Export Product Scope of Russian Firms and Proximity to Local Comparative Advantages
https://doi.org/10.18288/1994-5124-2021-1-56-81
Abstract
This paper explores the relationship between the structure of regional comparative advantages and the dynamics of the export product scope of Russian manufacturing enterprises. For this purpose, indices of revealed technological proximity of industries are calculated on the basis of data on types of economic activities and the export product scope of Russian enterprises. The methodology for calculating these indicators is based on the assumption that technologically closer types of activities are, to a certain degree, more often co-produced and co-exported within the boundaries of individual enterprises. This measure of technological proximity has several advantages over the traditionally used indicators. Estimates show that the constructed indices reflect different aspects of technological proximity of industries and can be considered as composite indicators. Technological proximity measures are used to calculate the index of product proximity to the structure of export comparative advantages of Russian regions. This index is statistically related to the probability of a product being included in the export product scope of a Russian exporter, to the probability of the product being excluded from the export product scope and, as a result, to the value and dynamics of exports of this product by the regional enterprises. These findings indicate that there is a relationship between the current structure of the regional comparative advantage and the direction in which the range of exports of Russian enterprises located in this region evolves. The results of the study can be used for designing economic policy measures aimed at diversification of production and export of the Russian regions, in particular on the basis of existing producers and exporters, as well as applied by the firms themselves to detect the most promising directions of activity expansion taking into account the production structure of the region which the given firm is located at.
About the Author
D. E. Kuznetsov
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration; Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Dmitrii E. Kuznetsov, Institute of Applied Economic Research
82, Vernadskogo pr., Moscow, 119571
3–5, Gazetnyy per., Moscow, 125009
References
1. Kurakova N. G., Zinov V. G., Tsvetkova A. A. Analiz struktury patentoobladateley Rossii i problema vydeleniya vedushchikh nauchno-issledovatel’skikh organizatsiy [Analysis of the Structure of Russian Patent Owners and the Problem of Defining the Leading Scientific Research Organizations]. Innovatsii [Innovations], 2016, no. 4, pp. 17-25.
2. Lyubimov I. L., Gvozdeva M. A., Kazakova M. V., Nesterova K. V. Slozhnost’ ekonomiki i vozmozhnost’ diversifikatsii eksporta v rossiyskikh regionakh [Economic Complexity of Russian Regions and Their Potential to Diversify]. Zhurnal Novoy ekonomicheskoy assotsiatsii [The Journal of the New Economic Association], 2017, vol. 2(34), pp. 94-122.
3. Alfaro L., Chen M. X. Location Fundamentals, Agglomeration Economies, and the Geography of Multinational Firms. The George Washington University, Institute for International Economic Policy, Working Papers, no. 18, 2016.
4. Alfaro L., Chen M. X. The Global Agglomeration of Multinational Firms. Journal of International Economics, 2014, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 263-276.
5. Balassa B. Trade Liberalisation and “Revealed” Comparative Advantage. The Manchester School, 1965, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 99-123.
6. Bernard A. B., Jensen J. B. Exceptional Exporter Performance: Cause, Effect, or Both? Journal of International Economics, 1999, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 1-25.
7. Bernard A. B., Redding S. J., Schott P. K. Multiproduct Firms and Trade Liberalization. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2011, vol. 126, no. 3, pp. 1271-1318.
8. Breschi S., Lissoni F., Malerba F. Knowledge-Relatedness in Firm Technological Diversification. Research Policy, 2003, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 69-87.
9. Caves R. E. Diversification and Seller Concentration: Evidence from Changes, 1963-72. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 1981, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 289-293.
10. Costinot A., Donaldson D., Komunjer I. What Goods Do Countries Trade? A Quantitative Exploration of Ricardo’s Ideas. The Review of Economic Studies, 2012, vol. 79, no. 2, pp. 581-608.
11. Harding T., Javorcik B. S. Roll out the Red Carpet and They Will Come: Investment Promotion and FDI Inflows. The Economic Journal, 2011, vol. 121, no. 557, pp. 1445-1476.
12. Hausmann R., Goldstein P., Grisanti A., O’Brien T., Tapia J., Santos M. A. A Roadmap for Investment Promotion and Export Diversification: The Case of Jordan. Center for International Development at Harvard University Working Papers, no. 374, 2019.
13. Hausmann R., Hidalgo C., Stock D., Yildirim M. A. Implied Comparative Advantage. Center for International Development at Harvard University Working Papers, no. 276, 2014.
14. Hausmann R., Klinger B. Structural Transformation and Patterns of Comparative Advantage in the Product Space. Center for International Development at Harvard University Working Papers, no. 128, 2006.
15. Hazir C. S., Bellone F., Gaglio C. Local Product Space and Firm-Level Churning in Exported Products. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2019, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 1473-1496.
16. Hidalgo C. A., Hausmann R., Dasgupta P. S. The Building Blocks of Economic Complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2009, vol. 106, no. 26, pp. 10570-10575.
17. Hidalgo C. A., Klinger B., Barabási A. L., Hausman R. The Product Space Conditions the Development of Nations. Science, 2007, vol. 317, no. 5837, pp. 482-487.
18. Jaffe A. B. Characterizing the “Technological Position” of Firms, with Application to Quantifying Technological Opportunity and Research Spillovers. Research Policy, 1989, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 87-97.
19. Jaffe A. B., Trajtenberg M. International Knowledge Flows: Evidence from Patent Citations. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 1999, vol. 8, no. 1-2, pp. 105-136.
20. Klavans R. Business Relatedness and Business Performance. FTC Line of Business Program Research Paper, no. 83, 1989.
21. Lemelin A. Relatedness in the Patterns of Interindustry Diversification. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 1982, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 646-657.
22. Lin J. Y. New Structural Economics: A Framework for Rethinking Development. 2012. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/19919.
23. Melitz M. The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity. Econometrica, 2003, vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 1695-1725.
24. Nesta L., Saviotti P. P. Coherence of the Knowledge Base and the Firm’s Innovative Performance: Evidence from the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 2005, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 123-142.
25. Pierce J. R., Schott P. K. A Concordance Between Ten-Digit U.S. Harmonized System Codes and SIC/NAICS Product Classes and Industries. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, 2012, vol. 37, no. 1-2, pp. 61-96.
26. Poncet S., de Waldemar F. S. Product Relatedness and Firm Exports in China. World Bank Economic Review, 2015, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 579-605.
27. Schmidt-Ehmcke J., Zloczysti P. Technology Portfolio and Market Value. Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin, no. 780, 2008.
28. Teece D. J., Rumelt R., Dosi G., Winter S. Understanding Corporate Coherence: Theory and Evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1994, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 1-30.
Review
For citations:
Kuznetsov D.E. Export Product Scope of Russian Firms and Proximity to Local Comparative Advantages. Economic Policy. 2021;16(1):56-81. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18288/1994-5124-2021-1-56-81
Views:
79
Email this article 