B1 International traders in goods and services – differences and similarities
1.2 Methodology and datasets
1.2.1 International trade in goods statistics (2002–2008)
New developments in the general business register in 2008 made it possible to match a substantial portion of the population of international traders in goods to enterprise (groups) in the general business register. The results of this matching exercise were satisfying: approximately 80 percent of the total export value of goods in 2008 could be attributed to enterprises in the business register, as could 84 percent of imports. Using the same linked dataset for the 2007 trade figures resulted in a match of 76 and 81 percent of the total export and import values respectively 1). However, these matching algorithms were not applicable to earlier years. Therefore, determining which enterprises were involved in international goods trade in 2002–2006 was done based on CBS-source information and (old) VAT information. As such, two separate methods of matching trade flows to enterprises were implemented, where the first-mentioned method was superior to the method implemented for 2002–2006. Combined, these efforts resulted in an enterprise dataset for 2002–2008, in which all enterprises were characterised as to whether or not they were an importer, exporter or two-way trader i.e. involved in both imports and exports. The information on traders in goods for 2002–2006 was used in chapters B3, B4 and C1.
The decision of an entrepreneur to start trading internationally is not taken lightly. Strategic decisions involve a certain degree of risk and will most likely be made at the top of an organisation. In order to avoid focusing on just a segment of an entire organisation, and to avoid mismatches due to the peculiarities in the different surveys of Statistics Netherlands (SN), the focus was not on whether a single enterprise is a trader or not but on the enterprise group in the Netherlands. Therefore, the classification of exporters and non-exporters was made at enterprise group level. For instance, Figure B1.1 shows that enterprise ‘X’ is part of enterprise group
’1’ and reports exports of goods to SN. Logically, since enterprise ‘X’ belongs to enterprise group ’1’, the group as a whole is active in exporting, even though the actual goods might be produced or delivered by ‘X’. Since enterprise group ’1’ as a whole engages in the export of goods, both enterprise ‘X’ and enterprise ‘Y’ are
part of an exporter of goods, and will be treated as such in the analysis. The same rationale is applied to importers of goods. When an enterprise group was involved in importing and exporting, all enterprises belonging to this group were characterised as part of a two-way trade in goods. In most instances however, the enterprise group is the equivalent of the enterprise, implying that there is only one unit of activity. Enterprise group 1 Exporter Enterprise Y Part of exporter Enterprise X Part of exporter Enterprise group 1 Enterprise Y Enterprise X Exporter
Figure B1.1: Identifying exporters
1.2.2 Services traders (2006–2008)
International trade in services covers all services transactions between a country (i.e. its residents) and foreign countries or international organisations (i.e. the non- residents of that country). For a large part of the international trade in services, SN uses the business survey to collect the international services data. Data, for instance, on government services and travel are obtained by different data collection methods. Data on enterprises acquired with these other methods are not available for the analyses presented in this chapter.
The business survey is according to the size value of the international trade in services, based on two groups:
1. Group A, containing enterprises with a significant share in the total size value of the international trade in services. These enterprises (n = 350) are integrally observed on enterprise group level.
2. Group B, containing enterprises with a less significant share in the total size value of the international trade in services. These enterprises are questioned
based on a sample survey of approximately 5 000 companies at enterprise level. The enterprises in the survey originated from a larger gross sample frame containing approximately 90 000 enterprises of the general business register. This gross sample frame is reduced by removing enterprises whose size value of the international trade in services is expected to be limited. This leaves a net sample frame of nearly 45 000 enterprises of which the 5 000 enterprises were sampled.
To identify the exporting services traders, the same system was used as for the traders in goods:
1. If an enterprise group in group A responded to the business survey with an export value ≠ 0, all enterprises belonging to this enterprise group received the code ‘part of exporter of services ‘ (see also Figure B1.1).
2. The enterprises belonging to the remaining enterprise groups in group A were defined as ‘part of exporter of services unknown’.
3. If an enterprise in group B responded to the business survey with an export value ≠ 0, the enterprise and all other enterprises belonging to the same enterprise group were defined as ‘part of exporter of services’.
4. All other enterprises in group B that were not defined earlier, including all other enterprises belonging to the same enterprise group, were defined as ‘part of exporter of services unknown’.
5. Enterprises in the gross sample frame that were not sampled and not defined earlier, including all other enterprises belonging to the same enterprise group, were also defined as ‘part of exporter unknown’.
6. All remaining enterprises in the general business register, which were not defined elsewhere, were given the code ‘no part of exporter of services’. The same procedure was applied for the importers of services. When an enterprise group was involved in importing and exporting, all enterprises belonging to this group were characterised as part of a two-way trade in services.
1.2.3 Combining the datasets (2006–2008)
Combining the datasets of traders in goods and services for 2006 through 2008 made it possible to classify Dutch enterprises as an exporter (of goods, services or both) and/or an importer (of goods, services or both). It was impossible to depict enterprises in the gross sample frame of the services dataset as an exporter or importer. These enterprises were therefore excluded from the subsequent analyses. Furthermore, enterprises with no employees were also left out of the analyses. In the final combined dataset, the nationality of the ultimate controlling institutional unit (UCI) for each enterprise was determined. The UCI is defined as the institutional unit, proceeding up an enterprise’s chain of control, which is not controlled by another institutional unit. ‘Foreign controlled’ means that the resident
country of the UCI is a country other than the Netherlands. Enterprises were marked as Dutch controlled if it was not known whether they were foreign controlled or not.