Foreign Ownership, Survival and Growth Dynamics in Turkish Manufacturing

1. Foreign Ownership, Survival and Growth Dynamics in Turkish Manufacturing ErolTaymaz, Middle East Technical University, Ankara YesimÜçdoğruk, DokuzEylülUniversity, Izmir Kamil Yılmaz, KoçUniversity, Istanbul REF Workshop on Productivity ● 30 November 2012 ● Istanbul

2. Questions • Are foreign firms different at the time of entry? • Internal and external funds • Knowledge • Do foreign firms survive longer? • More productive, larger, etc • Footlose • Do foreign firms make life difficult for domestic firms? • Competition • Spillovers

3. Questions • What are the determinants of firm (employment) growth? • Do foreign firms grow faster than domestic ones? • How does the presence of foreign firms affect growth prospects of domestic firms

4. Data • Annual Survey of Manufacturing Industries • All private establishments employing 10+ people • 1983-2001 period • About 10,000 establishments per year • Annual Industry and Service Statistics Database • Data for establishments in the service sectors along with the ones in the industry. • 2003-2009 period • Simplified survey questionnaires; data series are no longer comparable with 2001 and before.

5. Share of Foreign Firms in Manufacturing

6. Survival functions

7. Model Cox proportional hazard model hij(t) = hj(t)exp(Xijtβ) • Stratified by 2-digit industries • Estimated for • New domestic, new foreign and all new firms • Log likelihood ratio test

8. Descriptive statistics (mean values)

9. Descriptive statistics (mean values)

10. Results – Survival (1983-2001)

11. Results – Survival(1983-2001)

12. Results - Survival(2003-2009)

13. Results - Survival(2003-2009)

14. Results of the Cox proportional hazards model • Foreign firms are more likely to survive than domestic firms, but the difference between domestic and foreign firms could be explained to a large extent by their firm-specific characteristics. • Once firm-specific characteristics are controlled for, it is ambiguous if foreign firms can survive more or if they are footloose. • It seems that foreign firms have advantages over domestic firms not because they are foreign, but they are multinational.  • Foreign spillover variables have usually weak and ambiguous impact on survival probabilities. This is partly due to the limitation of spillover data.

15. Results of the Cox proportional hazards model • Negative correlation between sectoral share of foreign firms and survival probability, • but this correlation could be caused by other sector-specific factors (level of concentration, sectoral growth rates, etc.). • Regarding horizontal spillovers, • there is a weak evidence that imply that change in the sectoral share of foreign firms (the dynamic effect of the existence of foreign firms) has a negative impact on survival of domestic firms. • Domestic firms feel the competitive pressures while foreign firms are increasing their market share (through growth or entry), but the level of foreign share itself does not matter much.

16. Average size of new firms by cohort (entrants after 1992)

17. Average size of new firms by cohort (2003-2008)

18. Average size of new FDI firms by cohort (entrants after 1992)

19. Average size of new FDI firms by cohort (2003-2009 dataset)

20. Results • As expected, entrants start small: the entry size is much lower than the average size so that relative size at the time of entry (age 0) is negative for all cohorts. • However, the relative size of new firms increase rapidly over time, and converges towards sector average. The rapid increase in the average size can be explained by two factors: exit of small firms, and growth of new firms. • The first process (exit) has been studied in detail in the preceding section, and it was found that small firms are more likely to exit. If small firms exit, than the average size of remaining firms will increase even if they do not grow at all.

21. Results • The second process, new firm growth, will be studied in detail in the following subsection. • The pattern of growth of new foreign firms: As it is obvious, the entry size of foreign firms is much higher than the entry size of domestic firms especially in the 1984-2001 period. • The average relative size of new foreign firms also tends to increase over time, as observed in the case of domestic firms.

22. Average size of exitors by survival duration (1983-2001 dataset)

23. Average size of exitors by survival duration (2003-2009 dataset)

24. Average size of survivors by age (1983-2001 dataset)

25. Average size of survivors by age (2003-2009 dataset)

26. Average size of foreign survivors by age (1983-2001 dataset)

27. Average size of foreign survivors by age (2003-2009 dataset)

28. Results • Relative size of domestic exitors: • Exitors do not grow much after entry, the smaller the entry size is, the shorter the duration of survival will be, • Exitors tend to become even smaller in a few years preceding their exit. • The visual description of the exit process of domestic firms provide evidence that a part of the increase in the relative size of new firms can be explained by the exit process because smaller firms tend to exit first.

29. Results • The relative size of domestic survivors: Surviving new firms grow really quite fast and reach sector average in about 5-6 years. • These figures provide visual evidence on the differences between growth patterns of new domestic and foreign firms. • We will use regression analysis to test if there is any statistically significant difference between growth rates of domestic and foreign firms, and to check if spillovers from foreign firms have any affect on the growth rates of domestic firms.

30. Employment Growth • Unobserved firm-specific effects and the endogeneity of the lagged dependent variable (log(Lt)) in the model GMM-system method • Main limitation: attrition bias because some firms exit from the market through a non-random process. • Heckman selection model: takes into account the selection (attrition) bias. • Selection and growth equations • Growth eq incorporates selectivity-bias correction term • Need exogenous variables that affect the selection but not growth

31. Results – Growth (1983-2001)

32. Results – Growth(1983-2001)

33. Results – Growth (2003-2009)

34. Results – Growth(2003-2009)

35. Results – Growth Model • Foreign firms have higher growth rates than domestic firms, even after controlling for a number of firm-specific variables, including unobserved firm-specific factors. • The presence of foreign firms has a detrimental impact on the growth rate of domestic firms that • either use more inputs from foreign-dominated sectors, • or operate in regions where the share of foreign firms in regional output increase • Unexpected result: Foreign presence in supplier industries has also a negative impact on survival of user firms.

36. Impact of economic crises on growth and survival

37. Impact of economic crises on survival (by ownership)

38. Impact of economic crises on Growth (by ownership)

39. Conclusions • There are significant differences between entry characteristics of foreign and domestic plants. • Entry-level differences persist after entry, and foreign plants are more likely to survive. • Although foreign plants are less likely to exit, neither foreign ownership itself nor foreign presence in the market matter for survival. • For growth, however, foreign ownership matters

40. Thanks …