in the lit-
erature showing that importing is usually associated with higher
premia (Foster-McGregor, Isaksson, & Kaulich, 2014a)
The remaining columns of Table 3 estimate other variations of
the same model. In Column (4), we add controls for the overall
intensity of exports (i.e. the ratio of export value to firm turnover),
which is not significant and does not alter the previous results. In
columns (5) and (6) we include firm fixed effects. The magnitude of
effects naturally changes greatly compared to columns (1) and (2),
but the hierarchy remains mostly unchanged, showing coefficients
for customized intermediates and final goods that are significantly
larger than those for non-customized and primary intermediates,
but that are not significantly different between each other.
In addition to considering the overall relationship between TFP
and the different categories of exporter we are further interested in
examining whether these results are homogenous throughout all
sectors or whether they are conditional on the dynamics of each
industry. In particular, we are interested in whether the relation-
ships observed for the full sample in Table 3 are also present when
focusing on the main sectors of early GVC development, namely
apparel, textiles, footwear and machinery products, sectors on
which the impact of fragmentation is more pronounced. MNCs
have been especially active as value chains leaders in these sectors,
and there is anecdotal evidence indicating they might provide
higher possibilities of learning for Brazilian firms (Navas-Alemán,
2011; Pietrobelli et al., 2011).
We have an expectation, therefore, that exporters of customized
intermediates are likely to perform especially well in these sectors.
To examine this, we subdivide the sample into three groups of sec-
tors according to firms CNAE classification: (i) apparel/textile/
footwear (sectors 17–19); (ii) machinery (sectors 29–35); and
(iii) other manufacturing (sectors 15–16, 20–28, 36–37)12. Results
are reported in Table 4. We observe significant sectoral hetero-
geneities that qualify the results from Table 3. First, only in the case
of apparel/textiles/footwear do we see the export premia being lar-
gest for exporters of final goods, followed by customized intermedi-
ates, non-customized intermediates and primary intermediates. In
the case of machinery and other sectors the estimated coefficients
tend to be smaller in magnitude and the ranking of the coefficients
is different, with the premium for customized intermediates being
consistently above that for all other exports. Second, although expor-
ters of customized intermediates always perform better than expor-
ters of both non-customized and primary intermediates, a direct
comparison of the coefficients indicates that the difference is larger
in GVC-related sectors (columns 1–4) compared to less GVC inten-
sive sectors (columns 5–6), which provides some evidence in favor
of our initial expectations regarding the impact of GVCs for exporters
of customized intermediates.13
12
These sectors comprise machinery and equipment (29), office machinery (30),
electric machinery (31), electronic and telecommunication machinery (32), medical,
precision and optical machinery (33), vehicles (34) and transport equipment (35).
13
We consider only positive values of each variable to obtain the median because
the majority of firms does not export. The medians are 0.0035 and 0.0033, which
results in estimates of 0.00350.711=0.0025 and 0.00330.547=0.0018 for non-
customized and primary intermediates, respectively.
9
World Development 138 (2021) 105151
The results in Tables 3 and 4 support previous evidence of the
GVC literature indicating that exporting intermediates related to
GVCs is associated with a better performance compared to suppli-
ers of other types of intermediates. Regarding the hierarchy with
respect to producers of final goods, we find evidence that exporting
GVC-related products (i.e. customized intermediates) indeed
allows producers of intermediates to reduce or completely close
the performance gap relative to downstream firms (i.e. final goods
suppliers), although this result depends heavily on sector specifici-
ties. On the import side, we see that the coefficient of customized
intermediates is larger than those on other categories of imports
for the GVC-related sectors, confirming known results from the
international trade literature that indicate higher quality inputs
have a stronger effect on firms’ performance (Bas & Strauss-Kahn,
2014; Bas, 2012; Feng, Li, & Swenson, 2016).
In Tables B.1 and B.2 of Appendix B we show results from sim-
ilar specifications to those in Table 3, but for the other two perfor-
mance measures (Ln TFP-FE and Ln VAE). The results for Ln TFP-FE
are very similar to those in Table 3, whereas in regressions for Ln
VAE we often observe lower coefficients for exporters of final
goods in regressions without firm fixed-effects. In all cases, export-
ing customized intermediates is associated with a performance
advantage compared to exporting other types of intermediates.
We also confirm these results by employing the BEC5 classification
recently published by UN COMTRADE. Table B.3 of Appendix B
reports a set of results using this taxonomy with Ln TFP-LP and
Ln VAE as the performance variables. We observe that differences
between exporters of customized and non-customized products
are largely reduced in the latter taxonomy, but results remain con-
sistent despite the extensive differences between the two classifi-
cations. It appears that there is a core of products in the
intersection of both classifications driving productivity advantages
for firms that produce them.
5.3. Econometric analysis: learning-by-exporting
We begin our analysis of productivity trajectories by discussing
results for exporters without differentiating product types. Fig. 4
depicts results from the estimation of Eq. (2) when including a sin-
gle exporter dummy (and leads and lags). The different lines in the
figure depict results for all firms that start exporting at s = 0
together with estimates for those that export continuously until
years s = 1, s = 2 and s = 3, respectively. For example, curve T = 0
contains all starters, curve T = 1 excludes from the starter group
all firms that stop exporting one year after entry (in s = 1), curve
T = 2 is more restrictive and excludes from the starter group all
firms that stopped exporting in s = 1 or s = 2, and curve T = 3
excludes from the starter group all firms that stopped exporting
in s = 1 or s = 2 or s = 3. The curves are estimated separately keeping
the same group of non-exporters as the baseline in each regression.
The vertical line marks the last year before entry in exports. All
coefficients are significant at the 5% level or better, with the com-
plete results reported in Appendix C.
The figure reveals several insights into the long-term perfor-
mance trajectory of exporters. First, they confirm that exporters
are significantly more productive long before entering export mar-
kets, offering strong support to the idea of self-selection: five years
before entering foreign markets, future exporters are about 40%
more productive than similar non-exporting firms. Second, the
productivity differential of exporters increases almost continu-
ously along their trajectory towards entering foreign markets,
which offers support to the idea of conscious self-selection: in
the year before entry (s = 1), future exporters are already 48%-
56% percent more productive than non-exporters. Third, the prob-
ability of continuing to export after entry is correlated with pro-
ductivity levels immediately before entry and with productivity
C. Torres Mazzi et al. World Development 138 (2021) 105151

Table 4
Export premia for Ln TFP-LP with different combinations of covariables, RCON classification (Divided sample).

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Dependent Variable: Ln TFP-LP
A/T/F Machinery Others
Export Cust. Inter. 0.560 0.306 0.407 0.214 0.356 0.218
(0.015)*** (0.014)*** (0.010)*** (0.010)*** (0.006)*** (0.006)***
Export Non-Cust. Inter. 0.240 0.051 0.219 0.126 0.322 0.173
(0.019)*** (0.018)*** (0.013)*** (0.013)*** (0.008)*** (0.008)***
Export Finals 0.685 0.558 0.228 0.132 0.239 0.132
(0.011)*** (0.010)*** (0.010)*** (0.010)*** (0.007)*** (0.007)***
Export Primary Inter. 0.208 0.185 0.116 0.055 0.225 0.148
(0.041)*** (0.039)*** (0.023)*** (0.024)*** (0.013)*** (0.012)***
Import Cust. Inter. 0.420 0.333 0.265
(0.013)*** (0.011)*** (0.007)***
Import Non-Cust. Inter. 0.343 0.207 0.272
(0.013)*** (0.011)*** (0.007)***
Import Finals 0.308 0.269 0.251
(0.013)*** (0.011)*** (0.007)***
Import Primary Inter. 0.003 0.134 0.236
(0.020)*** (0.016)*** (0.009)***
Ln Personnel 0.406 0.319 0.340 0.273 0.577 0.507
(0.005)*** (0.005)*** (0.005)*** (0.005)*** (0.003)*** (0.003)***
Schooling 0.098 0.083 0.173 0.119 0.145 0.115
(0.002)*** (0.002)*** (0.003)*** (0.003)*** (0.001)*** (0.001)***
Age 0.050 0.046 0.015 0.012 0.016 0.015
(0.001)*** (0.000)*** (0.001)*** (0.001)*** (0.000)*** (0.000)***
Age^2 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
(0.000)*** (0.000)*** (0.000)*** (0.000)*** (0.000)*** (0.000)***
Observations 65,278 65,279 47,353 47,353 179,787 179,787
R-squared 0.52 0.55 0.63 0.66 0.65 0.67
F-Statistic 1570 1768 1011 1124 4111 4385
State FE YES YES YES YES YES YES
Year FE YES YES YES YES YES YES
Sector FE YES YES YES YES YES YES

*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1. Notes: standard errors clustered at the firm level between parentheses. Export/import residual category omitted. A/T/F is the Apparel/
Textiles/Footwear subdivision.

Fig. 4. Productivity premia (%) for starters compared to non-exporters. Notes: Coefficients (b) estimated according to Eq. (2) using controls for the log of personnel, schooling,
age, age squares, an import dummy, state, year and sector fixed effects. Coefficients are transformed using the equation 100  ðeb  1Þ. Each line indicates results for all firms
that start exporting at s = 0 together with those that export continuously until s = 0, s = 1, s = 2, s = 3. For example, at s = 2, all exporters included in curves T = 2 and T = 3 are
still exporting (continuers), while firms in curves T = 0 and T = 1 include continuers and droppers. The curves are estimated separately keeping the same group of non-
exporters as baseline in each regression. All coefficients are significant at 5% or less. Full results reported in Table C.1.

growth in the period before entry, as shown by the higher position to exporting. All groups depart from the same productivity premia
of lines T = 3 and T = 2 (i.e. the sub-samples of exporters that five years before entry (in period s = 5) and progressively start to
remain as exporters for longer periods of time) in the year prior diverge, gaining productivity at different rates. This performance

10
C. Torres Mazzi et al.
heterogeneity among export starters is persistent and continues to
affect their productivity trajectory long after entry in foreign markets.
Finally, there are significant productivity gains in the year of
entry and one year after entry for the curves that include firms that
export continuously for at least two and three year after entry (i.e.
T = 2 and T = 3). In all curves the Wald tests confirm that b1 , b2 and
b3 are significantly higher compared to b1 at the 5% level (10%
level in one case). This provides some evidence in favor of the
learning-by-export hypothesis, evidence consistent with previous
work for Brazil (Araújo, 2016; Kannebley, Esteves, da Silva, &
Araújo, 2009). Nonetheless, the long-term approach that we follow
allows us to observe that there is no indication that productivity
gains continue after entry – i.e. they are restricted to the year of
entry and to the following year for the group of two and three-
year continuers, after which there is relative stability compared
to non-exporters even for firms that continue to export for four
consecutive years. Becoming an exporter does not appear to be
related to continuous learning opportunities for firms, although it
clearly relates to permanently higher performance levels. This
result is confirmed also for the alternative sample depicted in
Table C.2 of Appendix C.
We now turn to the behavior of exporters split according to the
product types we defined previously. We would like to know if
exporters of customized intermediates benefit from learning-by-
exporting and if the effect is different from exporters of other pro-
duct types. We exclude firms that export more than one product
type to avoid ‘second’ (or more) starts in the case of firms that start
exporting in one category but that already exported in another –
which would likely be less costly due to complementarities and
economies of scope, for example, in transportation, distribution
and marketing networks in foreign markets. However, results are
very similar even without this restriction (and are available upon
request).
Figs. 5 and 6 show learning curves for starters in each category,
imposing zero and three year continuity periods, respectively. We
multiply the effect for primary intermediates by 0.5 to avoid dis-
torting the graphs, which does not impair the observation of
trends. Although the sample is large, entry is a relatively rare phe-
nomenon, which creates some noise in the estimations for separate
groups. We therefore depict results for two-year moving averages
to make trends more easily recognizable in the graphs. Full results
are reported in Tables C.3 and C.5, as well as results for the alter-
native sample selection in Tables C.3 and C.6.
Overall, all categories are more productive than non-exporters
long before entry and – except for exporters of primary intermedi-
ates, whose performance peaks two years before entry – present a
more or less strong growth trend before entry and on the year of
entry. After entry, trends are less clear. Exporters of final goods
appear to follow an upward trend at least until s = 3, exporters
of customized intermediates appear quite stable, exporters of
non-customized intermediates either have diminished perfor-
mance or remain stable, whereas exporters of primary intermedi-
ates appear to lose productivity. Wald tests indicate that b3 and
b2 are always higher than b1 for exporters of final goods at the
10% level, while coefficients are either not significantly different
or smaller than b1 for exporters of non-customized and primary
intermediates. In the case of customized intermediates, b3 , and
b2 are significantly larger than b1 only in the regression of
Fig. 6, for three-year export continuers. Results for the fixed-
effects TFP version (TFP-FE) and for one-years and two-years con-
tinuers, although not depicted, confirm this picture: the evidence
of performance gains for separate subgroups after entry is not
robust, although for exporters of final goods we find more consis-
tent productivity increases, notably for export continuers.
In Fig. 7 we explore these results further and depict learning
curves for exporters of customized products according to their
11
World Development 138 (2021) 105151
degree of permanence in export markets, in a similar manner to
that we did for all exporters in Fig. 4. The category of customized
products includes exporters of both customized intermediates
and the vast majority of final goods, which were the categories pre-
senting the best productivity performance after entry in the anal-
ysis above. This is relevant because in practice exporters of
customized intermediates will often also export final goods and
vice-versa14; and a shortcoming of the previous approach is that
we do not allow firms to move from one category to another which
could be another way of upgrading their product portfolio. The
results are considerably different in this case, as we observe that
the learning curves of firms continue to grow after entry until
s = 2 or s = 3, especially for curves containing only export continuers,
before stabilizing or falling as more droppers are included. Wald
tests confirm that b3 , b2 and b1 are significantly higher than b1 at
the 1% significance level in almost all cases15. After period s = 4 these
gains are reduced but not completely lost in relation to pre-entry
levels. These results are not observed for firms that export non-
customized products.
Therefore, in the category of customized products we find the
strongest evidence of learning-by-exporting, especially for export
continuers. The reasoning developed in this section indicates that
exporters of final goods – which together with exporters of cus-
tomized intermediates comprise almost all customized products
– should be responsible for the learning effects we observe in
Fig. 7, as this is the only category in which we find an indication
of permanent productivity gains after entry. The most direct way
to verify this hypothesis is dividing the sample of exporters of cus-
tomized products into exporters of final goods and exporters of
(customized) intermediate goods but allowing firms to diversify
between product categories, which we did not do previously. This
is a potentially important group, since improving the variety and
quality of their products is one of the ways by which firms upgrade
their portfolio.
The results are depicted in Fig. 8, where we also include the
curve for overall exporters of customized products. The latter stays
in between the two other trajectories, although its exact position
oscillates due to exit, which causes the number of firms of each
type in the sample to vary. Nevertheless, it is possible to observe
that the learning curve of final goods drives the growth trend for
customized products overall, whereas customized intermediates
follow a less steep productivity trajectory that exerts a negative
effect upon the trend for customized goods overall. Wald tests con-
firm that b2 and b3 are significantly higher than b1 at the 5% level
for exporters of final goods and, also importantly, the growth trend
is consistent throughout the trajectory after entry.
Therefore, there is evidence of learning-by-exporting for cus-
tomized products, and this pattern is mostly due to exporters of
final goods. Although we observe an overall growth trend in the
latter category in all regressions, the most robust evidence of pro-
ductivity increases is observed for firms that diversify their export
portfolio to different product categories, especially other cus-
tomized products. No such trend is found for exporters in any other
product category, including customized intermediates.
6. Conclusion
This paper was primarily motivated by the growth of fragmen-
tation in international industrial organization that has taken place
in recent decades. This process, according to part of the interna-
tional trade literature, has the potential to create learning avenues
14
50% of exporters of customized intermediates also export final goods, while 56%
of exporters of final goods also export customized intermediates in the wider sample.
15
Only in one case is the p-value somewhat higher (1.1%), slightly missing the 1%
threshold.
C. Torres Mazzi et al. World Development 138 (2021) 105151

Fig. 5. Productivity premia (%) for starters in each product category (T = 0). Notes: Coefficients (b) estimated according to Eq. (2) using the same control variables as in Table 3,
Column (3) and transformed using the equation 100  ðeb  1Þ. We take two-year moving averages to reduce short-term noise. Each line indicates results for firms that start
exporting at s = 0. All coefficients are significant at 5% or less. Full results reported in Table C.3.

Fig. 6. Productivity premia (%) for starters in each product category (T = 3). Notes: Coefficients (b) estimated according to Eq. (2) using the same control variables as in Table 3,
Column (3) and transformed using the equation 100  ðeb  1Þ. We take two-year moving averages to reduce short-term noise. Each line indicates results for firms a category
that start exporting at s = 0 and continue to do so for at least two more years (T = 3). Full results reported in Table C.5.

for firms in developing countries. Trends in international trade
over the past twenty years suggest that the participation of devel-
oping countries in global trade has been growing and that much of
this growth has occurred through trade in customized intermedi-
ates, an outcome associated with production fragmentation. Brazil,
however, has been a laggard in that regard and appears to increas-
ingly rely in exports of primary intermediates to take part in inter-
national trade.
In this paper, we examined whether firms in Brazil that have
been able to enter export markets in customized intermediates
have performed better than non-exporters, but also other types
of exporters, notably exporters of non-customized and primary
intermediates, and exporters of final goods (which indicate down-
stream participation in trade). Our results partially confirm previ-
ous evidence indicating that exporting intermediates related to
GVCs is associated with a better performance compared to non-
exporters or suppliers of other types of intermediates. In general,
we confirm evidence from the GVC literature showing that the per-
formance discount associated with producing intermediates is
reduced in the context of GVCs, i.e. exporters of GVC-related inter-
mediates tend to reduce or completely close their performance gap
with regard to firms supplying final products in value chains,
although this result depends on sectoral specificities.
Regarding the traditional ‘‘learning” versus ‘‘self-selection” dis-
cussion of the international trade literature, we observe significant
and growing productivity premia long before entry in foreign mar-
kets, at least five years prior to start, which we interpret as a clear
indication of self-selection of more productive firms into foreign
markets. Indeed, the fact that exporters’ productivity premia
increases steadily in the years before entry can offer support to
the idea of ‘‘conscious self-selection” by exporters. There is some
indication of productivity gains after entry for overall exporters,

12
C. Torres Mazzi et al. World Development 138 (2021) 105151

Fig. 7. Productivity premia (%) for exporter starters of customized products (finals and intermediates). Notes: coefficients estimated according to Eq. (2) and transformed
according to equation 100  ðeb  1Þ, using the same control variables as in Table 3, Column (3). We take two-year moving averages to reduce short-term noise. Each line
indicates results for all firms that start exporting at s = 0 and for those that export continuously until s = 0, s = 1, s = 2, s = 3. All coefficients are significant at 5% or less. Full
results are reported in Table C.7.

Fig. 8. Productivity premia (%) for exporters of customized products; total exporters, subgroups of finals and intermediates. Notes: coefficients estimated according to Eq. (2)
and transformed according to equation 100  ðeb  1Þ, using the same control variables as in Table 3, Column (3). We take two-year moving averages to reduce short-term
noise. Each line indicates results for firms that start exporting at s = 0. The curves are estimated separately only for exporters of customized products. Full results are reported
in Table C.8.

but they are mostly limited to the year of entry or immediately
after, which suggests that participating in foreign markets by itself
is not a continuous source of learning for firms.
This story, however, becomes more nuanced once we look at
the subgroups of exporters by product type. For exporters of cus-
tomized intermediates, our results do not indicate learning-by-
exporting in Brazil, although there is evidence that they perform
better than exporters of other classes of intermediates in terms
of their capacity to sustain productivity gains after entering foreign
markets. Exporters of non-customized and primary intermediates,
however, build their performance advantage entirely before entry
and do not find extra benefits from exporting after starting to
export. Conversely, exporters of customized goods in general –
13
finals or intermediates – present the strongest evidence of learn-
ing, and this trend is entirely explained by firms that start in for-
eign markets as exporters of final goods.
These findings might be helpful to fine-tune national policies
and expectations regarding GVCs. Brazilian policy makers, like
those in many other developing countries that missed out on
the growing trends of fragmented trade for manufacturing, fre-
quently express the ambition to increase the country’s participa-
tion in GVCs in manufacturing. The fact that exporters of
customized intermediates present an overall superior perfor-
mance suggests that indeed important productivity gains can
be obtained from such strategies. However, taking part in frag-
mented trade did not propel Brazilian suppliers to higher perfor-
C. Torres Mazzi et al.
mance levels after entry. The fact that exporters of final goods
outperformed other firms after entry in foreign markets suggests
a downstream position in the value chain might offer more
opportunities for upgrading. This observation is compatible with
findings of the GVC approach indicating that in most production
chains – although not in all – the best hierarchical positions will
tend to be found downstream, where firms will tend to control
higher value-added activities such as R&D, design, marketing
and distribution. At the same time, previous findings of this lit-
erature indicate that not only the governance structure of the
value chain (Pietrobelli et al., 2011) but also firms’ internal inno-
vation efforts and capabilities will influence successful upgrading
by suppliers (Morrison et al., 2008). In that sense, it is possible
that significant heterogeneity in performance exists among
exporters of customized intermediates that we are unable to
capture with our data. Exploring these aspects further remains
both an important agenda for future research in this field and
an area of great interest for economic policy.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Caio Torres Mazzi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investiga-
tion, Formal analysis. Neil Foster-McGregor: Methodology, Formal
analysis, Supervision. Glaucia Estefânia de Sousa Ferreira: Formal
analysis.
Acknowledgments
We are especially grateful to Carlo Pietrobelli for his constant
advice and helpful discussions. We are also thankful to the Insti-
tute of Applied Economic Research (IPEA) and their staff, espe-
cially Eric Jardim, João Alberto De Negri and Fernanda De
Negri, whose help was indispensable for the successful comple-
tion of this work. We also thank the Brazilian Institute of Geog-
raphy and Statistics (IBGE) for making the databases available
for this work and the Brazilian Innovation Agency (Finep) for
supporting and funding one of the authors. The usual disclaimer
applies.
Appendix A
Our first step in constructing our product classes is to classify
products as final, industrial intermediates or primary intermedi-
ates. We consider fuels and lubricants as primary intermediates,
separating them from the overall industrial sector. We use the
Fourth Revision of the United Nations Broad Economic Categories
(BEC) classification and adopt the following criteria:
 Codes for final goods (capital and consumption): 41, 51, 521,
112, 122, 522, 61, 62, 63
 Codes for industrial intermediates: 22, 42, 53
 Codes for primary intermediates: 21, 111, 121, 31, 322, 321
The BEC classification is mostly precise, however we correct
75 products classified as finals that are mostly intermediates
based on the assessments of Athukorala (2010) and Sturgeon
and Memedovic (2010). The next step is to produce the subdivi-
sion of customized and non-customized industrial intermediates,
which we initially do using the Rauch (1999) classification. This
classification of differentiated products divides products in three
categories: (i) traded in organized exchanges; (ii) reference
priced in trade publications; and (iii) all others. The first two
categories indicate homogeneous products traded in dense mar-
kets, while the residual identifies differentiated products more
likely to be traded on the basis of networks. We call this latter
14
World Development 138 (2021) 105151
category the ‘RCON’ classification. Rauch (1999) list of cus-
tomized products was originally created using the second revi-
sion of the SITC system. We use correspondence tables to
directly convert this classification to all HS versions, thereby
allowing us to obtain our RCON list. As mentioned in the main
text, in addition to the Rauch classification, we further use the
recent BEC5 classification, which introduces a split between
‘‘generic” and ‘‘specific” intermediates, the later explicitly meant
to identify GVC-related trade. We use this split in BEC5 as our
distinction between customized (i.e. specific) and non-
customized (i.e. generic) intermediates.
In Table A.1 we show the intersection between the list con-
structed using the Rauch classification (RCON) and BEC5. The table
indicates that while the lists for Finals and Primary Intermediates
are highly compatible, there is a considerable reshuffle between
customized and non-customized intermediates between the two
classifications.
In Table A.2, we begin to look at how these classifications are
reflected in our sample of firms. The table shows the division of
observations for each product type (RCON classification). The first
line depicts the overall percentage of observations in the total sam-
ple exporting each type of product, while the second line shows,
within this group, the share of those exporters exporting exclu-
sively that product type. The other cells depict intersections
between product categories as percentages of total exporters of
the product in the column. For instance, Column 1 indicates that
18% of all observations had positive exports of customized
intermediates. Within those 18%, 37% exported only customized
intermediates, while 50%, 32% and 9% also exported finals, non-
customized intermediates and primary goods, respectively. The
total is above 100% because firms can export more than one
product type.
Table A.3 depicts the percentage of firms in our sample selling
each product category across the timespan of our dataset. The
numbers fluctuate without a clearly defined trend throughout
the period, although the hierarchy in terms of participation is
mostly unaffected. This is compatible with the overall trends for
Brazil depicted in the main text.
Finally, in Fig. A.1 we look at world trade in these different
categories and display the share of non-OECD countries’ in the
different product categories16. The figure confirms results from
the literature describing the growing importance of international
trade in customized intermediates for developing countries: devel-
oping countries have gained export share in all product categories,
but this gain has been greatest in customized intermediates. In
1996, developing countries accounted for 21% of international
exports in customized intermediates, their lowest share among
the four categories. This share grows steadily reaching 46% in
2016, getting close to the highest share in the graph. Indeed,
throughout the total period this is the category of products where
non-OECD countries present the highest average annual growth
rate (9.23%) and OECD countries present the lowest (3.29%).17
16
OECD countries are the early participants of the organization (Australia, Austria,
Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy,
Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States) plus South Korea.
17
This trend is most extreme for China and Southeast Asia, but when these
countries are excluded from the sample of non-OECD countries, we continue to
observe that gains are largest for this group.
C. Torres Mazzi et al. World Development 138 (2021) 105151

Table A.1
Intersections between RCON and BEC5 classification for the HS 2002 edition.

RCON Class
BEC 5 Class Finals Cust. Int. Non-Cust. Int. Prim. Int. Total
Finals 1,596 102 0 5 1,713
Cust. Int. 22 858 695 18 1,600
Non-Cust. Int. 29 489 500 123 1,141
Other Int. 11 1 2 319 333
Total 1,743 1,457 1,197 466 4,883

Note: This table reports the numbers of products classifed as final goods, and customised, non-customited and primary intermediates according to the the classifications,
RCON (columns) and BEC5 (rows). The table shows the intersection between the two classifications, providing details on the similarity of the two classifications.

Table A.2
Intersections between exports of different product categories (%).

Categories
Categories Cust Finals Non-Cust Primary
Total Exports 0.18 0.15 0.08 0.03
Exclusive 0.37 0.38 0.22 0.15
Non-exclusive
Cust - 0.57 0.68 0.57
Finals 0.50 – 0.49 0.59
Non-Cust 0.32 0.26 – 0.51
Primary 0.09 0.11 0.18 –

Note: the percentages represent averages for the entire sample. The first line depicts the overall percentage of observations in the total sample exporting each type of product.
The second line shows, within this group, the share of those exporters exporting exclusively that product type. The other cells depict intersections between product categories
as percentages of total exporters of the product in the column.

Table A.3
Percentages of firms exporting each product type by year (%).

Categories 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Finals 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15
Cust. Inter 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.18
Non-Cust. Inter. 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
Primary Inter. 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Note: This table shows the percentage of Brazilian firms in our sample that export each product type for each year in our dataset. Firms may simultaneously export more than
one product type.

Fig. A.1. Share of non-OECD in total exports in current values and by product category. Notes: own elaboration from COMTRADE export data. Export flows are in current
values. The series exclude countries whose data is not fully available for the entire period in the Harmonized System. Products divided according to the RCON classification.

15
C. Torres Mazzi et al. World Development 138 (2021) 105151

Appendix B

Table B.1
Export premia for the Fixed Effects TFP estimation (Ln TFP-FE) with different combinations of covariables, RCON classification (Full Sample).

Dependent Variable: Ln TFP-FE

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Export Cust. Inter. 0.745 0.389 0.217 0.215 0.118 0.087
(0.012)*** (0.010)*** (0.009)*** (0.010)*** (0.006)*** (0.006)***
Export Non-Cust. Inter. 0.660 0.280 0.144 0.143 0.08 0.055
(0.016)*** (0.013)*** (0.012)*** (0.013)*** (0.007)*** (0.007)***
Export Finals 0.675 0.329 0.224 0.222 0.1222 0.091
(0.012)*** (0.010)*** (0.009)*** (0.009)*** (0.006)*** (0.006)***
Export Primary Inter. 0.446 0.142 0.090 0.088 0.074 0.046
(0.028)*** (0.022)*** (0.021)*** (0.022)*** (0.013)*** (0.013)***
Ln Personnel 0.445 0.358 0.357 0.445
(0.004)*** (0.004)*** (0.004)*** (0.004)***
Schooling 0.146 0.115 0.115 0.146
(0.002)*** (0.002)*** (0.002)*** (0.002)***
Age 0.036 0.034 0.034 0.036
(0.001)*** (0.001)*** (0.001)*** (0.001)***
Age^2 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0006
(0.000)*** (0.000)*** (0.000)*** (0.000)***
Import Cust. Inter. 0.327 0.327
(0.009)*** (0.009)***
Import Non-Cust. Inter. 0.280 0.279
(0.010)*** (0.010)***
Import Finals 0.264 0.264
(0.008)*** (0.008)***
Import Primary Inter. 0.144 0.144
(0.015)*** (0.015)***
Exp Intensity 0.0177
(0.027)
Observations 292,418 292,418 292,418 292,418 292,418 292,418
R-squared 0.47 0.59 0.61 0.61 0.017 0.05
F-Statistic 1839 2852 3017 2998 274.1 232.8
State FE YES YES YES YES NO NO
Year FE YES YES YES YES YES YES
Sector FE YES YES YES YES NO NO
Firm FE NO NO NO NO YES YES

*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0. Notes: standard errors clustered at the firm level between parentheses. Export/import residual category omitted. All estimations with RCON

Table B.2
Export premia for log of value added per employee (Ln VAE) with different combinations of covariables, RCON classification (Full Sample).

Dependent Variable: Ln VAE

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Export Cust. Inter. 0.485 0.314 0.169 0.159 0.054 0.052
(0.010)*** (0.009)*** (0.009)*** (0.010)*** (0.008)*** (0.008)***
Export Non-Cust. Inter. 0.402 0.232 0.121 0.115 0.015 0.020
(0.014)*** (0.012)*** (0.012)*** (0.012)*** (0.009) (0.001)**
Export Finals 0.328 0.178 0.085 0.078 0.06 0.060
(0.009)*** (0.009)*** (0.008)*** (0.009)*** (0.008)*** (0.008)***
Export Primary Inter. 0.250 0.135 0.090 0.081 0.006 0.008
(0.022)*** (0.019)*** (0.018)*** (0.019)*** (0.014) (0.014)
Ln Personnel 0.112 0.035 0.034 0.023
(0.004)*** (0.004)*** (0.004)*** (0.008)***
Schooling 0.123 0.097 0.097 0.022
(0.002)*** (0.002)*** (0.002)*** (0.002)***
Age 0.032 0.030 0.030 0.010
(0.000)*** (0.000)*** (0.000)*** (0.001)***
Age^2 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
(0.000)*** (0.000)*** (0.000)*** (0.000)***
Import Cust. Inter. 0.268 0.267
(0.008)*** (0.008)***
Import Non-Cust. Inter. 0.202 0.201
(0.009)*** (0.009)***
Import Finals 0.276 0.277
(0.008)*** (0.008)***
Import Primary Inter. 0.124 0.124
(0.014)*** (0.014)***

16
C. Torres Mazzi et al. World Development 138 (2021) 105151

Table B.2 (continued)

Dependent Variable: Ln VAE

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Exp Intensity 0.124
(0.057)**
Observations 278,161 278,161 278,161 278,160 278,161 278,161
R-squared 0.36 0.40 0.42 0.42 0.01 0.01
F-Statistic 1090 1267 1335 1328 125.4 131.2
State FE YES YES YES YES NO NO
Year FE YES YES YES YES YES YES
Sector FE YES YES YES YES NO NO
Firm FE NO NO NO NO YES YES

*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0. Notes: standard errors clustered at the firm level between parentheses. Export/import residual category omitted. All estimations with RCON
classification, and for the log value added per employee (Ln VAE).

Table B.3
Export premia for BEC5 classification, different productivity measures (Full Sample).

Dependent Variable: Ln TFP-LP Ln TFP-LP Ln TFP-LP Ln VAE Ln VAE Ln VAE

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Export Cust. Inter. 0.688 0.306 0.138 0.445 0.270 0.120
(0.014)*** (0.011)*** (0.010)*** (0.011)*** (0.010)*** (0.010)***
Export Non-Cust. Inter. 0.595 0.281 0.117 0.389 0.252 0.091
(0.014)*** (0.011)*** (0.010)*** (0.012)*** (0.011)*** (0.010)***
Export Finals 0.672 0.337 0.224 0.310 0.174 0.058
(0.013)*** (0.010)*** (0.009)*** (0.009)*** (0.009)*** (0.009)***
Export Primary Inter. 0.538 0.171 0.093 0.231 0.107 0.027
(0.032)*** (0.024)*** (0.023)*** (0.023)*** (0.021)*** (0.020205)
Ln Personnel 0.521 0.433 0.116 0.035
(0.004)*** (0.004)*** (0.004)*** (0.004)***
Schooling 0.142 0.113 0.123 0.097
(0.002)*** (0.002)*** (0.002)*** (0.002)***
Age 0.029 0.027 0.032 0.030
(0.001)*** (0.001)*** (0.000)*** (0.000)***
Age^2 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0005
(0.000)*** (0.000)*** (0.000)*** (0.000)***
Import Cust. Inter. 0.237 0.204
(0.010)*** (0.009)***
Import Non-Cust. Inter. 0.310 0.199
(0.010)*** (0.009)***
Import Finals 0.265 0.271
(0.008)*** (0.008)***
Import Primary Inter. 0.159 0.127
(0.015)*** (0.014)***
Exp Intensity 0.3032 0.4283
(0.025)*** (0.024)***
Observations 292,418 292,418 291,158 278,161 278,161 276,971
R-squared 0.53 0.65 0.67 0.36 0.40 0.42
F-Statistic 2318 3672 3830 1084 1262 1335
State FE YES YES YES YES NO YES
Year FE YES YES YES YES YES YES
Sector FE YES YES YES YES NO YES
Firm FE NO NO NO NO YES NO

*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0. Notes: standard errors clustered at the firm level between parentheses. Export/import residual category omitted. All estimations with BEC5
classification, for Ln TFP and Ln VAE.

Appendix C

Table C.1
Corresponds to Figure 4 in the main text Productivity premia for starters compared to non-exporters, main sample.

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Dependent Variable TFP-LP
T=0 T=1 T=2 T=3
b(8) 0.3199 0.2544 0.1833
(0.0375)*** (0.0588)*** (0.0984)*
b(7) 0.3122 0.3017 0.3026 0.4049
(0.0302)*** (0.0427)*** (0.0604)*** (0.0856)***

(continued on next page)

17
C. Torres Mazzi et al. World Development 138 (2021) 105151

Table C.1 (continued)

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Dependent Variable TFP-LP
T=0 T=1 T=2 T=3
b(6) 0.3204 0.3082 0.3003 0.3158
(0.0234)*** (0.0325)*** (0.0433)*** (0.0521)***
b(5) 0.3399 0.3435 0.3292 0.3388
(0.0209)*** (0.0287)*** (0.0369)*** (0.0451)***
b(4) 0.3382 0.3763 0.3667 0.3735
(0.0175)*** (0.0231)*** (0.0301)*** (0.0339)***
b(3) 0.3693 0.4110 0.4204 0.4233
(0.0152)*** (0.0194)*** (0.0244)*** (0.0282)***
b(2) 0.3841 0.4069 0.4308 0.4227
(0.0135)*** (0.0176)*** (0.0212)*** (0.0247)***
b(1) 0.3905 0.4087 0.4443 0.4354
(0.0136)*** (0.0179)*** (0.0225)*** (0.0250)***
b(0) 0.4317 0.4486 0.4779 0.4746
(0.0140)*** (0.0179)*** (0.0219)*** (0.0250)***
b(+1) 0.4255 0.4509 0.5106 0.5073
(0.0149)*** (0.0189)*** (0.0233)*** (0.0271)***
b(+2) 0.4371 0.4588 0.5013 0.5049
(0.0161)*** (0.0201)*** (0.0232)*** (0.0268)***
b(+3) 0.4275 0.4533 0.4854 0.5067
(0.0173)*** (0.0219)*** (0.0251)*** (0.0271)***
b(+4) 0.4381 0.4526 0.4681 0.4743
(0.0188)*** (0.0241)*** (0.0282)*** (0.0304)***
b(+5) 0.4360 0.4318 0.4549 0.4530
(0.0222)*** (0.0285)*** (0.0330)*** (0.0366)***
b(+6) 0.3994 0.4001 0.4093 0.4329
(0.0253)*** (0.0337)*** (0.0396)*** (0.0428)***
b(+7) 0.3730 0.3419 0.3702 0.3646
(0.0307)*** (0.0394)*** (0.0467)*** (0.0526)***
b(+8) 0.3588 0.3438 0.3558 0.3285
(0.0409)*** (0.0495)*** (0.0577)*** (0.0665)***
Observations 135,665 122,613 116,818 113,631
R-squared 0.65 0.64 0.63 0.63
F-Statistic 1771 1539 1436 1363
State FE YES YES YES YES
Year FE YES YES YES YES
Sector FE YES YES YES YES
b-1 = b3 4.0% 3.6% 8.5% 0.2%
b-1 = b2 0.1% 0.5% 0.4% 0.1%
b-1 = b1 0.4% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0%

*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0. Notes: standard errors clustered at the firm level between parentheses. Control variables are the log of personnel, schooling, age, age squares,
an import dummy, state, year and sector fixed effects.

Table C.2
Productivity premia for starters compared to non-exporters, alternative sample selection criteria.

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Dependent Variable TFP-LP
T=0 T=1 T=2 T=3
b(8) 0.3600 0.3093 0.2253 –
(0.0375)*** (0.0592)*** (0.1011)**
b(7) 0.3327 0.3214 0.3095 0.4235
(0.0306)*** (0.0431)*** (0.0620)*** (0.0868)***
b(6) 0.3324 0.3286 0.3254 0.3493
(0.0244)*** (0.0336)*** (0.0445)*** (0.0531)***
b(5) 0.3579 0.3704 0.3517 0.3742
(0.0220)*** (0.0302)*** (0.0382)*** (0.0462)***
b(4) 0.3608 0.3981 0.3865 0.3952
(0.0187)*** (0.0243)*** (0.0306)*** (0.0341)***
b(3) 0.3900 0.4212 0.4253 0.4403
(0.0162)*** (0.0207)*** (0.0255)*** (0.0291)***
b(2) 0.4073 0.4310 0.4373 0.4314
(0.0146)*** (0.0190)*** (0.0229)*** (0.0258)***
b(1) 0.4223 0.4443 0.4613 0.4615
(0.0133)*** (0.0171)*** (0.0209)*** (0.0232)***
b(0) 0.4687 0.4855 0.5071 0.5124
(0.0131)*** (0.0168)*** (0.0201)*** (0.0224)***
b(+1) 0.4616 0.4945 0.5389 0.5507
(0.0141)*** (0.0173)*** (0.0206)*** (0.0235)***
b(+2) 0.4583 0.4880 0.5315 0.5452
(0.0153)*** (0.0187)*** (0.0209)*** (0.0234)***
b(+3) 0.4407 0.4699 0.4967 0.5258
(0.0165)*** (0.0202)*** (0.0225)*** (0.0243)***

18
C. Torres Mazzi et al. World Development 138 (2021) 105151

Table C.2 (continued)

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Dependent Variable TFP-LP
T=0 T=1 T=2 T=3
b(+4) 0.4695 0.4926 0.5145 0.5309
(0.0178)*** (0.0219)*** (0.0246)*** (0.0267)***
b(+5) 0.4580 0.4827 0.5053 0.5218
(0.0201)*** (0.0248)*** (0.0279)*** (0.0306)***
b(+6) 0.4513 0.4780 0.4891 0.5241
(0.0217)*** (0.0272)*** (0.0306)*** (0.0331)***
b(+7) 0.4388 0.4368 0.4498 0.4798
(0.0246)*** (0.0305)*** (0.0343)*** (0.0378)***
b(+8) 0.3971 0.3996 0.3974 0.4066
(0.0294)*** (0.0340)*** (0.0384)*** (0.0417)***
Observations 208,874 190,493 182,694 178,377
R-squared 0.6 0.59 0.58 0.57
F-Statistic 509.4 442.5 415.3 391.6
State FE YES YES YES YES
Year FE YES YES YES YES
Sector FE YES YES YES YES
b-1 = b3 0.5% 16.0% 8.0% 0.2%
b-1 = b2 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0%
b-1 = b1 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0. Standard errors clustered at the firm level between parentheses. Control variables are the log of personnel, schooling, age, age squares, an
import dummy, state, year and sector fixed effects. Firms that leave the sample for more than 1 year are excluded, as well as firms that start exporting on their first year in the
sample.

Table C.3
Corresponds to Fig. 5 in the main text Productivity premia for starters in each product category (T = 0), main sample.

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Dependent Variable TFP-LP
Finals Cust. Int. Non-Cust. Primary
b(8) 0.2896 0.3388 0.5864 0.2994
(0.0631)*** (0.0665)*** (0.1024)*** (0.1683)*
b(7) 0.2485 0.2738 0.3966 0.4546
(0.0531)*** (0.0610)*** (0.1277)*** (0.1317)***
b(6) 0.2686 0.2986 0.3450 0.3018
(0.0415)*** (0.0461)*** (0.0993)*** (0.1599)*
b(5) 0.3370 0.2785 0.4098 0.3663
(0.0384)*** (0.0423)*** (0.0910)*** (0.1049)***
b(4) 0.3212 0.2677 0.4268 0.3026
(0.0307)*** (0.0354)*** (0.0752)*** (0.1278)**
b(3) 0.3569 0.2991 0.5175 0.6543
(0.0270)*** (0.0326)*** (0.0681)*** (0.1195)***
b(2) 0.3803 0.3116 0.4348 0.6325
(0.0246)*** (0.0292)*** (0.0695)*** (0.1126)***
b(1) 0.4008 0.2851 0.4698 0.5713
(0.0263)*** (0.0287)*** (0.0578)*** (0.1070)***
b(0) 0.4533 0.3344 0.5381 0.4544
(0.0261)*** (0.0293)*** (0.0665)*** (0.1323)***
b(+1) 0.4430 0.3276 0.3769 0.5542
(0.0281)*** (0.0317)*** (0.0662)*** (0.1411)***
b(+2) 0.4577 0.3258 0.3274 0.5570
(0.0308)*** (0.0368)*** (0.0672)*** (0.1551)***
b(+3) 0.4589 0.2906 0.3550 0.5493
(0.0336)*** (0.0376)*** (0.0826)*** (0.1534)***
b(+4) 0.4485 0.3008 0.4551 0.4863
(0.0361)*** (0.0434)*** (0.0974)*** (0.1609)***
b(+5) 0.4776 0.3049 0.3323 0.3268
(0.0447)*** (0.0554)*** (0.1147)*** (0.1707)*
b(+6) 0.4864 0.2522 0.4185 0.4111
(0.0544)*** (0.0556)*** (0.0952)*** (0.1577)***
b(+7) 0.4171 0.2714 0.3646 0.4066
(0.0632)*** (0.0667)*** (0.1178)*** (0.2691)
b(+8) 0.3319 0.2333 0.2383 0.5341
(0.1005)*** (0.0814)*** (0.1250)* (0.4681)
Observations 123,175 123,175 123,175 123,175
R-squared 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62
F-Statistic 895.3 895.3 895.3 895.3
State FE YES YES YES YES
Year FE YES YES YES YES
Sector FE YES YES YES YES
b-1 = b3 6.4% 87.4% 11.7% 82.0%
b-1 = b2 3.6% 17.9% 1.4% 87.6%
b-1 = b1 6.0% 7.4% 7.0% 83.0%

*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0. Notes: standard errors clustered at the firm level between parentheses. Control variables are omitted but are the same as in Table 3, Column (3).
RCON classification.
19
C. Torres Mazzi et al. World Development 138 (2021) 105151

Table C.4
Productivity premia for starters in each product category (T = 0), alternative sample selection.

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Dependent Variable TFP-LP
Finals Cust. Int. Non-Cust. Primary
b(8) 0.3175 0.3527 0.6374 0.3776
(0.0621)*** (0.0638)*** (0.0971)*** (0.1709)**
b(7) 0.2756 0.2775 0.4341 0.5344
(0.0511)*** (0.0591)*** (0.1246)*** (0.1289)***
b(6) 0.2781 0.2970 0.3773 0.3696
(0.0409)*** (0.0450)*** (0.0973)*** (0.1611)**
b(5) 0.3637 0.2866 0.4378 0.4332
(0.0379)*** (0.0406)*** (0.0867)*** (0.1013)***
b(4) 0.3534 0.2722 0.4646 0.3809
(0.0301)*** (0.0357)*** (0.0700)*** (0.1297)***
b(3) 0.3907 0.3183 0.5126 0.6781
(0.0262)*** (0.0315)*** (0.0646)*** (0.1166)***
b(2) 0.4075 0.3250 0.4866 0.6947
(0.0231)*** (0.0284)*** (0.0649)*** (0.1080)***
b(1) 0.4156 0.3501 0.4566 0.5792
(0.0223)*** (0.0253)*** (0.0540)*** (0.0948)***
b(0) 0.4858 0.3556 0.5508 0.4474
(0.0217)*** (0.0241)*** (0.0521)*** (0.1084)***
b(+1) 0.4817 0.3384 0.4521 0.4584
(0.0239)*** (0.0262)*** (0.0540)*** (0.1155)***
b(+2) 0.4592 0.3423 0.3884 0.5286
(0.0271)*** (0.0308)*** (0.0608)*** (0.1412)***
b(+3) 0.4526 0.3169 0.3814 0.4932
(0.0291)*** (0.0328)*** (0.0697)*** (0.1420)***
b(+4) 0.4739 0.3456 0.4748 0.4071
(0.0310)*** (0.0391)*** (0.0778)*** (0.1367)***
b(+5) 0.4799 0.3416 0.3900 0.4003
(0.0385)*** (0.0439)*** (0.0914)*** (0.1539)***
b(+6) 0.4748 0.3067 0.5039 0.4732
(0.0457)*** (0.0445)*** (0.1017)*** (0.1884)**
b(+7) 0.4504 0.2793 0.4835 0.5227
(0.0525)*** (0.0529)*** (0.1128)*** (0.1857)***
b(+8) 0.3436 0.1759 0.3243 0.4188
(0.0823)*** (0.0569)*** (0.1139)*** (0.3621)
Observations 190,166 190,166 190,166 190,166
R-squared 0.5685 0.5685 0.5685 0.5685
F-Statistic 1052 1052 1052 1052
State FE YES YES YES YES
Year FE YES YES YES YES
Sector FE YES YES YES YES
b-1 = b3 13.8% 81.9% 21.7% 40.7%
b-1 = b2 5.7% 59.8% 19.6% 62.8%
b-1 = b1 0.1% 63.5% 92.5% 9.9%

*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0. Notes: standard errors clustered at the firm level between parentheses. Control variables are omitted but are the same as in Table 3, Column (3).
Firms that leave the sample for more than 1 year are excluded, as well as firms that start exporting on their first year in the sample.

Table C.5
Corresponds to Fig. 6 in the main text Productivity premia for starters in each product category (T = 3), main sample selection.

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Dependent Variable TFP-LP
Finals Cust. Int. Non-Cust. Primary
b(7) 0.2562 0.2349 0.3661 0.1791
(0.1998) (0.1966) (0.5944) (0.1572)
b(6) 0.3456 0.2156 0.1501 0.3835
(0.1067)*** (0.1036)** (0.2200) (0.2851)
b(5) 0.4272 0.1409 0.1399 0.2038
(0.0917)*** (0.0949) (0.1831) (0.2775)
b(4) 0.4422 0.2111 0.1764 0.2940
(0.0761)*** (0.0878)** (0.1720) (0.2517)
b(3) 0.5087 0.2173 0.0657 0.9296
(0.0621)*** (0.0714)*** (0.2011) (0.4193)**
b(2) 0.5132 0.2735 0.1956 0.7491
(0.0601)*** (0.0637)*** (0.1212) (0.3653)**
b(1) 0.5306 0.2278 0.3615 0.7970
(0.0604)*** (0.0653)*** (0.1200)*** (0.3818)**
b(0) 0.5652 0.2983 0.3431 0.8330
(0.0602)*** (0.0585)*** (0.1573)** (0.4041)**

20
C. Torres Mazzi et al. World Development 138 (2021) 105151

Table C.5 (continued)

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Dependent Variable TFP-LP
Finals Cust. Int. Non-Cust. Primary
b(+1) 0.5859 0.3389 0.3153 0.8504
(0.0668)*** (0.0609)*** (0.1646)* (0.4384)*
b(+2) 0.6324 0.3353 0.2930 0.7036
(0.0690)*** (0.0627)*** (0.1542)* (0.4299)
b(+3) 0.6384 0.3525 0.3318 0.7194
(0.0670)*** (0.0689)*** (0.1614)** (0.4139)*
b(+4) 0.5589 0.3381 0.3754 0.5459
(0.0692)*** (0.0811)*** (0.1862)** (0.4355)
b(+5) 0.5638 0.2962 0.0362 0.2297
(0.0866)*** (0.0978)*** (0.2699) (0.5084)
b(+6) 0.5736 0.2453 0.7338 0.6408
(0.0990)*** (0.1130)** (0.2036)*** (0.0921)***
b(+7) 0.5537 0.2203 0.5755 0.2985
(0.1041)*** (0.1355) (0.2014)*** (0.0919)***
b(+8) 0.3397 0.2536 0.1769
(0.1712)** (0.1427) (0.1794)
Observations 108,110 108,110 108,110 108,110
R-squared 0.6076 0.6076 0.6076 0.6076
F-Statistic 807.1 807.1 807.1 807.1
State FE YES YES YES YES
Year FE YES YES YES YES
Sector FE YES YES YES YES
b-1 = b3 3.7% 4.2% 76.5% 37.8%
b-1 = b2 4.3% 5.0% 47.0% 22.6%
b-1 = b1 20.7% 3.7% 61.1% 64.8%

*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0. Notes: standard errors clustered at the firm level between parentheses. Control variables are omitted but are the same as in Table 3, Column (3).
RCON classification.

Table C.6
Productivity premia for starters in each product category (T = 3), alternative sample selection.

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Dependent Variable TFP-LP
Finals Cust. Int. Non-Cust. Primary
b(7) 0.2944 0.2209 0.2776 0.3296
(0.1936) (0.1787) (0.5961) (0.1460)**
b(6) 0.4051 0.2008 0.2161 0.5444
(0.0993)*** (0.0983)** (0.2106) (0.2704)**
b(5) 0.4519 0.1887 0.1901 0.3034
(0.0897)*** (0.0879)** (0.1795) (0.2620)
b(4) 0.4582 0.2191 0.2901 0.4069
(0.0741)*** (0.0829)*** (0.1718)* (0.2363)*
b(3) 0.5218 0.2371 0.1030 1.0047
(0.0610)*** (0.0699)*** (0.2000) (0.3750)***
b(2) 0.5357 0.2627 0.2253 0.8405
(0.0618)*** (0.0614)*** (0.1213)* (0.3374)**
b(1) 0.5542 0.3281 0.2960 0.8224
(0.0531)*** (0.0601)*** (0.1568)* (0.2861)***
b(0) 0.6313 0.3660 0.4677 0.8651
(0.0542)*** (0.0543)*** (0.1299)*** (0.2947)***
b(+1) 0.6494 0.4151 0.4630 0.8392
(0.0553)*** (0.0554)*** (0.1232)*** (0.3290)**
b(+2) 0.6693 0.4358 0.4458 0.7352
(0.0550)*** (0.0551)*** (0.1274)*** (0.3170)**
b(+3) 0.6321 0.4270 0.3671 0.7665
(0.0553)*** (0.0587)*** (0.1311)*** (0.3019)**
b(+4) 0.6100 0.4578 0.4097 0.5405
(0.0612)*** (0.0683)*** (0.1341)*** (0.3293)
b(+5) 0.6407 0.4374 0.2527 0.4159
(0.0808)*** (0.0799)*** (0.1881) (0.4222)
b(+6) 0.6263 0.3797 0.8098 0.9289
(0.0887)*** (0.0869)*** (0.1638)*** (0.1609)***
b(+7) 0.5501 0.3295 0.5528 0.6719
(0.0903)*** (0.1028)*** (0.1832)*** (0.2221)***
b(+8) 0.4809 0.2153 0.3524 1.0315
(0.1225)*** (0.0569)*** (0.1423)** (0.0488)***
Observations 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000
R-squared 0.5473 0.5473 0.5473 0.5473
F 963.6 963.6 963.6 963.6

(continued on next page)

21
C. Torres Mazzi et al. World Development 138 (2021) 105151

Table C.6 (continued)

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Dependent Variable TFP-LP
Finals Cust. Int. Non-Cust. Primary
State FE YES YES YES YES
Year FE YES YES YES YES
Sector FE YES YES YES YES
b-1 = b3 9.5% 6.1% 49.7% 52.0%
b-1 = b2 1.0% 2.0% 19.4% 20.4%
b-1 = b1 2.7% 4.2% 16.6% 88.4%

*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0. Notes: standard errors clustered at the firm level between parentheses. Control variables are omitted but are the same as in Table 3, Column (3).
Firms that leave the sample for more than 1 year are excluded, as well as firms that start exporting on their first year in the sample.

Table C.7
Corresponds to Figure 7 in the main text Productivity premia for exporter starters of customized products (finals and intermediates), main sample selection.

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Dependent Variable TFP-LP
T=0 T=1 T=2 T=3
b(8) 0.2868 0.2251 0.1149
(0.0445)*** (0.0754)*** (0.1315)
b(7) 0.2587 0.2471 0.1761 0.1674
(0.0360)*** (0.0529)*** (0.0741)** (0.1101)
b(6) 0.2862 0.2987 0.2517 0.2488
(0.0360)*** (0.0360)*** (0.0360)*** (0.0360)***
b(5) 0.2930 0.3045 0.2862 0.2589
(0.0249)*** (0.0361)*** (0.0490)*** (0.0644)***
b(4) 0.2825 0.3315 0.2955 0.3094
(0.0206)*** (0.0285)*** (0.0387)*** (0.0473)***
b(3) 0.3122 0.3544 0.3566 0.3663
(0.0178)*** (0.0238)*** (0.0312)*** (0.0363)***
b(2) 0.3384 0.3515 0.3748 0.3832
(0.0160)*** (0.0225)*** (0.0279)*** (0.0344)***
b(1) 0.3380 0.3508 0.3805 0.3850
(0.0163)*** (0.0229)*** (0.0306)*** (0.0345)***
b(0) 0.3848 0.4011 0.4218 0.4293
(0.0168)*** (0.0228)*** (0.0289)*** (0.0346)***
b(+1) 0.3795 0.4042 0.4621 0.4705
(0.0178)*** (0.0237)*** (0.0305)*** (0.0370)***
b(+2) 0.4031 0.4320 0.4765 0.4835
(0.0199)*** (0.0261)*** (0.0317)*** (0.0378)***
b(+3) 0.4015 0.4403 0.4658 0.4983
(0.0213)*** (0.0283)*** (0.0344)*** (0.0383)***
b(+4) 0.3878 0.4111 0.4229 0.4458
(0.0232)*** (0.0316)*** (0.0383)*** (0.0422)***
b(+5) 0.3992 0.4033 0.4286 0.4298
(0.0279)*** (0.0369)*** (0.0434)*** (0.0488)***
b(+6) 0.3677 0.3693 0.3720 0.3978
(0.0307)*** (0.0423)*** (0.0509)*** (0.0590)***
b(+7) 0.3314 0.3009 0.3186 0.3289
(0.0370)*** (0.0493)*** (0.0604)*** (0.0715)***
b(+8) 0.3291 0.3221 0.3179 0.2614
(0.0517)*** (0.0606)*** (0.0759)*** (0.0937)***
Observations 125,688 115,769 111,617 109,569
R-squared 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
F 1204 1096 1063 1052
State FE YES YES YES YES
Year FE YES YES YES YES
Sector FE YES YES YES YES
b-1 = b3 0.4% 0.1% 1.1% 0.1%
b-1 = b2 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
b-1 = b1 0.5% 0.5% 0.1% 0.3%

*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0. Notes: standard errors clustered at the firm level between parentheses. Control variables are the log of personnel, schooling, age, age squares,
an import dummy, state, year and sector fixed effects. RCON classification.

22
C. Torres Mazzi et al. World Development 138 (2021) 105151

Table C.8 Agostino, M., Giunta, A., Scalera, D., & Trivieri, F. (2016). Italian firms in global value
Corresponds to Figure 8 in the main text Productivity premia for exporters of chains: Updating our knowledge. Rivista Di Politica Economica, 7, 155–186.
customized products, subgroups of finals and intermediates (T = 0), main sample Andersson, M., & Weiss, J. F. (2012). External Trade and Internal Geography: Local
selection Export Spillovers by Industry Characteristics and Firm Size. Spatial Economic
Analysis, 7(July 2013), 421–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/
(1) (2) (3) 17421772.2012.722664
Dependent Variable TFP-LP Antràs, P., & Chor, D. (2013). Organizing the global value chain. Econometrica, 81(6),
Finals Cust. Int. All Customized 2127–2204. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA10813.
Araújo, B. C. (2016). Efeitos de aprendizado de axportação: Diferenças quanto à
b(8) 0.305 0.281 0.2868 permanência, destinos de exportação, tamanho e intensidade tecnológica. In F.
(0.0366)*** (0.0360)*** (0.0445)*** De Negri & L. R. Cavalcante (Eds.), Produtividade no Brasil Volume 2 -
b(7) 0.273 0.267 0.2587 Determinantes (1st ed., pp. 153–171). Brasilia: Ipea.
(0.0361)*** (0.03602)*** (0.0360)*** Araújo, R. D. De, & Hiratuka, C. (2006). Exportações Das Firmas Domésticas E
b(6) 0.301 0.294 0.2862 Influência Das Firmas Transnacionais. In As Empresas Brasileiras e o Comércio
(0.0252)*** (0.0227)*** (0.0360)*** Internacional (pp. 317–339). Retrieved from https://www.en.ipea.gov.br/
b(5) 0.326 0.278 0.2930 agencia/images/stories/PDFs/livros/Cap11_Exportacoesfirmas.pdf.
(0.0209)*** (0.0204)*** (0.0249)*** Baldwin, R. (2012). Trade and Industrialization after Globalization’s 2nd
b(4) 0.315 0.273 0.2825 Unbundling: How Building and Joining a Supply Chain Are Different and Why
It Matters. In R. Feenstra & A. Taylor (Eds.), Globalization in an Age of Crisis:
(0.0180)*** (0.0182)*** (0.0206)***
Multilateral Economic Cooperation in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 165–215).
b(3) 0.325 0.291 0.3122
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2.
(0.0163)*** (0.0159)*** (0.0178)***
Bas, M. (2012). Input-trade liberalization and firm export decisions: Evidence from
b(2) 0.352 0.305 0.3384 Argentina. Journal of Development Economics, 97(2), 481–493. https://doi.org/
(0.0163)*** (0.0161)*** (0.0160)*** 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2011.05.010.
b(1) 0.361 0.298 0.3380 Bas, M., & Strauss-Kahn, V. (2014). Does importing more inputs raise exports? Firm-
(0.0168)*** (0.0160)*** (0.0163)*** level evidence from France. Review of World Economics, 150(2), 241–275.
b(0) 0.394 0.332 0.3848 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10290-013-0175-0.
(0.0173)*** (0.0171)*** (0.0168)*** Bernard, A. B., & Jensen, J. B. (1999). Exceptional exporter performance: Cause,
b(+1) 0.379 0.328 0.3795 effect, or both?. Journal of International Economics, 47(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/
(0.0121)*** (0.0191)*** (0.0178)*** 10.1016/S0022-1996(98)00027-0.
b(+2) 0.413 0.341 0.4031 Blalock, G., & Gertler, P. J. (2004). Learning from exporting revisited in a less
(0.0213)*** (0.0223)*** (0.0199)*** developed setting. Journal of Development Economics, 75(2 SPEC. ISS.), 397–416.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2004.06.004.
b(+3) 0.418 0.318 0.4015
Brancati, E., Brancati, R., & Maresca, A. (2017a). Global value chains, innovation, and
(0.0238)*** (0.0221)*** (0.0213)***
performance: Firm-level evidence from the great recession. Journal of Economic
b(+4) 0.405 0.323 0.3878
Geography, 17(3), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbx003.
(0.0280)*** (0.0265)*** (0.0232)*** Brancati, E., Brancati, R., & Maresca, A. (2017b). Global value chains, innovation and
b(+5) 0.425 0.314 0.3992 performance: Firm-level evidence from the Great Recession. Journal of Economic
(0.0321)*** (0.0298)*** (0.0279)*** Geography, 17(5), 1039–1073. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbx003.
b(+6) 0.382 0.299 0.3677 Coase, R. H. (1937). The Nature of the Firm. Economica, 4(16), 386–405. https://doi.
(0.0369)*** (0.0365)*** (0.0307)*** org/10.2307/2626876.
b(+7) 0.357 0.271 0.3314 Feng, L., Li, Z., & Swenson, D. L. (2016). The connection between imported
(0.0522)*** (0.0498)*** (0.0370)*** intermediate inputs and exports: Evidence from Chinese firms. Journal of
b(+8) 0.338 0.24 0.3291 International Economics, 101, 86–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
(0.0588)*** (0.0567)*** (0.0517)*** jinteco.2016.03.004.
Observations 119,715 117,484 125,688 Foster-McGregor, N., Isaksson, A., & Kaulich, F. (2014a). Importing, exporting and
R-squared 0.609 0.605 0.6 performance in sub-Saharan African manufacturing firms. Review of World
Economics, 150(2), 309–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10290-013-0177-y.
F 1117 1132 1204
Foster-McGregor, N., Isaksson, A., & Kaulich, F. (2014b). Learning-by-exporting versus
State FE YES YES YES
self-selection: New evidence for 19 sub-Saharan African countries. Economics
Year FE YES YES YES Letters, 125(2), 212–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2014.09.011.
Sector FE YES YES YES Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. (2005). The governance of global value
b-1 = b3 3.4% 54.7% 0.0% chains. Review of International Political Economy, 12(1), 78–104. https://doi.org/
b-1 = b2 1.8% 5.6% 0.0% 10.1080/09692290500049805.
b-1 = b1 40.8% 10.3% 0.0% Giuliani, E., Pietrobelli, C., & Rabellotti, R. (2005). Upgrading in global value chains:
Lessons from Latin American clusters. World Development, 33(4), 549–573.
*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0. Notes: standard errors clustered at the firm level https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.01.002.
between parentheses. Control variables are omitted but are the same as in Table 3, Giunta, A., Nifo, A., & Scalera, D. (2012). Subcontracting in Italian Industry: Labour
Column (3). RCON classification. Regressions are estimated separately keeping same division, firm growth and the north-south divide. Regional Studies, 46(8),
control group of non-exporters. Firms that change export from customized to non- 1067–1083. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2011.552492.
customized are excluded. Humphrey, J., & Schmitz, H. (2002). How does insertion in global value chains affect
upgrading in industrial clusters?. Regional Studies, 36(9), 16. https://doi.org/
10.1080/0034340022000022198.
Jones, R., Kierzkowski, H., & Lurong, C. (2005). What does evidence tell us about
fragmentation and outsourcing?. International Review of Economics and Finance,
Appendix D. Supplementary data 14(3 SPEC. ISS.), 305–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2004.12.010.
Kannebley, S. Jr, (2011). Firmas heterogêneas e exportações: Uma resenha à luz das
evidências brasileiras. Revista de Economia Contemporânea, 15(1), 143–170.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-98482011000100006.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105151. Kannebley, S., Jr, Esteves, L. A., da Silva, A. M. P., & Araújo, B. C. (2009). Auto-seleção
e aprendizado no comércio exterior das firmas industriais brasileiras. Revista
ANPEC, 10(4), 715–740.
References Kannebley, S., Porto, G. S., & Pazello, E. T. (2005). Characteristics of Brazilian
innovative firms: An empirical analysis based on PINTEC—industrial research on
technological innovation. Research Policy, 34(6), 872–893. https://doi.org/
A. Accetturo A. Giunta Value chains and the great recession: Evidence from Italian
10.1016/j.respol.2005.04.003.
and German firms. International Economics 153(May 2018 2018), 55–68.
Kimura, F. (2002). Subcontracting and the performance of small and medium firms
Ackerberg, D., Caves, K., & Frazer, G. (2006). Structural Identification of Production
in Japan. Small Business Economics, 18(1–3), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1023/
Functions. In mimeo. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA13408.
A:1015187507379.
Agostino, M., Brancati, E., Giunta, A., Scalera, D., & Trivieri, F. (2019). Firms’
Kimura, F., Takahashi, Y., & Hayakawa, K. (2007). Fragmentation and parts and
efficiency and global value chains: An empirical investigation on Italian
components trade: Comparison between East Asia and Europe. North American
industry. World Economy, (September 2018), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Journal of Economics and Finance, 18(1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/
twec.12866
j.najef.2006.12.002.
Agostino, M., Giunta, A., Nugent, J. B., Scalera, D., & Trivieri, F. (2015). The
Lall, S., Albaladejo, M., & Zhang, J. (2004). Mapping fragmentation: Electronics and
importance of being a capable supplier: Italian industrial firms in global value
automobiles in East Asia and Latin America. Oxford Development Studies, 32(3),
chains. International Small Business Journal, 33(7), 708–730. https://doi.org/
407–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360081042000260601.
10.1177/0266242613518358.

23
C. Torres Mazzi et al.
Levinsohn, J., & Petrin, A. (2003). Estimating production functions using inputs to
control for unobservables. Review of Economic Studies, 70(2), 317–341. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1467-937X.00246.
Melitz, M. J. (2003). The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and
aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica, 71(6), 1695–1725.
Messa, A. (2014). Metodologia de cálculo da produtividade total dos fatores e da
produtividade da mão de obra. In F. De Negri & L. R. Cavalcante (Eds.),
Produtividade no Brasil : desempenho e determinantes (pp. 87–110). Retrieved
from http://www.ipea.gov.br
Morrison, A., Pietrobelli, C., & Rabellotti, R. (2008). Global value chains and
technological capabilities: A framework to study learning and innovation in
developing countries. Oxford Development Studies, 36(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13600810701848144.
Navas-Alemán, L. (2011). The impact of operating in multiple value chains for
upgrading: The case of the brazilina furniture and footwear industries. World
Development, 39(8), 1386–1397.
Ng, F., & Yeats, A. (1999). Production sharing in East Asia: who does what for whom,
and why? In Policy Research Working Papers (No. 2197). https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-1-4615-1625-5_5.
Olley, B. Y. G. S., & Pakes, A. (1996). The dynamics of productivity in the
telecommunications equipment industry. Econometrica, 64(6), 1263–1297.
Pierola, M. D., Fernandes, A. M., & Farole, T. (2018). The role of imports for exporter
performance in Peru. World Economy, 41(2), 550–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/
twec.12524.
Pietrobelli, C., Rabellotti, R., & Pietrobelli, C. (2011). Global value chains meet
innovation systems : Are there learning opportunities for developing
countries?. World Development, 36(7), 1261–1269. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.worlddev.2010.05.013.
24
World Development 138 (2021) 105151
Pisu, M. (2008). Export Destinations and Learning-by-Exporting: Evidence from
Belgium. In National Bank of Belgium Working Paper Series (No. 140).
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1685184.
Rauch, J. E. (1999). Networks versus markets in international trade. Journal of
International Economics, 48(1), 7–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1996(98)
00009-9.
F. Serti C. Tomasi Self-selection along different export and import markets No 2009
Pisa 2009/18 LEM Working Paper Series)
Sturgeon, T., & Memedovic, O. (2010). Mapping Global Value Chains: Intermediate
Goods Trade and Structural Change in the World Economy. In UNIDO
Development Policy and Strategic Research Branch Working Papers (No. 05/
2010). Vienna, Austria.
Wagner, J. (2007). Exports and productivity: A survey of the evidence from firm-
level data. World Economy, 30(1), 60–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9701.2007.00872.x.
Wagner, J. (2012). International trade and firm performance: A survey of empirical
studies since 2006. Review of World Economics/Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 148
(2), 235–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0290-01.
Wagner, J. (2013). Credit constraints and exports: a survey of empirical studies
using firm level data. In Working Paper Series in Economics (No. 287).
Wagner, J. (2016). A survey of empirical studies using transaction level data on
exports and imports. Review of World Economics, 152(1), 215–225. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10290-015-0235-8.
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free
Press.
A. Yeats Just how Big is Global Production Sharing? In World Bank Policy Research
Working Paper No. 1871 1998