Recent Trends In Export Promotions In The United States - Uncg
Williamson, Nicholas C., Nir Kshetri, and Timothy J. Wilkinson (2011) “Recent Trends in Export Promotions in the United States,” Marketing ManagementJournal 21(2) pp. 153-166. agementjournal.html Made available courtesy of the Marketing ManagementAssociation. No further reproduction is authorized without written permission from the Marketing Management Association.Recent Trends in Export Promotions.Williamson, Kshetri and WilkinsonRECENT TRENDS IN EXPORT PROMOTIONSIN THE UNITED STATESNICHOLAS C. WILLIAMSON, University of North Carolina at GreensboroNIR B. KSHETRI, University of North Carolina at GreensboroTIMOTHY J. WILKINSON, Montana State University BillingsThere is significant variation in opinion regarding benefits stemming from the use of exportpromotion. While promotional strategies are frequently condemned in the press as violations ofglobal trade rules and are sharply criticized by some anti-poverty campaigners, governments acrossthe world have utilized and benefitted from numerous and varied approaches to export promotion.This paper provides an overview of" export promotion efforts, with particular emphasis on acomparison of the United States to the European Union. Issues explored include the gap betweenexport promotion efforts and desired outcomes, WTO promotional efforts, and several recent trendsin export promotion.THE NATIONAL EXPORT INITIATIVEThe National Export Initiative (NEI), signedinto existence by President Obama on March11, 2010, by way of Executive Order 12870,can be viewed as the largest and most complexexport promotion endeavor that has beenpursued by the government of any country inhistory.The NEI established the ExportPromotion Cabinet to enhance the assistancegiven to U.S. companies, particularly smalland medixun-sized enterprises (SMEs) and hasas its main objective Ihe doubling of U. S.exports over the time period designated by thesigning of the Initiative. The NEI providestangible proof of the emerging importance ofexporting to the health of the U. S. economy.This Initiative represents the very first time thata sitting President of the United States hasmobilized the resources of the United StatesGovernment at the level of the NEI in supportof a single business activity: exporting.However, experience has shown that goodintentions and the dedication of significantresources by the Federal Government to exportpromotional activities have not always broughtabout desired results.For example, theThe Maiketmg Management JovanalVolume 21, Issue 2, Pages 153-166Copyright O 2011, The Maiketmg Management AssociationAllrightsof reproduction in any fonn reserved153Government Accountability Office (GAO)identified several chronic problem areasregarding export promotion efforts of the 20agencies that are part of the Cabinet-level TradePromotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC) ofthe Federal Government (Intemational Trade2009). Lack of coordination among agenciesand inadequate performance monitoringregarding the outcomes of export promotionalactivitiesare among the more notableidentified areas of deficiency. The GAO reportmade repeated and in-depth references to theexport promotion practices of foreign countrygovernments as being implicitly worthy ofconsideration for adoption by the U. S.Government.Hirsch (2011) provides a supportingperspective in the following:So the president may have to go beyondconventional thinking, beginning with themyth of a 'fiat world' of equalizedcompetition—and devise new ways to tumthe globalized markets to U. S. advantage.As the Chinese, the Germans, and theJapanese, among others, have shownthrough largely successfiil programs ofexport promotion and subsidies, the world oftmly fi-ee trade doesn't exist. Washingtonneeds to do far more than file complaints tothe World Trade Organization, (p. 1)Marketing Management Journal, Fall 2011
Recent Trends in Export PromotionsWe now provide a brief introduction intoperspectives concerning the nature and efficacyof export promotional activities in differentparts of the world.EXPORT PROMOTIONIN THE WORLD ECONOMYThere is significant variation in opinionregarding benefits stemming from the use ofexport promotion. While promotional strategiesare frequently condemned in the press asviolations of global trade mies and are sharplycriticized by some anti-poverty campaigners(Cronin 2007; Scott 2001), governments haveutilized and benefitted from numerous andvaried approaches to export promotion. Thebasic idea is simple: Outside support, especiallyfrom the government of a country, can helpdomestic companies tap their export marketpotential (Dichtl, Koeghnayr and Mueller 1990)and thereby enhance economic growth. The"Asian Tigers" - Hong Kong, South Korea,Singapore, and Taiwan - are remarkableexamples of economies that have achieved ahigh level of economic growth primarilythrough export promotion (Rondinelli 1987;Rondinelli and Burpitt 2000).Exportpromotion strategies have been employed byalmost all governments in industrializedeconomies (Washington Advocacy 1995; deKoning and Snijders 1992; Dichtl Koeghnayrand Mueller 1990) as well as developingeconomies in Asia and Latin America(Rondinelli 1987; Rondinelli and Burpitt 2000).Government export promotion strategies comein "all shapes and sizes". First, nations differwidely in terms of the resources devoted toexport promotion initiatives. Compared topoorer economies, more prosperous coimtriestend to have more export promotion programsin place (de Koning and Snijders 1992). Someof the most popular tools include lobbying andvisits to targeted coimtries by high levelgovernment officials, the financing of tradeshows and the provision of other types ofgovernment-supplied financing packages(Washington Advocacy 1995). Exportpromotion tools also entail supplying actual andMarketing Management Journal, Fall 2011Williamson, Kshetri and Wilkinsonpotential exporters with specific information(Dichtl, Koeghnayr and Mueller 1990). Somecountries (e.g., Italy, Japan and Spain) have tiedtheir economic aid to developing countries withexport promotion programs (Frères 2000;Garten 1997). Likewise, Korea's exportpromotion measures have included theestablishment of specialized banks for thedevelopment of "strategically important"sectors (Mah, 2006; Soh 1997). Some Asianeconomies have developed free trade zones andprovided incentives to attract export producingmanufacturers (Rondinelli 1987; Rondinelli andBurpitt 2000).GLOBAL OVERVIEWWhile it is clear that there is great variety in theforms and objectives of trade promotionalactivities, there is also empirical evidence thatthere are systematic operating principles atwork regarding govemmentally sponsoredactivities used by export promotional agencies(EPAs) that are found around the world(Lederman, Olarreaga and Payton 2006).Working with the siqjport of the Office of theRegional Chief Economist, Latin America andthe Caribbean Region, the World Bank,Lederman, et al. (2006) evaluated data gatheredfrom EPAs of 104 countries and found thatexport promotion had a clear and significantimpact on exports. These authors note that onthe average, 1 spent on export promotionincreases export revenues by approximately 300. Additionally, their empirical analysesindicated that (1) for the greatest impact largefirms should be targeted with export promotion;(2) firm status with respect to prior exportactivities is important (promotional moniesspent on non-exporters had a greater impact);(3) the principal objective followed by EPAsconcemed increasing a country's overall levelof exports (60 percent of EPAs followed theobjective of "increase aggregate exports" (p.12), and (4) optimal level of expenditures toachieve maximum impact on a country'sexports fell in a certain range ( 0.60 to 2.70per capita).154
Recent Trends in Export Promotions.It is important to note, however, that the resultsof Lederman, et al. (2006) did not hold for theoperations of each and every individualcountry's EPA. As they acknowledge, there isgreat heterogeneity in responses acrosscountries in the sample. A review of therelevant literature would suggest that suchheterogeneity in the responses of countries'EPA activities refiects different mixes ofexport promotion activities used by countries indifferent geographic sectors. We now reviewworks that shed light on this heterogeneity inselected geographic regions.Southeast AsiaWilliamson, Kshetri and Wilkinsoncoordinating the nationalexportdevelopment effort.The councu waschaired by the Secretary of the Departmentof Trade and Industry and cabinet-levelmembers from the eight ministriesconcerned with economic development,(p. 6)Malaysia is another country whose activities arepotentially worthy of consideration, particularlyin the domain of enhancement of SMEs'exporting activities. "Malaysia's Small andMedium Industries Development Corporation,for instance, linked SMEs into the supply chainof larger multinational corporations tiiat havethe systems and knowledge needed for SMEs tobecome globally competitive." (p. 8). Anelaboration on these and other Southeast Asiancountries' efforts in the domain of exportpromotion can be found in a studycommissioned under the auspices of the AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)organization (Alliance in Practice.(2007).The character of govemmentally-sponsoredexport promotion offered by covintries inSoutheast Asia refiects their shift fromdevelopment using an import substitution traderegime to one of industrialization based onexport promotions (Naijoko and Amri 2007).In focusing on ASEAN-6 countries (Brunei,Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore andthe Philippines), Narjoko and Amri identify keytrade promotional strategies employed by eachcountry. For instance, Malaysia ". .approachedindustrialization by developing exportprocessing zones (EPZ)" (p. 48). In contrast,Thailand chose to focus on specific industriesfor development.Singapore "directed itsexport promotion industrialization by shiftingmanufacturing activities towards skill- andtechnology-intensive industries" (p. 48). Theauthors emphasize that the effectiveness of eachapproach is validated by the speed with whichthese countries recovered from the Asianfinancial crisis of 1997. In contrast, Indonesiahas been slower in recovering, due to itsemphasis on export promotion centered onlabor and resource-intensive industries.Similar to the efforts of the identified ASEAN6 countries, a variety of South Americannations attempted to shift from an importsubstitution trade regime to a policy ofeconomic growth through export promotion(Jonakin 2007). In the main, these effortsinvolved the engineering of "a large shifttoward manufactured and processed exportsthat substituted for traditional, primarycommodity exports" (p. 30). While the shifttoward manufactured exports has beensuccessful (manufactured exports accounted for60 percent of total exports by 2001), deficits inthe current account balances of many countriesin South America persist (Jonakin 2007).A recent GAO report provides specifics interms of what activities Asian nations employedduring the financial crisis (International Trade2009). For example, regarding the Philippinesthe report stated:The Philippine Export Act. gave an apexbody, the Export Development Council,overall responsibility for formulating andIn evaluating export promotion policies inBrazil, Chile, Colombia and Mexico, Macario(2000) conducted interviews with successfulexporters. Based on this she concluded thatpromotional activities should be directedtoward firms offering new products and/ortargeting new export markets. Second, the useof cost-sharing programs tends to ensure that155South AmericaMarketing Management Journal, Fall 2011
Recent Trends in Export Promotions.the programs will be iised by firms that arededicated to exporting. Third, adoption of atime limit of no more than a couple of yearsguarantees that programs will not become openended subsidies. Finally, the management ofEPAs should draw upon both public and privateresources.Empirical research by Alvarez (2004) used asample of 295 small and medium sized Chileanenterprises (SMEs) that consisted of both"permanent" and "sporadic" exporters. A keyassumption was that the transformation ofsporadic exporters into permanent exporterswas a desired outcome of promotionalactivities. Results showed that the use of tradeshows and trade missions by sporadic exportersdid not tend to cause them to becomepermanent exporters. Furthermore, the resultsdemonstrated that permanent exporters madegreater use of all trade promotional facilitiesmade available by the Chüean National ExportPromotion Agency than did sporadic exporters.In summarizing export promotion activities inSoutheast Asia and South America, we wouldlike to point to the transition from importsubstitution activities in each of the two majorgeographic sectors toward an emphasis onexport promotion.Additionally, exportpromotion has moved away from traditionalcommodity exports toward non-traditionalmanufactured goods. We now present anoverview of export promotion programs in theEuropean Union.European UnionLederman, Olarreaga and Payton (2006)examine aggregate levels of E. U. countryexports. Noteworthy in the results is evidencethat for E.U. countries such as Germany,Ireland, Norway, Sweden, the Czech Republicand the Netherlands, exports of goods andservices per capita generated for each countrywere well above the world average whenviewed in light of the identified country'sexport promotion agency budget per capita. Itis therefore useful to look at export promotionactivities of different countries in the E.U.Marketing Management Journal, Fall 2011Williamson, Kshetri and WilkinsonThe U.K. offers excellent examples of an E.U.government's well-coordinated and weUfunded campaigns in promoting exports.Observers have noted that the current U.K.government has put export promotion "at theheart of its foreign policy" ("A Better."2010). The country's Prime Minister, Cabinetofficials and the royal family advocate inforeign countries for British firms' products(Washington Advocacy. 1995; SmallManufacturer. 2008). In the mid-1990s, onefifth of British diplomats in foreign countriesworked ñül-time in export promotions activities(Washington Advocacy. 1995). Of particularinterest is the idea of involving the country'sroyal family in export promotions activities. In1997, the British government promised tospend US 97 million to buy a new yacht for theroyal family. The argument was that thequeen's visit to foreign countries on the "BuyBritish" yacht would help attract foreignbusinesses to British companies (ThoroughlyModem. 1997). Finally, the U.K.'s ExportExplorer and Passport to Export Successinitiatives are targeted at new exporters(hitemational Trade. .2009).Among E. U. economies, German exportpromotion efforts appear to be similar in someways to those of the U. S. For instance, in 1995,Ronald H. Brown, then U.S. Secretary ofCommerce, wrote to the President and Speakerof the House: "The Germans are emulating theU.S. approach to export promotion" (Brown,1995). Among other things, German exportpromotion strategies entail supplying actual andpotential exporters with specific information(Dichtl, Koeghnayrand Mueller 1990).Central to Germany's export promotionactivities is The Federal Office of ForeignTrade hiformation (BfAI) (Kopka 1995). BfAIhas a touted network of correspondents abroad,and works with private sector Germanchambers of industry and commerce located ina variety of countries. Furthermore, Germany,along with Poland, has linked Foreign DirectInvestment with export promotion in a novelfashion. A passage from Small and MediumSized. U. S. and EU.(2010) illustrates theirapproach:156
Recent Trends in Export PromotionsThe EU uses investment promotion tosupport SME exporting activities. SomeEU countries actively seek and promoteopportunities for inbound FDI as a part oftheir efforts to promote exports.Forexample, Germany and Poland seek foreigninvestors to constmct export-orientedmanufacturing facilities; once operational,these facilities develop supply chainlinkages with domestic SMEs, therebycontributing to SME indirect exports,(p. 2-31)France, on the other hand, extensively utilizesdifferent lobbying strategies such as phonecalls, letters and high-level visits. In addition,the French government finances trade showsand provides other types of financing packagesto companies involved in exporting(Washington Advocacy. 1995). Italy andSpain also use high-level visits and trademissions as export promotions tools(Washington Advocacy. 1995). Moreover,economic aid to developing countries isfrequently tied with export promotion programs(Frères 2000).Another issue that deserves mention relates to akey rationale behind E.U. governments'spending on export promotion activities. E.U.countries have argued that the U.S.government's increased export promotionactivities have forced them to promote domesticfirms through government intervention. TheFrench, for instance, think that U.S. successabroad threatens their country's exports andforces them to engage in more promotionalefforts (Washington Advocacy. 1995). InMay 2004, the E.U.'s trade commissioner notedthat E.U. countries would eliminate agriculturalexport subsidies if the U.S. and other countriesalso were to take similar measures (FromCancun. 2004). Given the visibility in thepress of comparisons between E.U. and U.S.export promotions, we now provide a moredirect comparison and contrast of E.U. and U.S.export promotions in key topic areas.757Williamson, Kshetri and WilkinsonCOMPARISON AND CONTRAST OFU.S. AND E.U. EXPORT PROMOTIONIn absolute terms, the U.S. spends less than theE.U. on export promotion (Shelbume 1997).For instance, in fiscal year 1995, the U.S. spent 3.1 billion on the entire export promotionbudget. This contrasts with E.U. expendituresof 12 billion on agricultural export promotionalone. Additionally, the U.S. spends less onexport promotion as a percentage of GrossDomestic Product (GDP) than does the E.U.(Shelbume). To put it into perspective, the U.S. spends three cents per thousand dollars ofGDP on export promotions, France spends 18cents and the U.K. spends 25 cents perthousand dollars of GDP (Donovan 1996).Garten (1997) states that France spends 10times as much as a percentage of GDP onexport promotion as does the U.S.The distinction between the public and privatedomains is also more ambiguous in the E.U.than in the U.S. (Shelbume 1997) Support forthis contention is found in Brown (1995) andWashington Advocacy.(1995), articles thatdescribe geographic sectoral trade initiatives ofGermany and France.In the mid-1990s,Germany launched the "East Asia Initiative" toincrease German exports to the region(Washington Advocacy.1995). This initiativeinvolved both German diplomats and theGerman Economic Minister.Germandiplomats with industrial policy expertise wereassigned to spearhead efforts to expand Germanbusiness in China (Brown, 1995).There is also the issue of the locus of supportfor exports of small- and medium-sizedenterprises (SMEs). In larger countries in theE.U. (e.g., Germany, France, Italy and theU.K.), support for SME exports tends to comefrom regional, rather than national, authorities(de Koning and Snijders, 1992). This contrastswith the U.S., where major federal entities offersignificant support to SMEs in this domain.For instance, the SmallBusinessAdministration offers both a working capitalprogram and an intemational trade loanprogram to assist small firms that areMarketing Management Journal, Fall 2011
Recent Trends in Export Promotions.commencing export operations (Kurlantzick,2004).In the USITC-commissioned Small andMedium-Sized.(2010), there is a usefulsummary comparison of U.S. and E.U. supportfor SME exporting activities. First, "the EUprovides greater support for trade fairparticipation." (p. 2-30) for its SMEs.Second, there are networks of assistanceavailable in foreign markets:The EU offers extensive networks ofassistance in foreign markets. SMEs inboth the United States and the EU haveaccess to a broad network of officialgovernment assistance in foreign markets.However, through multiple worldwidenetworks established at the EC [sic],national, and regional levels and the EEN,SMEs from EU countries appear to haveaccess to more extensive networks ofassistance in foreign markets than do U. S.SMEs. (p. 2-31)IMPACT OF EXPORT PROMOTIONIN THE UNITED STATES:The literature suggests that govemmentallysponsored export promotion activities in the USprovide significant benefits for exporting firms.The enhancement of exports through exportpromotion is associated with the creation ofhigh paying jobs (Conlan and Sager 2001;Czinkota, 2002).hi the U.S., publishedestimates of the number of jobs created perbillion dollars in export revenues range from11,500 jobs (Czinkota and Ronkainen 2003) to22,800 jobs (Davis 1989).Fuñhermore,according to Secretary of Commerce Locke(Report to the President.(2010)),".Americans working for firms that export eammore than 15 percent more than similar workersat firms that do not export" (p. 2).Exporting activity also generates tax revenue atboth the federal and state levels. For example,Coughlin and Cartwright (1987) provide theresults of empirical research that indicates thateach dollar of trade promotional monies spentat the state level is associated with the creationMarketing Management Journal, Fall 2011Williamson, Kshetri and Wilkinsonof 432 in export revenues. A study byWilkinson (1999) found that expenditures onstate export promotion were associated withincreased employment in firms engaged indirect overseas exports. While estimates of thenet impact of such activity on state tax revenuesmay vary from one state to the next, theinfluence of export promotions on state coffersis, indeed, significant. Czinkota (2002) mayhave had such financial benefits in mind whenhe characterized export promotional funds asthe "venture capital" of intemational economicactivity.In addition, there are operating benefits thatfiow to exporting firms that stem from firms'taking advantage of govemmentally sponsoredexport promotion (Czinkota 1994; Kotabe andCzinkota 1992; Genturck and Kotabe 2001; andSinger and Czinkota 1994). These benefitsinclude immediate sales in overseas markets,developing long-term relationships withdistributors, the ability to access trade leads,and the availability of useñil market researchinformation (Wilkinson 2006).The "Gap" in the Perceived Operating Risk/Profit Return SchedulesWhile the benefits that result fromgovemmentally-sponsored export promotionsare, indeed, significant, the environment fortrade promotion activities in the U.S. hasbecome more complex and demanding since theearly part of the 1990s. Perhaps the most basicissue concerns the notion that the managers ofmany non-exporting U.S. manufactiiringcompanies are increasingly viewed asunresponsive to govemmentally-sponsoredexport promotion of any sort.Suchunresponsiveness is the result of the widespreadperception that exporting is not an attractive useof company resources when compared toopportunities in domestic markets (Kotabe andCzinkota 1992). Support for this contention isfound in the empirical results of Kotabe andCzinkota.Their work links the lack ofattractiveness of exporting to the managementof many U.S. manufacturing concems with a"gap" in the perceived operating risk and profit158
Recent Trends in Export Promotionsretum schedules of domestic and exportmarkets.Gencturk and Kotabe (2001) indicate thatexport assistance programs such as counseling,trade shows and trade leads directly andpositively influence theefficiency,effectiveness and competitive positioning offirms that use these programs. However, otherresearch (Kotabe and Czinkota 1992) suggeststhat the level of perceived benefits is notuniform across firms. The relative dearth ofperceived benefits for some firms appears to betied to their managements' perceptions of risks:Many firms, particularly small- to mediumsized ones, appear to have developed a fearof intemational market activities. Theirmanagement tends to see only the risks—informational gaps, unfamiliar conditions inmarkets, complicated domestic and foreigntrade regulations, the absence of trainedmiddle managers for exporting, and a lackof financial resources.rather than theopportunities that the intemational marketcan present. (Kotabe and Czinkota, p. 640)These authors link perceived operating riskswith profitability when they present results ofempirical research indicating that, in the U. S.,firms' profits from exports are lower than thoseof domestic operations for firms that exhibit allbut the highest levels of involvement inexporting. In the foUovwng passage, Kotabeand Czinkota (1992) appear to conclude thatsuch negative perceptions of profit prospectsfrom exporting may provide a very fundamentalrationale for the existence of govemmentallysponsored export promotion in the U.S.Exporting would not appear to be anattractive altemative for firms, save thosewith unrealistic expectations. The publicsector, however, is much more interested incompetitiveness issues, since those willdetermine the future levels of job creationand tax revenue. There appears to be alegitimate gap in the market mechanismaddressed by the government through itsexport promotion efforts, which.lower therisk of intemational activities and/orincrease their level of profitability. The159Williamson, Kshetri and Wilkinsonexistence of this gap may then well justifythe expenditure of public funds on exportpromotion. (Kotabe and Czinkota, p. 655).In response to President Obama's NationalExport Initiative, the House Committee onSmall Business conducted a hearing on April28, 2010.Michael Czinkota's testimonyincluded this statement:Export assistance should be concentratedprimarily in those areas where profit andrisk inconsistencies produce market gaps,and be linked directly to identifiableorganizational or managerial characteristicsthat need improvement. Otherwise,assistance supports only exports that wouldhave taken place anyway. There should be aclear demonstration of export [increases]which occur. due to government support.In order to assess such effects, it isimportant to encourage and devise exportperformance measurements which don'tjust evaluate issues such as governmentalbudget compliance, but assess bottom lineperformance shifts, not just in terms ofprofitability, but also in terms of majorcompetitive achievements(Czinkota2010).THE WTO AND EXPORT PROMOTIONThe principle of comparative advantage hasbeen the fundamental principle behind the tradeorthodoxy of the World Trade Organizationsince its founding in 1994. The originalRicardian theory of comparative advantageaddressed relative productivities and is notconcemed with issues such as differing levelsof factor endowments across countries. TheHeckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson (HOS) theoryintegrates the works of Heckscher (1919),Ohlin (1924) and Samuelson (1948) to examinesome of the limitations of Ricardian theory.HOS theory argues that coimtries' comparativeadvantages are functions of their relative factorendowments.The HOS extension of Ricardian comparativeadvantage indicates that a country'sgovernmental policy makers should foster thedevelopment of product-based industries thatMarketing Management Journal, Fall 2011
Recent Trends in Export Promotionsutilize factors of production that are in relativeabundance in the country. When engaging inindustrial specialization in this fashion, acountry presumably can and should secure itsother product needs through intemational tradeinvolving exports in which it has a comparativeadvantage in production and exporting.Czinkota (1994) appears to draw upon thetheory of HOS-extended comparativeadvantage when he suggests that the focus ofpublic policy should be on assisting ah-eadyexporting firms to do better: ".Attentionshould.concentrate on.helping successfulfirms do better" (p. 99). When applied in thecontext of product-based export promotion, thissuggests that a country's funds should bepermitted to fiow to any given product-basedindustry in which the country has an HOSextended comparative advantage. Gomory andBaumöl (2000) provide economic support forthe long-term benefits of such a policy whenthey demonstrate that a country's (HOSextended) comparative advantage in specificindustries can be developed and maintainedover time.The HOS-extended theory of comparativeadvantage has already been recommended as adevice that governmental entities at either thestate (Breuer 1996) or country (Cuyvers 2004)levels can use to identify product-basedindustries for further enhancement in exporting,presumably through the employment of exportpromotion. In Cuyvers (p. 270), the benefit ismade clear: the use of the HOS-extendedtheory of comparative advantage will enablepolicy makers to identify product-basedindustries in which a given country iscompetitive in the relevant global exportproduct market, and, thereby ".allow fiirtherfuture expansion of .the country's . marketshare . .in those product-based industries."Williamson, Cramer and Myrden (2009)provide a methodology that employs theconcept of HOS-extended comparativeadvantage and is useful in identifying productbased industries in any given state in the UnitedStates for the purpose of targeting thoseMarketing Management Journal, Fall 2011Williamson, Kshetri and Wilkinsonindustries with export promotion while notdistorting trade. In their methodology, theindustries that are chosen are shown assatisfying specific needs of three key"stakeholder" groups: (1) the WTO, (2) themanagement of non-exportingSMEmanufacturing concems in a given state and (3)the entity that ftmds export promotion. Thisapproach is similar to that of Czinkota andWongtada (1997) because export competitiveproduct-based industr
Recent Trends in Export Promotions Williamson, Kshetri and Wilkinson We now provide a brief introduction into perspectives concerning the nature and efficacy of export promotional activities in different parts of the world. EXPORT PROMOTION IN THE WORLD ECONOMY. There is significant variation in opinion regarding benefits stemming from the use of
resulting in the uptake of promotions on unhealthy food and drink being much higher.3 Temporary price reductions are the most prevalent form of promotion in Scotland.3 Multi-buy type price promotions tend to be more common for less healthy food and drinks compared to healthier food and drink.3. Impact on sales of price promotions
Software, Cisco Capital or the Migration Incentive from this page. Click on the hyperlinks in each blue box to get there. 2. To access more promotions click Additional Promotions tab. For more information, go to the Cisco Promotions site. US VERSION Questions MIGRATION INCENTIVE PROGRAM Cisco MIP Reward Competitive MIP Reward RS
Efficacité des promotions suivant les marques et les catégories de produits 1. L'impact des promotions sur la part de marché est plus important pour les petites marques 2. Les effets croisés des promotions sont asymétriques : les promotions sur les grandes marques nuisent davantage aux petites marques que l'inverse 3.
Siebel Loyalty Administration Guide Version 8.1/8.2 7 Creating Goals and Assumptions for Loyalty Promotions 336 Adding Expenses and Line Items to Loyalty Promotions 337 Adding Purchase Requests to Loyalty Promotions 338 Adding Market Development Fund Requests to Loyalty Promotions 339 Associating Loyalty Members with Marketing Campaigns 339
Use the Import/Export Wizard for address book, commodity and other simple export types. For more complex export types, see Export Shipment Data using the Connection Assistant. To export shipment data using the Import/Export Wizard: Step Window (if available) 1. On the Import-E
Estimated Promotion Lift1 for US Agricultural Export Volume, Price, and Revenue, 1977 - 2019 . 35 Exhibit 12. Export Revenue and Economic Surplus Effect of Export Promotion. 38 Exhibit 13. Estimated Export Revenue and Surplus Benefit-Cost Ratios for the USDA Export Market Development
Quick Start: Downloads and keys Microsoft Volume Licensing 5 Export all keys To export all the keys for an account, do the following: 1. Select EXPORT ALL KEYS. You can print a list of all keys or export the file in CSV format. 2. To print a list of all keys, select PRINT KEYS. 3. To export the file for later use, select EXPORT AS A CSV.
An API (US) nationally adopted standard, either modified from or identical to the ISO standard, may include the API Monogram Program requirements. This shall be noted on the front cover as to be evident to the reader. Both modified and identical adoptions which include the API Monogram should be designated as follows: API Title . ANSI/API XX . Edition, Month/Year . Effective Date: (minimum of .
