RDP 9310: Explaining the Recent Performance of Australia's Manufactured Exports Appendix B: Sample Survey Results
August 1993
- Download the Paper 109KB
| Q1: Approximately what percentage of your produce do you export? | mean = 30.9 s= 31.6 | |
| Q2 : Name the first year in which you exported more than 10% of your produce
(those who answered 1986 meant volumes: see text) I am now going to read out some costs relating to exports. When I say ‘cost’ it can mean money, time, or inconvenience. For each type of cost I'm going to ask: |
||
| (a) Is it a significant cost? | ||
| (b) Does your spending on it fall after you have established your presence in an overseas market. | % answering ‘ Yes’ | |
| (a)% | (b) % | |
| Q3 : Overseas trips (a) & (b) |
53 | 17 |
| Q4 : Maintaining overseas reps. (a) & (b) |
43 | 13 |
| Q5 : market research (a) & (b) |
20 | 10 |
| Q6 : Long-distance communication (a) & (b) |
60 | 13 |
| Q7 : Trade Fairs and establishing brand awareness (a) & (b) |
30 | 17 |
| Q8 : Red tape (a) & (b) |
57 | 27 |
| Q9 : Offshore production to get a foot in the door. (a) & (b) |
13 | 13 |
| Q10 : Protecting patents and copyrights (a) & (b) |
37 | 13 |
| Q11 : Running a distribution network (a) & (b) |
23 | 10 |
| Q12 : Purchases of plant or machinery specifically related to exports (a) & (b) |
47 | 47 |
| Q13 : Why did you commence exporting? | ||
| Q14 : Has the recent recession (since 1990) caused your firm to significantly increase its exports? | 40 | |
| Q15 : Has any other recession in the past caused your firm to significantly increase its exports? | 14 | |
| Q16 : Do you think that when Australian import tariffs are cut further your business will export more produce? Why? | 9 | |
| Q17 : Has the reduction in tariffs on imported inputs significantly reduced your firm's costs? | 20 | |
| Q18 : Was the exchange rate an important factor when you first decided to export? | 60 | |
| Q19 : What region do you export the most produce to? Has this region become easier to sell to since 1985? | 48 | |
| Q20 : Have other Australian firms paved the way for your exports? If so, how? | 2 yes, 2 firms helped others | |
Questions 3 to 12 aim to establish whether a group of fixed costs are sunk and significant. If respondents questioned what a ‘significant’ cost was, they were asked if they considered it when evaluating an export project. Out of a total of 59 appropriate firms contacted[52], there were 30 useable responses.[53] This was sufficient to invoke the Central Limit Theorem. A 95 per cent confidence interval for the proportion of firms with a certain characteristic can be no wider than:[54]
For a sample size of 30 the confidence interval for the proportion of firms with at least one significant sunk cost is [0.9122 0.5544]. Therefore, more than half of manufacturing exporters have at least one significant sunk cost. The confidence interval for the proportion of firms with significant sunk costs in the area of export-related plant and equipment is [0.6456 0.2878].
These results are in no way overturned by the small sample size. Examining equation (5), there is no need to make any allowances for the small sample size beyond those already made. The calculation of the standard error factors in the small sample size and widens the interval.
The really crucial issue for the robustness of the results is the random sampling assumption.[55] In this regard, the survey uncovered a similar pattern of initial exporting as did the McKinsey and Co. report. The latter used more than ten times as many respondents (310) and had an Australia-wide focus. Yet both samples indicate that a large number of firms commenced exporting for the first time in 1986.
Footnotes
Of the 100 names provided, 3 were excluded because their line of business determined their order on the alphabetical listing, and a further 5 were excluded because they appeared on the database more than once. Firms were then contacted in alphabetical order from the remaining list of 92. When the goal of 30 successful interviews had been reached 12 firms had not been contacted at all. Of the 80 firms contacted, 21 indicated that they were not exporters of manufactured output. [52]
30 executives agreed to the telephone interviews, 2 declined and 27 could not be contacted. [53]
The width is conservatively large because it uses the maximum possible value of the
variance of
, rather than the estimated variance
((1−)/n).
[54]
Selecting 30 respondents by a process that has been randomised is arguably better than, say, citing the views of 30 conference participants (a non-random sample) as ‘anecdotal evidence’. [55]