Using firm-level data on export transactions, we uncover a rich set of results about the extensive margins of exporting and exporter responses during periods of global downturns. We perform our analysis with respect to firm size, age, ownership status, and sector to emphasize the role of firm heterogeneity. We uncover a larger role for firm entry and exit in changes in annual export flows of single-unit, smaller, and younger firms. Young, small firms perform best during both periods of crises as well as non-crises periods. We also decompose the margins of U.S. imports at the U.S. importer, foreign supplier, and U.S. importer-foreign supplier pair levels. While export flows are closely correlated with global business cycles, import flows more closely approximate U.S. economic cycles. Additionally, both pair and foreign supplier flows are far more volatile than U.S. import flows, that is, U.S. importer-foreign supplier matches experience more churning on average than do either U.S. importers or foreign suppliers.
-
The Margins of U.S. Trade (Long Version)
August 2009
Working Paper Number:
CES-09-18
Recent research in international trade emphasizes the importance of firms extensive margins for understanding overall patterns of trade as well as how firms respond to specific events such as trade liberalization. In this paper, we use detailed U.S. trade statistics to provide a broad overview of how the margins of trade contribute to variation in U.S. imports and exports across trading partners, types of trade (i.e., arm's-length versus related-party) and both short and long time horizons. Among other results, we highlight the differential behavior of related-party and arm's-length trade in response to the 1997 Asian financial crisis.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
IMPORTING, EXPORTING AND FIRM-LEVEL EMPLOYMENT VOLATILITY
June 2013
Working Paper Number:
CES-13-31
In this paper, we use detailed trade and transactions data for the U.S. manufacturing sector to empirically analyze the direction and magnitude of the association between firm-level exposure to trade and the volatility of employment growth. We find that, relative to purely domestic firms, firms that only export and firms that both export and import are less volatile, whereas firms that only import are more volatile. The positive relationship between importing and volatility is driven mainly by firms that switch in and out of importing. We also document a significant degree of heterogeneity across trading firms in terms of the duration of time and intensity with which firms trade, the number and type of products they trade and the number and characteristics of their trading partners. We find these factors to play an important role in explaining the differential impact of trading on employment volatility experienced by these firms.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Are Customs Records Consistent Across Countries? Evidence from the U.S. and Colombia
March 2020
Working Paper Number:
CES-20-11
In many countries, official customs records include identifying information on the exporting and importing firms involved in each shipment. This information allows researchers to study international business networks, offshoring patterns, and the micro-foundations of aggregate trade flows. It also provides the government with a basis for tariff assessments at the border. However, there are no mechanisms in place to ensure that the shipment-level information recorded by the exporting country is consistent with the shipment-level information recorded by the importing country. And to the extent that there are discrepancies, it is not clear how prevalent they are or what form they take. In this paper we explore these issues, both to enhance our understanding of the limitations of customs records, and to inform future discussions of possible revisions in the way they are collected.
Specifically, we match U.S.-bound export shipments that appear in Colombian Customs records (DIAN) with their counterparts in the US Customs records (LFTTD): U.S. import shipments from Colombia. Several patterns emerge. First, differences in the coverage of the two countries customs records lead to significant discrepancies in the official bilateral trade flow statistics of these two countries: the DIAN database records 8 percent fewer transactions than the LFTTD database over the sample period, and the average export shipment size in the DIAN is roughly 4 percent smaller than the corresponding import shipment size in the LFTTD. These discrepancies are not due to difference in minimum shipment sizes and they are not particular to a few sectors, though they are more common among small shipments and they evolve over time.
Second, if we rely exclusively on firms' names and addresses, ignoring other shipment characteristics (value, product code, etc.), we are able to match 85 percent of the value of U.S. imports from Colombia in our LFTTD sample with particular Colombian suppliers in the DIAN. Further, fully 97 percent of the value of Colombian exports to the U.S. can be mapped onto particular importers in the U.S. LFTTD.
Third, however, match rates at the shipment level within buyer-seller pairs are low. That is, while buyers and sellers can be paired up fairly accurately, only 25-30 percent of the individual transactions in the customs records of the two countries can be matched using fuzzy algorithms at reasonable tolerance levels.
Fourth, the manufacturer ID (MANUF_ID) that appears in the LFTTD implies there are roughly twice as many Colombian exporters as actually appear in the DIAN. And similar comments apply to an analogous MANUF_ID variable constructed from importer name and address information in the DIAN. Hence studies that treat each MANUF_ID value as a distinct firm are almost surely overstating the number of foreign firms that engage in trade with the U.S. by a substantial amount.
Finally, we conclude that if countries were to require that exporters report standardized shipment identifiers'either invoice numbers or bill of lading/air waybill numbers'it would be far easier to track individual transactions and to identify international discrepancies in reporting.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Identifying U.S. Merchandise Traders: Integrating Customs Transactions with Business Administrative Data
September 2020
Working Paper Number:
CES-20-28
This paper describes the construction of the Longitudinal Firm Trade Transactions Database (LFTTD) enabling the identification of merchandise traders - exporters and importers - in the U.S. Census Bureau's Business Register (BR). The LFTTD links merchandise export and import transactions from customs declaration forms to the BR beginning in 1992 through the present. We employ a combination of deterministic and probabilistic matching algorithms to assign a unique firm identifier in the BR to a merchandise export or import transaction record. On average, we match 89 percent of export and import values to a firm identifier. In 1992, we match 79 (88) percent of export (import) value; in 2017, we match 92 (96) percent of export (import) value. Trade transactions in year t are matched to years between 1976 and t+1 of the BR. On average, 94 percent of the trade value matches to a firm in year t of the BR. The LFTTD provides the most comprehensive identification of and the foundation for the analysis of goods trading firms in the U.S. economy.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
A Long View of Employment Growth and Firm Dynamics in the United States: Importers vs. Exporters vs. Non-Traders
December 2021
Working Paper Number:
CES-21-38
The first experimental product from the U.S. Census Bureau's Business Dynamics Statistics (BDS) program -- BDS-Goods Traders -- provides annual, public-use measures of business dynamics by four mutually exclusive goods-trading classifications: exporter only, importer only, exporter and importer, and non-trader. The BDS-Goods Traders offers a comprehensive view of employment growth at firms associated with goods trading activities in the United States from 1992-2019. We highlight three patterns. First, employment is skewed towards goods traders in several ways. Only 6% of all U.S. firms are goods traders but they account for half of total employment. Moreover, 80% of large firms and 70% of older firms are goods traders. Second, exporter-importer firms represent 70% of manufacturing employment and over half of employment in services-producing industries (management, retail, transportation, utilities, and wholesale). Third, goods-traders exhibit higher net job creation rates than non-traders controlling for firm size, age, and sector. Goods traders contribution to total job creation grows over time, rising to more than half after 2008.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
A Comparison of Job Creation and Job Destruction in Canada and the United States
May 1994
Working Paper Number:
CES-94-02
In recent years a growing number of countries have constructed data series on job creation and job destruction using establishment-level data sets. This paper provides a description and detailed comparison of these new data series for the United States and Canada. First, the Canadian and United States industry-level job creation and destruction data are remarkably similar. Industries with high (low) job creation in the US are evidenced by high (low) job creation in Canada. The same is true for job destruction. In addition, the overall magnitude of gross job flows in the two countries is comparable. Second, the time-series patterns of creation and destruction are qualitatively similar but do differ in a number of important respects. In both countries, job destruction is much more cyclically volatile than job creation. This cyclical asymmetry is, however, more pronounced in the United States. The paper finishes with a characterization of the job flow patterns using a modified Blanchard and Diamond (1992) model.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Exploring the Hiring, Pay, and Trading Patterns of U.S. Firms: The Dominance of Multinationals Engaged in Related-Party Trade
December 2024
Working Paper Number:
CES-24-77
We link U.S. job records with both firm-level business register and customs records to construct a novel set of summary statistics and descriptive regressions that highlight the central role played by the small set of multinational firms (denoted RP XM firms) who engage in both importing and exporting with related parties in translating international trade shocks to shifts in labor demand. We find that RP XM firms 1) dominate trade volumes; 2) account for very disproportionate shares of national employment and payroll; 3) employ greater shares of workers in higher pay deciles; 4) disproportionately poach other firms' high paid workers; 5) offer higher raises to their existing workers. These hiring and pay patterns generally exist even among new RP XM firms, but strengthen with RP XM tenure, and continue to hold, albeit at smaller magnitudes, after conditioning on standard proxies for firm and worker productivity. Taken together, these findings reveal that RP XM status is a reliable proxy for the kind of firm that drives the initial labor market impacts of trade shocks, and that high paid workers are likely to be most directly exposed to such shocks.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Firms in International Trade
April 2007
Working Paper Number:
CES-07-14
Standard models of international trade devote little attention to firms. Yet of the 5.5 million firms operating in the United States in 2000, just 4 percent engaged in exporting, and the top 10 percent of these exporting firms accounted for 96 percent of U.S. exports. Since the mid 1990s, a large number of empirical studies have provided a wealth of information about the important role that firms play in mediating countries' imports and exports. This research, based on micro datasets that track countries' production and trade at the firm level, demonstrates that trading firms differ substantially from firms that solely serve the domestic market. Across a wide range of countries and industries, exporters have been shown to be larger, more productive, more skill- and capital-intensive, and to pay higher wages than non-trading firms.2 Furthermore, these differences exist even before exporting begins. The ex ante 'superiority' of exporters suggests self-selection: exporters are more productive, not as a result of exporting, but because only the most productive firms are able to overcome the costs of entering export markets. It is precisely this sort of microeconomic heterogeneity that grants firms the ability to influence macroeconomic outcomes. When trade policy barriers fall or transportation costs decline, high-productivity exporting firms survive and grow while lower-productivity non-exporting firms are more likely to fail. This reallocation of economic activity across firms raises aggregate productivity and provides a new source of welfare gains from trade. Confronting the challenges posed by the analysis of micro data has shifted the focus of the international trade field from countries and industries towards firms and products. We highlight these challenges with a detailed analysis of how trading firms differ from non-trading firms in the United States. We show how these differences serve as the foundation of a series of recent heterogeneous-firm models that offer new insights into the causes and consequences of international trade. We then introduce a new set of stylized facts that emerge from analysis of recently available U.S. customs data. These transaction-level trade data track all of the products imported and exported by the U.S. firms to all of its trading partners from 1992 to 2000. They show that the extensive margins of trade ' that is, the number of products firms trade as well as the number of countries they trade with ' are central to understanding the well-known role of distance in dampening aggregate trade flows. We conclude with suggestions for further theoretical and empirical research.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
The Great Recession and a Missing Generation of Exporters
August 2018
Working Paper Number:
CES-18-33
The collapse of international trade surrounding the Great Recession has garnered significant attention. This paper studies firm entry and exit in foreign markets and their role in the post-recession recovery of U.S. exports using confidential microdata from the U.S. Census Bureau. We find that incumbent exporters account for the vast majority of the decline in export volumes during the crisis. The recession also induced a missing generation of exporters, with large increases in exits and a substantial decline in entries into foreign markets. New exporters during these years tended to have larger export volumes, however, compensating for the decline in the number of exporting firms. Thus, while entry and exit were important for determining the variety of U.S. goods that were exported, they were less important for the trajectory of aggregate foreign sales.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Exporting and Productivity
May 2000
Working Paper Number:
CES-00-07
Exporting is often touted as a way to increase economic growth. This paper examines whether exporting has played any role in increasing productivity growth in U.S. manufacturing. Contemporaneous levels of exports and productivity are indeed positively correlated across manufacturing industries. However, tests on industry data show causality from productivity to exporting but not the reverse. While exporting plants have substantially higher productivity levels, we find no evidence that exporting increases plant productivity growth rates. However, within the same industry, exporters do grow faster than non-exporters in terms of both shipments and employment. We show that exporting is associated with the reallocation of resources from less efficient to more efficient plants. In the aggregate, these reallocation effects are quite large, making up over 40 percent of total factor productivity growth in the manufacturing sector. Half of this reallocation to more productive plants occurs within industries and the direction of the reallocation is towards exporting plants. The positive contribution of exporters even shows up in import-competing industries and non-tradable sectors. The overall contribution of exporters to manufacturing productivity growth far exceeds their shares of employment and output.
View Full
Paper PDF