## 1. Number of Listed Firms

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [1. Number of Listed Firms](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/_wp11155.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/_wp11155.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/_wp11155.pdf.json)

---

### Major themes and research question
- Effects of China’s exchange rate policy (renminbi appreciation expectations) on foreign firm valuations, trade channels, and financial conditions.
- Two focal PBOC politically-driven surprise events: July 21st, 2005 and June 19th, 2010.
- Additional analysis of 10 market-perceived politically-driven RMB NDF appreciations between 2003 and 2010.
- Empirical strategy: exploit politically-driven episodes to mitigate reverse causality; use firm-level stock returns to identify heterogeneous impacts across trade and financial exposure.

### Data, sample, and empirical design
- Sample and scope:
  - Listed manufacturing firms in 44 economies.
  - Firm-level observations: Stock Return Obs = 10066 (Table 3).
  - Authors also reference “some 6,000 manufacturing firms in 44 economies” (conclusion summary).
- Key data sources and variables:
  - Trade: UN Comtrade at 4-digit US SIC level; country-year-sector trade channels (Exports to China, Imports from China, Third-market competition).
  - China’s processing trade shares: Koopman, Wang and Wei (2008) using China Customs/2002 input-output table (China’s Processing Imports; China’s Processing Exports).
  - Stock prices: Datastream; one-day log returns around announcements with time-zone adjustments.
  - RMB expectations: 12-month RMB NDF daily changes; 10 politically-driven NDF episodes identified via Factiva media verification.
  - Financial-dependence measure: Rajan-Zingales (RZ) index at SIC 3-digit sector level (COMPUSTAT USA 1990-2006), winsorized to range 0 to 1.
  - Controls: Fama-French style factors—firm size (log assets), market-to-book, beta (weekly correlation with local market); standard errors clustered by sector.
- Event windows and abnormal returns:
  - July 21st, 2005: log change between July 21st and July 22nd for Asian firms; between July 20th and July 21st for other countries.
  - June 19th, 2010 (Saturday): log difference between closing prices on June 18th and 21st.
  - Abnormal returns using annual alpha and beta from weekly data; dependent variable winsorized at 1%.

### Key empirical findings — trade channels
- Aggregate market reaction:
  - Firms in three fourths of sample countries experienced a rise in stock prices; average stock market return 0.6% and standard deviation 1% (Table 2).
  - United States stock market return around announcements: -0.69% (2005) and -0.39% (2010) (Table 2).
- Exports to China vs. China’s processing imports:
  - Baseline: Exports to China coefficient often positive but sometimes insignificant in simple models.
  - Interaction evidence: Positive coefficient on Exports to China and negative interaction with China’s Processing Imports.
    - Representative point estimates: Exports to China 1.80 and High China’s processing imports*Exports to China -1.98 (both significant at 1%) (Table 4 Column 3).
    - With controls, interaction remains significant (example: interaction coefficient -1.50 significant at 1% in Table 4 Column 4).
  - Interpretation: Firms selling final products to China generally benefit from RMB appreciation expectations; firms supplying inputs used in China’s processing exports experience smaller or negative net effects.
  - Case example: Components-producing sector (US SIC Industry Group 367) — Components * Exports to China coefficients negative (e.g., -0.96*** in Table 4 Column 6; -1.11*** in Table 8 Column 5 abnormal returns).
- Imports from China and processing content:
  - Imports from China often enter positively, implying firms that compete with China in final-product home markets benefit from RMB appreciation expectations.
  - Interaction with China’s Processing Exports is negative and significant:
    - Representative point estimates: Imports from China 0.79 and Imports from China * China’s Processing Exports -1.9 (median China’s Processing Exports = 0.43 implies about half of sectors experience net declines) (Table 5 discussion).
    - Specific coefficients: Imports from China * China’s processing exports -1.83* (Table 5 Column 2) and -1.87*** (Table 5 Column 3).
  - Interpretation: When imports from China are processing-intensive, firms face negative valuation effects.

### Key empirical findings — third-market competition and financial channel
- Third-market competition:
  - Third-market competition in levels often positive (non-significant in some specs).
  - Third-market competition interacted with China’s Processing Exports is negative and significant in some specifications (Table 6).
  - Interpretation: Firms competing with China in third markets for final goods may benefit from RMB appreciation expectations unless products are processing-intensive.
- Financial channel (external finance dependence and yields):
  - U.S. Treasury yields rose on both announcement dates (textual observation).
  - Dependence on external finance for investment (RZ index) enters negatively and significantly:
    - Example: Dependence coefficient -0.073*** (Table 6, Column 4) and -0.063*** (Table 6, Column 5) (both significant at 1%).
  - Interpretation: Expectations of RMB appreciation (implying reduced Chinese purchases of U.S. Treasuries) put upward pressure on yields, negatively affecting valuations of more financially-dependent firms.

### Robustness, extensions, and abnormal-return results
- Fixed effects and firm controls:
  - Core patterns survive inclusion of Fama-French controls, country, year and sector fixed effects, and clustering by sector.
- Local currency movements:
  - Interactions with RMB Appreciation and Local Currency Appreciation:
    - RMB Appreciation * Exports to China positive and significant in some specs; Local Currency Appreciation * Exports to China negative and sometimes significant (Table 7).
    - Trade-processing interaction remains significant (e.g., Exports to China * High China’s processing imports ~ -1.47 significant at 1% in Table 7 Column 1).
- Abnormal returns:
  - Abnormal-return specifications (Tables 8 and 9) confirm main findings: negative interactions of Exports to China with China’s Processing Imports and of Imports from China with China’s Processing Exports; component-sector interactions negative and significant in several specifications.
- Placebo tests:
  - No significant trade-channel coefficients on two trading days before PBOC announcements (7/19/2005 and 6/17/2010), supporting event identification.
- Market-perceived NDF episodes extension:
  - 10 additional dates where 12-month RMB NDF daily appreciation ranged from 0.6% to 1.16%, mean 0.77% (Table 10).
  - Two PBOC announcement daily NDF changes: 0.37% and 0.98% (Table 10).
  - NDF-episode results broadly confirm PBOC-announcement findings:
    - Component sector*(Exports to China) -2.16*** (Table 11 Column 1).
    - Imports from China * China’s Processing Exports negative and significant in some specifications (Table 11 Columns 3–4).

### Quantitative highlights and sample statistics
- Table 3 firm- and sample-level statistics (selected):
  - Stock Return: Obs 10066; Mean 0.35; St Dev 3.23; Med 0.14; Min -18.19; Max 30.98.
  - Beta: Obs 10045; Mean 0.81; St Dev 0.70; Med 0.74.
  - Firm size (log in US dollar): Obs 10022; Mean 12.59; St Dev 2.00.
  - Exports to China (country-year-sector): Obs 2314; Mean 0.04; St Dev 0.09.
  - Imports from China: Obs 2314; Mean 0.11; St Dev 0.16.
  - China’s Processing Imports (US SIC 3-digit sector-level): Obs 82; Mean 0.34; St Dev 0.25.
  - China’s Processing Exports: Obs 81; Mean 0.38; St Dev 0.24.
- Event-specific numbers:
  - Stock market average return around events: 0.6% with standard deviation 1% (Table 2).
  - US market returns around events: -0.69% (2005) and -0.39% (2010) (Table 2).
  - NDF episode magnitudes: daily appreciation range 0.6% to 1.16%, mean 0.77% (Table 10); two PBOC announcements: 0.37% and 0.98% (Table 10).
- Representative regression coefficients (selected):
  - High China’s processing imports*Exports to China: -1.98*** (Table 4, Column 3).
  - Components * Exports to China: -0.96*** (Table 4, Column 6) and -1.11*** (Table 8, Column 5 abnormal returns).
  - Imports from China * China’s processing exports: -1.83* (Table 5, Column 2) and -1.87*** (Table 5, Column 3).
  - Dependence on external finance for investment: -0.073*** (Table 6, Column 4).
  - Component sector*(Exports to China) in NDF episodes: -2.16*** (Table 11, Column 1).

### Interpretation and policy-relevant conclusions
- Heterogeneous effects:
  - Renminbi-appreciation expectations have heterogeneous effects across firms, sectors, and countries driven by:
    - (i) whether a firm exports final goods to China,
    - (ii) whether a firm supplies inputs used in China’s processing exports,
    - (iii) exposure to competition in home and third markets,
    - (iv) dependence on external finance.
- Trade-channel takeaways:
  - Positive valuation effects for firms exporting final goods to China (unless their sectors are heavily involved in China’s processing-imports).
  - Negative valuation effects for firms supplying inputs to China’s processing-oriented exports and for firms importing processing-intensive Chinese products when acting as upstream/parent firms.
- Financial-channel takeaway:
  - Expectations of renminbi appreciation can raise treasury yields (via reduced Chinese Treasury purchases) and thereby depress valuations of financially-dependent firms.
- Policy implication:
  - Across-the-board inferences about the global impact of renminbi appreciation are misleading; net effects depend critically on the structure of global production chains and firms’ financial dependence.
  - Political signals about exchange-rate flexibility can influence market sentiment and trade-cost channels, both affecting firm valuations.

*Source: Excerpt from _wp11155 - References (IMF working paper).*

### 1. Number of Listed Firms ..............................................................................................

### _wp11155 - 1. Number of Listed Firms .......................................................................................................

### Major sections (chapter structure)
- 1. Number of Listed Firms
- 2. Stock Market Returns and Exchange Rate Movements Around Two PBOC Announcements
- 3. Summary Statistics
- 4. Impact of PBOC Announcements on Stock Returns
- 5. Impact of PBOC Announcements on Stock Returns: Imports from China
- 6. Impact of PBOC Announcements on Stock Returns: Controlling for Third-market Competition and Financial Channel
- 7. Impact of PBOC Announcements on Stock Returns: Controlling for Local Currency Appreciation
- 8. Impact of PBOC Announcements on Abnormal Stock Returns: Exporting to China
- 9. Impact of PBOC Announcements on Abnormal Stock Returns: Importing from China
- 10. Actual or Market-perceived Changes in China's Currency Policy
- 11. Impact of Market-perceived Policy Changes on Stock Returns

### Figures referenced
- Figure 1. Correlation of Stock Market Return (vertical axis) and Trade Exposure to China (horizontal axis) Around the Time of Two PBOC Announcements

*Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/_wp11155.pdf*

### References .............................................................................................................

### _wp11155 - References

### Major themes and question
- Effects of China’s exchange rate policy (renminbi appreciation expectations) on foreign firm valuations, trade channels, and financial conditions.
- Two focal PBOC events: July 21st, 2005 and June 19th, 2010 (both described as politically-driven surprises); additional analysis of 10 market-perceived politically-driven RMB NDF appreciations between 2003 and 2010.
- Empirical strategy: exploit politically-driven episodes to mitigate reverse causality between exchange rates and firm outcomes; use firm-level stock returns to identify heterogeneous impacts across trade and financial exposure.

### Data and empirical design
- Sample and scope:
  - Listed manufacturing firms in 44 economies; firm-level observations reported up to 10,066 (Table 3: Stock Return Obs = 10066).
  - Authors also describe analysis of “some 6,000 manufacturing firms in 44 economies” (conclusion summary).
- Key data sources and variables:
  - Trade: UN Comtrade at 4-digit US SIC level; trade channels constructed at country-year-sector level (Exports to China, Imports from China, Third-market competition).
  - China’s processing trade shares: Koopman, Wang and Wei (2008) using China Customs/2002 input-output table (China’s Processing Imports; China’s Processing Exports).
  - Stock prices: Datastream; calculation of one-day log returns around announcements (time-zone adjustments for July 21, 2005 and the Saturday June 19/announcement window in 2010).
  - RMB expectations: 12-month RMB NDF daily changes; 10 politically-driven NDF episodes identified via Factiva media verification.
  - Financial-dependence measure: Rajan-Zingales (RZ) index at SIC 3-digit sector level, constructed from COMPUSTAT USA (1990-2006) and winsorized to range 0 to 1.
  - Controls: Fama-French style factors—firm size (log assets), market-to-book, beta (weekly correlation with local market); standard errors clustered by sector.
- Event windows and abnormal returns:
  - For July 21st, 2005 announcement: log change between July 21st and July 22nd for Asian firms; between July 20th and July 21st for other countries.
  - For June 19th, 2010 announcement (occurred on a Saturday): log difference between closing prices on June 18th and 21st.
  - Abnormal returns constructed using annual alpha and beta from weekly data; dependent variable winsorized at 1%.

### Key empirical findings — trade channels
- Aggregate market reaction and variation:
  - Firms in three fourths of sample countries experienced a rise in stock prices; average stock market return 0.6% and standard deviation 1% (Table 2).
  - United States stock market return around announcements: -0.69% in 2005 and -0.39% in 2010 (Table 2).
- Exports to China (final goods) vs. China’s processing imports (inputs):
  - Baseline: Exports to China coefficient often positive but sometimes insignificant in simple models.
  - Interaction evidence: Positive coefficient on Exports to China and negative interaction with China’s Processing Imports.
    - Point estimates reported: Exports to China 1.80 and High China’s processing imports*Exports to China -1.98 (both significant at 1% level) in a specification (Table 4 Column 3).
    - When controls added, interaction remains significant (example: interaction coefficient -1.50 significant at 1% in Table 4 Column 4).
  - Interpretation: Firms selling final products to China generally benefit from RMB appreciation expectations; firms supplying inputs to China for processing exports (high China’s Processing Imports sectors) experience smaller or negative net effects.
  - Case study: components-producing sector (US SIC Industry Group 367) — Components * Exports to China enters with negative coefficients (consistent with negative impact on component suppliers).
- Imports from China (home-market competition) and processing content:
  - Imports from China often enter positively, suggesting firms that compete with China in final-product home markets benefit from RMB appreciation expectations.
  - Interaction with China’s Processing Exports is negative and significant:
    - Point estimates: Imports from China 0.79 and Imports from China * China’s Processing Exports -1.9 (median China’s Processing Exports = 0.43 implies about half of sectors experience net declines) (Table 5 discussion; Table 5 coefficients reported).
  - Interpretation: If imports from China are high in processing content, firms importing those products (or upstream parent firms) may face negative valuation effects.

### Key empirical findings — third-market competition and financial channel
- Third-market competition:
  - Third-market competition in levels often positive (non-significant in some specs) but third-market competition interacted with China’s Processing Exports is negative and significant in some specifications (Table 6).
  - Interpretation: Firms competing with China in third markets for final goods may benefit from RMB appreciation expectations; those competing in products with high processing content face negative impacts.
- Financial channel (external finance dependence and yields):
  - U.S. Treasury yields rose on both announcement dates (textual observation).
  - Dependence on external finance for investment (RZ index) enters negatively and significantly:
    - Example: Dependence coefficient -0.073*** in Table 6 (Column 4) and -0.063*** in Column 5 (both significant at 1%).
  - Interpretation: Expectations of RMB appreciation (implying reduced Chinese purchases of U.S. Treasuries) put upward pressure on yields, negatively affecting market valuations of more financially-dependent firms.

### Robustness and extensions
- Fixed effects and firm controls:
  - Core patterns (positive for final-goods exporters; negative for input suppliers/processing-intensive sectors; negative for financially-dependent firms) survive inclusion of firm-level Fama-French controls, country, year and sector fixed effects, and clustering by sector.
- Local currency movements:
  - Inclusion of interactions with RMB Appreciation and Local Currency Appreciation:
    - RMB Appreciation * Exports to China entered positive and significant in some specs; Local Currency Appreciation * Exports to China entered negative and sometimes significant (Table 7).
    - Core trade-processing interaction results remain significant (e.g., Exports to China * High China’s processing imports retains negative coefficient ~ -1.47 significant at 1% in Table 7 Column 1).
- Abnormal returns:
  - Abnormal-return specifications (Tables 8 and 9) confirm main findings: negative interactions of Exports to China with China’s Processing Imports and of Imports from China with China’s Processing Exports; component-sector interactions negative and significant in several specifications.
- Placebo tests:
  - No significant trade-channel coefficients on two trading days before PBOC announcements (7/19/2005 and 6/17/2010), supporting event identification.
- Extension to market-perceived politically-driven episodes:
  - 10 additional dates identified where 12-month RMB NDF daily appreciation ranged from 0.6% to 1.16%, mean 0.77% (Table 10).
  - Two PBOC announcement daily NDF changes: 0.37% and 0.98% (Table 10).
  - Results for NDF episodes broadly confirm PBOC-announcement findings:
    - Component sector*(Exports to China) negative and significant (example: -2.16*** in Table 11 Column 1).
    - Imports from China * China’s Processing Exports negative and significant in some specs (Table 11 Columns 3–4).

### Quantitative highlights and sample statistics
- Firm- and sample-level statistics (Table 3):
  - Stock Return: Obs 10066; Mean 0.35; St Dev 3.23; Med 0.14; Min -18.19; Max 30.98.
  - Beta: Obs 10045; Mean 0.81; St Dev 0.70; Med 0.74.
  - Firm size (log in US dollar): Obs 10022; Mean 12.59; St Dev 2.00.
  - Exports to China (country-year-sector): Obs 2314; Mean 0.04; St Dev 0.09.
  - Imports from China: Obs 2314; Mean 0.11; St Dev 0.16.
  - China’s Processing Imports (US SIC 3-digit sector-level): Obs 82; Mean 0.34; St Dev 0.25.
  - China’s Processing Exports: Obs 81; Mean 0.38; St Dev 0.24.
- Event-specific numbers:
  - Stock market average return around events: 0.6% with standard deviation 1% (Table 2 summary).
  - US market returns around events: -0.69% (2005) and -0.39% (2010) (Table 2).
  - NDF episode magnitudes: daily appreciation range 0.6% to 1.16%, mean 0.77% (Table 10); two PBOC announcements: 0.37% and 0.98% (Table 10).
- Representative regression coefficients (selected examples from tables):
  - High China’s processing imports*Exports to China: -1.98*** (Table 4, Column 3).
  - Components * Exports to China: -0.96*** (Table 4, Column 6) and -1.11*** (Table 8, Column 5 abnormal returns).
  - Imports from China * China’s processing exports: -1.83* (Table 5, Column 2) and -1.87*** (Table 5, Column 3).
  - Dependence on external finance for investment: -0.073*** (Table 6, Column 4).
  - Component sector*(Exports to China) in NDF episodes: -2.16*** (Table 11, Column 1).

### Interpretation and policy-relevant conclusions
- Heterogeneous effects:
  - Renminbi-appreciation expectations have heterogeneous effects across firms, sectors, and countries driven by (i) whether a firm exports final goods to China, (ii) whether a firm supplies inputs used in China’s processing exports, (iii) exposure to competition in home and third markets, and (iv) dependence on external finance.
- Trade-channel takeaways:
  - Positive valuation effects for firms exporting final goods to China (unless their sectors are heavily involved in China’s processing-imports).
  - Negative valuation effects for firms supplying inputs to China’s processing-oriented exports and for firms importing processing-intensive Chinese products when acting as upstream/parent firms.
- Financial-channel takeaway:
  - Expectations of renminbi appreciation can raise treasury yields (via reduced Chinese Treasury purchases) and thereby depress valuations of financially-dependent firms.
- Implication for policy and analysis:
  - Across-the-board inferences about the global impact of renminbi appreciation are misleading; the net effects depend critically on the structure of global production chains and firms’ financial dependence.
  - Political signals about exchange-rate flexibility can influence market sentiment (reducing perceived risk of trade sanctions) as well as trade-cost channels, both affecting firm valuations.

*Source: Excerpt from _wp11155 - References (IMF working paper). *

### References

### _wp11155 - References

### Exchange rate policy, China, and trade
- Ali, Shimelse, and Uri Dadush, 2010, “Who Gains from a Renminbi Revaluation?” VoxEU (9 December), www.voxeu.org.
- Ahmed, Shaghil, 2009,"Are Chinese Exports Sensitive to Changes in the Exchange Rate?" International Finance Discussion Papers 987, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
- Bernanke, Ben S., 2005, "The Global Saving Glut and the U.S. Current Account Deficit," speech delivered for the Sandridge Lecture at the Virginia Association of Economists, Richmond, March10, www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/200503102/default.htm.
- Bernanke, Ben S., Bertaut, Carol, DeMarco, Laurie Pounder, and Kamin, Steven, 2011, “International Capital Flows and the Returns to Safe Assets in the United States, 2003-2007,” No 1014, International Finance Discussion Papers, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
- Blanchard, Olivier, and Gian Maria Milesi-Ferretti, 2011, “(Why) Should Current Account Balances Be Reduced?” Staff Discussion Note, SDN/11/03.
- Cheung, Yin-Wong, Menzie D. Chinn, and Eiji Fujii, 2010, “China's Current Account and Exchange Rate," in Robert C. Feenstra and Shang-Jin Wei, eds., "China's Growing Role in World Trade" University of Chicago Press (2010).
- Dooley, Michael, David Folkerts-Landau, and Peter Garber, 2009, “Bretton Woods II Still Defines The International Monetary System,” Pacific Economic Review, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 297-311.
- Eichengreen, Barry, 2007, “China’s Exchange Rate Regime: The Long and Short of It,” in Charles Calomiris, ed., China’s Financial Transition at a Crossroads, New York: Columbia University Press, pp.314-42.
- Engel, Charles, 2009, “Exchange Rate Policies,” Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Staff Paper, Dallas: Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
- Evenett, Simon, and Joseph Francois, 2010, “Will Chinese Revaluation Create American Jobs?” VoxEU (April).
- Francois, Joseph, 2010, “Deconstructing Sino-US Codependence: Revaluation, Tariffs, Exports and Jobs,” in Simon Evenett, ed., The US-Sino Currency Dispute: New Insights from Economics Politics and Law, London, CEPR and VoxEU.
- Garcia-Herrero, Alicia, and Tuuli Koivu, 2009, “China’s Exchange Rate Policy and Asian Trade,” Economie Internationale, Vol. 116, pp.53-92.
- Marquez, Jaime, and Schindler, John W., 2006, “Exchange-Rate Effects on China's Trade: An Interim Report.” FRB International Finance Discussion Paper No. 861.
- Ma, Jun, and Wenjie Lu, 2010, “Quantifying the Impact of RMB Appreciation,” Deutsche Bank Global Markets Research (21 June).
- Scott, Robert E., 2010, “Unfair China Trade Costs Local Jobs,” Economic Policy Institute Policy Brief No. 260 (March).

### Firm- and industry-level effects, valuation, and event studies
- Dominguez, Kathryn, and Linda Tesar, 2006, “Exchange Rate Exposure," Journal of International Economics, Vol. 68, pp.188-218.
- Forbes, Kristin, 2004, “The Asian Flu and the Russian Virus: The International Transmission of Crises in Firm-Level Data,” Journal of International Economics, Vol. 63, pp. 59-92.
- Mackinlay, Craig, 1997, “Event Studies in Economics and Finance,” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 35, pp.13-39.
- Phylaktis, Kate, and Ravazzolo, Fabiola, 2005, “Stock Prices and Exchange Rate Dynamics,” Journal of International Money and Finance, Vol. 24, pp. 1031-053.
- Dominguez, Kathryn, and Linda Tesar, 2006, “Exchange Rate Exposure," Journal of International Economics, Vol. 68, pp.188-218.
- Griffin, John M., and Stulz, Rene M., 2001, “International Competition and Exchange Rate Shocks: A Cross-Country Industry Analysis of Stock Returns," Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 14, pp. 215-41.

### Asset returns, finance, and production chains
- Fama, Eugene F., and Kenneth. R. French, 1992, “The Cross-section of Expected Stock Returns,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 427-65.
- Griffin, John M., 2002, “Are the Fama and French Factors Global or Country Specific?” Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 15, pp. 783–803.
- Koopman, Robert, Zhi Wang, Shang-jin Wei, 2008, “How Much of Chinese Exports Is Really Made in China? Assessing Foreign and Domestic Value-Added in Gross Exports,” United States International Trade Commission working paper.
- Koopman, Robert, William Powers, Zhi Wang, Shang-Jin Wei, 2010, “Give Credit Where Credit Is Due: Tracing Value Added in Global Production Chains,” NBER Working Paper No. 16426.
- Rajan, Raghuram, and Luigi Zingales, 1998, “Financial Dependence and Growth,” American Economic Review, Vol. 88, pp.559–86.
- Whited, Toni, and Guojun Wu, 2006, “Financial Constraints Risk,” Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 531-59.
- Hanson, Gordon, and Raymond Robertson, 2010, “China and the Manufacturing Exports of Other Developing Countries,” in Robert Feenstra and Shang Jin Wei, eds., China’s Growing Role in World Trade, Chicago: University of Chicago Press and the NBER, pp. 137-59.
- Garcia-Herrero, Alicia, and Tuuli Koivu, 2009, “China’s Exchange Rate Policy and Asian Trade,” Economie Internationale, Vol. 116, pp.53-92.

*References list as provided in the source PDF.*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/_wp11155.pdf_