United States International Trade Commission

Investigation No. 332-508

USITC Publication 4125

January 2010

Small and MediumSized Enterprises: 

Overview of 

Participation in U.S. 

Exports
Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman 

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman 

Deanna Tanner Okun 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

Robert B. Koopman

Director of Economics

Karen Laney-Cummings

Director, Office of Industries
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4125 January 2010

Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: 

Overview of Participation in U.S. Exports

Investigation No. 332-508
Project Leadership 

Alexander Hammer, Project Leader 

alexander.hammer@usitc.gov

Cathy Jabara, Deputy Project Leader 

cathy.jabara@usitc.gov

Laura Bloodgood, Coordinating Project Leader

laura.bloodgood@usitc.gov

Nicholas Grossman, Statistical Coordinator 

nicholas.grossman@usitc.gov

Principal Authors

Chapter 1 Alexander Hammer alexander.hammer@usitc.gov

Chapter 2 Cathy Jabara cathy.jabara@usitc.gov

 Eric Cardenas eric.cardenas@usitc.gov

Chapter 3 Jeremy Wise jeremy.wise@usitc.gov

 Nicholas Grossman nicholas.grossman@usitc.gov

Chapter 4 Joann Peterson joann.peterson@usitc.gov

 Allison Gosney allison.gosney@usitc.gov

Other Analytic Contributors 

 Laura Bloodgood, Richard Brown, Nannette Christ, Daniel Cook, 

 Judith Dean, Katherine Linton, David Lundy, and James Stamps 

Special Assistance From 

Diane Bennett, Peg Hausman, Andrew Martinez, 

Aaron Miller, Cynthia Payne, Vince Procacci, and Patricia M. Thomas 

Under the Direction Of 

 Arona Butcher, Chief 

Country, Regional, and Analysis Division 

arona.butcher@usitc.gov 
Abstract 

This report describes characteristics of domestic small and medium-sized enterprises 

(SMEs) and the role they play in U.S. exports. Within the U.S. economy, SMEs account 

for the vast majority of firms and approximately half the gross domestic product (GDP) 

generated by nonagricultural sectors. However, SMEs accounted for only about 30 

percent of merchandise exports between 1997 and 2007. As was the case for larger firms, 

SME merchandise goods were primarily exported to Canada and Mexico in 2007, and 

SME principal exports were computer and electronic products, machinery, and chemicals. 

Unlike larger firms, SMEs tended to concentrate their merchandise exports in highincome destination markets such as Hong Kong, Israel, and Switzerland, and in laborintensive product categories such as wood products and apparel and accessories. 

Moreover, relative to larger firms, growth in the value of SME exports was more 

dependent upon net new market entrants, particularly among the smallest SMEs. While 

services export data for SMEs are largely unavailable, data on the location of affiliates 

for two services industries––(1) finance and insurance and (2) professional, scientific, 

and technical services––suggest that the United Kingdom and Canada are likely to have 

been important export destinations for SME firms in these industries in recent years. 

i 

iii 

Contents 

Page

Abstract.......................................................................................................................... i

List of Frequently Used Terms and Acronyms................... vii

Executive Summary.......................................................................................... xi

Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................. 1-1

 Purpose............................................................................................................................ 1-1

 Scope .............................................................................................................................. 1-2

 What is an enterprise?............................................................................................... 1-2

 What is an SME? ...................................................................................................... 1-2

 Time frame ............................................................................................................... 1-5

 Analytic framework ........................................................................................................ 1-5

 Organization of report..................................................................................................... 1-5

 Information sources......................................................................................................... 1-6

 Data limitations ............................................................................................................... 1-6

Chapter 2: SME Characteristics....................................................... 2-1

 Characteristics of nonfarm SMEs ................................................................................... 2-3

 Number of businesses and employment ................................................................... 2-3

 Employment growth ................................................................................................. 2-5

 Economic activity ..................................................................................................... 2-9

 Other characteristics ................................................................................................. 2-11

 Characteristics of small farm businesses......................................................................... 2-12

 Characteristics of SMEs as exporters.............................................................................. 2-14

 Characteristics of firms that export........................................................................... 2-14

 Constraints on SME exporters.................................................................................. 2-15

 Entrepreneurial orientation and SME exports .......................................................... 2-16

Chapter 3: The Role of SMEs in U.S. Merchandise 

Exports............................................................................................................................ 3-1

 Export markets ................................................................................................................ 3-7

 Manufacturer exports by market.............................................................................. 3-7

 Nonmanufacturer exports by market ....................................................................... 3-9

 Principal products .......................................................................................................... 3-10

 Manufacturer exports by product ............................................................................ 3-10

 Nonmanufacturer exports by product ...................................................................... 3-11

Chapter 4: The Role of SMEs in U.S. Services 

Exports............................................................................................................................ 4-1

 Overview of trade data on U.S. services SMEs .............................................................. 4-2

 Profile of U.S. services SMEs......................................................................................... 4-4

 Connection between affiliate sales and cross-border exports ......................................... 4-8
iv 

Contents—Continued

Page

Bibliography.............................................................................................................. Biblio-1

Appendices

A. Request letter...................................................................................................................... A-1

B. Federal Register notice ...................................................................................................... B-1

C. Additional information on SME merchandise exports....................................................... C-1

D. Additional information on SME services exports .............................................................. D-1

Boxes 

Box 1.1 How Census derives its exporter profile database.................................................... 1-4

Box 3.1 Data limitations on indirect exports constrain analysis ............................................ 3-3

Box 4.1 BEA data on international service transactions, and the differences between ........ 

 tradable and nontradable services............................................................................. 4-1

Box 4.2 Collection methods for BEA data on cross-border trade and affiliate 

 transactions ............................................................................................................... 4-3

Figures 

ES.1 U.S. merchandise exports................................................................................................ x

2.1 Nonfarm private employer firms by firm size, 2006....................................................... 2-3

2.2 Nonfarm private employment by firm size, 2006 ........................................................... 2-4

2.3 Sectoral employment by firm size, 2006......................................................................... 2-6

2.4 Services sector employment by firm size, 2006.............................................................. 2-6

2.5 Growth of nonfarm private employment by firm size, 1998–2006................................. 2-7

2.6 Average quarterly share of nonfarm private net new jobs by firm size, 1992–2009 ...... 2-8

2.7 Average quarterly share of job gains and losses by firm size, 1992–2009 ..................... 2-8

2.8 Growth of nonfarm private nonemployer and employer firms ....................................... 2-10

2.9 SME nonagricultural GDP by sector, 2004..................................................................... 2-10

2.10 Large firms’ nonagricultural GDP by sector, 2004......................................................... 2-11

2.11 Value of commercial farm production and number of farms by farm size, 2007 ........... 2-13

2.12 Value of commercial farm production by crop and farm size, 2007............................... 2-13

2.13 Avenues for firm exports ................................................................................................ 2-15

3.1 U.S. merchandise exports by firm size and share of exports by SMEs, 1997–2007....... 3-1

3.2 U.S. merchandise exports by firm type, 1997–2007 ....................................................... 3-4

3.3 U.S. merchandise exports by firm type and firm size, 1997–2007 ................................. 3-5

3.4 U.S. merchandise exports, by value of exports, number of exporting firms, and 

 average export value per firm by firm size, 1997 and 2007............................................ 3-6

3.5 U.S. merchandise exports to 20 major markets............................................................... 3-8

3.6 U.S. manufacturer merchandise exports by major destination market, 2007.................. 3-9

3.7 U.S. merchandise exports by product category............................................................... 3-11

4.1 U.S. cross-border exports of services, by industry, 2006................................................ 4-3

4.2 Sales by foreign affiliates of U.S. services firms, by industry, 2006 .............................. 4-4

4.3 Geographic location of foreign affiliates of U.S. services SMEs by region, latest 

 available year .................................................................................................................. 

4-7

C.1 U.S. total merchandise exports by major destination market, 2007................................ C-3

C.2 U.S. nonmanufacturer merchandise exports by major destination market, 2007........... C-4
v 

Contents—Continued

Page

Tables 

1.1 USITC Report 1 definitions of small and medium–sized enterprises ............................. 1-3

1.2 SME data limitations....................................................................................................... 1-7

2.1 U.S. businesses by employment size (thousands), 2006–07 ........................................... 2-2

4.1 Number of firms, average employees, and revenues per firm for SMEs in selected 

 services industries, latest available year.......................................................................... 4-5

4.2 Number of firms by employment size for SMEs in selected services industries, latest 

 available years................................................................................................................ 4-6

4.3 Revenues per firm by employment size for SMEs in selected services industries 

 (thousand $), latest available year................................................................................... 4-7

4.4 Top 10 countries for foreign affiliates of U.S. services SMEs, by industry, latest 

 available year .................................................................................................................. 4-8

4.5 Top 10 countries for foreign affiliates of U.S. services SMEs and cross-border exports 

 in selected services industries ......................................................................................... 4-9

C.1 U.S. merchandise exports, 1997–2007 (billion $)........................................................... C-3

C.2 Number of U.S. merchandise exporting firms, 1997–2007 ............................................ C-3

C.3 Average U.S. merchandise exports, per firm, 1997–2007 .............................................. C-5

C.4 Total U.S. merchandise exports, by country and firm size, 2002 and 2007.................... C-6

C.5 Manufacturer merchandise exports, by country and firm size, 2002 and 2007 .............. C-7

C.6 Nonmanufacturer merchandise exports, by country and firm size, 2002 and 2007 ........ C-8

C.7 Merchandise exports, by product and firm size, 2002 and 2007..................................... C-9

C.8 Manufacturer merchandise exports, by product and firm size, 2002 and 2007 .............. C-10

C.9 Nonmanufacturer merchandise exports, by product and firm size, 2002 and 2007 ........ C-11

D.1 Percentage share of total number of services firms in Census data captured in ORBIS 

 database, by sector and employment category, 2006 ...................................................... D-3

D.2 Comparison of total number of firms in Census and ORBIS databases by employment 

 category, 2006................................................................................................................. D-3

D.3 Comparison of total number of firms in Census and ORBIS databases by sector, 

 2006................................................................................................................................. D-3

List of Frequently Used Terms and Acronyms

Affiliate transaction A transaction that occurs after a firm establishes a branch or subsidiary in a 

foreign country to sell services directly to consumers in that country and when a 

consumer purchases services from a branch or subsidiary of a foreign firm located 

in the consumer’s home market. 

ARMS Agricultural Resource Management Surveys. 

BEA U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 

BLS U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Census U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 

Commerce U.S. Department of Commerce. 

Commission U.S. International Trade Commission. 

Cross-border A transaction that occurs when suppliers in one country sell services to consumers 

transaction in another country with people, information, or money crossing national 

boundaries. 

ERS U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

Employer firms Firms employing at least one worker or having payroll expenses during the year. 

Foreign affiliate A branch or subsidiary of a parent company, established outside of the national 

boundaries of the parent company’s home market. 

Global ultimate owner A parent company with a minimum ownership share of 25.01 percent in its 

(GUO) subsidiary. 

GDP Gross domestic product. 

Host country A foreign country where a parent firm has established an affiliate. 

Indirect export A form of export in which an intermediate good, part, or other input is transported 

domestically for transformation and/or incorporation into a final good for 

exportation. Such shipments represent domestic transactions; they are not 

considered exports in U.S. trade statistics. 

IRS U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. 

ITA U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration. 

Manufacturers Firms engaged in the mechanical, physical, or chemical transformation of 

materials, substances, or components into new products. 

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement. 

vii
viii

NAICS North American Industry Classification System. 

Nonemployer firms Firms without paid employees that are subject to federal income tax. 

Nonmanufacturers All firms except those engaged in the mechanical, physical, or chemical 

transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products, e.g., 

wholesalers. This category accounts for merchandise exports whose source of 

production could not be identified. 

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 

ORBIS A commercial database that consolidates firm-level statistical information. 

Other companies A census category denoting manufacturers of prepackaged software and 

books, freight forwarders and other transportation service firms, gas and oil 

extraction companies, coal mining companies, communications service firms, etc. 

PPP Purchasing power parity, which is a method of measuring the relative purchasing 

 power of different countries’ currencies over the same types of goods and services. 

SBA U.S. Small Business Administration. 

SME Small and medium-sized enterprise. For the purposes of this report, the 

 Commission has defined SMEs as firms that employ fewer than 500 employees; 

farms and exporting services sectors are further classified according to annual 

revenue parameters. 

 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

USDOC U.S. Department of Commerce. 

USITC U.S. International Trade Commission. 

USTR U.S. Trade Representative. 

Wholesale trade The purchase or sale of (1) goods for resale, (2) capital or durable nonconsumer 

goods, and (3) raw and intermediate materials and supplies used in production. In 

chapter 3, the wholesale trade statistic covers total transaction values, which reflect 

payments for merchandise and the distribution services provided through their 

sale. In chapter 4, the wholesale trade statistic comprises the value of the 

distribution services rendered only. 
ix 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides an overview of the current state of small and medium-sized 

enterprises’ (SMEs’) participation in U.S. merchandise and services exports. It describes 

the value of overall SME merchandise exports, lists SME exports’ principal 

products/sectors and destination markets, and assesses how these exports have changed 

over time. It also provides a general description of SME characteristics, explains their 

recent role in generating domestic employment and economic activity, and highlights 

areas in which data limitations impede a more comprehensive understanding of SME 

participation in U.S. exports. 

This report is the first in a series of three interrelated studies by the United States 

International Trade Commission (USITC, the Commission), requested by USTR, that 

will collectively describe the role of SMEs in U.S. exports. Together, these reports aim to 

identify and fill information gaps in published literature on this subject. 

For the purposes of this report, the Commission has defined SMEs as firms that employ 

fewer than 500 employees; farms and firms in exporting services sectors are further 

classified according to annual revenue parameters.1

Key Findings 

Role of SMEs in U.S. Merchandise Exports 

• Overall: SMEs accounted for approximately 30 percent of known U.S. merchandise 

exports between 1997 and 2007 (figure ES.1). In 2007, U.S. SME exports amounted 

to $306.6 billion. 

• Leading sectors: Electrical products, machinery, and chemicals were the top 

merchandise export categories for SMEs in 2007; these goods were primarily 

exported to Canada and Mexico. Wood products and apparel and accessories were 

the sectors with the highest concentrations of SME exports. 

• Leading markets: In 2007, Canada and Mexico were the largest destination markets 

for U.S. merchandise exports from firms of all sizes, including SMEs. The main SME 

export products to these countries were computer and electrical products; machinery; 

and chemicals. SME exports as a share of total U.S. merchandise exports were 

highest to Hong Kong, Israel, and Switzerland. 

• Growth led by SME entrants: Between 1997 and 2007, much of the growth in SME 

merchandise exports was attributable to an increase in the number of net new market 

entrants—SMEs that were new to exporting. Export growth from large firms, by 

contrast, resulted almost exclusively from increases in the value of exports by 

existing firms. 

 1

 Farms with fewer than 500 employees and that generate less than $250,000 in annual revenue are 

considered SMEs. For the purposes of this report, services sector SMEs are divided into two groups, typical 

and high-value. The annual revenue of typical SMEs generate up to $7 million, while high-value SMEs 

generate up to $25 million. Both typical and high-value service sector SMEs employ fewer than 500 workers. 
x 

FIGURE ES.1 U.S. merchandise exports 

SME SME Change

sharea growthb in sharec

percentage

points

27.6 59.9 5.6 

30.6 95.4 2.3 

24.8 143.8 5.4 

15.2 66.8 0.5 

44.3 106.7 -0.2 

SME SME Change

shared growthb in sharec

percentage

points

23.2 74.4 1.8 

28.9 66.4 4.1 

34.3 224.3 2.8 

31.0 28.8 1.1 

26 114.7 2.4 

percent

percent

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Miscellaneous manufactured

commodities

Transportation equipment

Chemicals

Machinery, except electrical

Computers and electronics

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Germany

Japan

China

Mexico

Canada

Top SME merchandise exports, by product, 2007 

(Billions of $)

Top SME merchandise exports, by destination market, 2007 

(Billions of $)

Merchandise exports 1997–2007

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Export Value (Billions of $)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Share (%)

SME Unknown Large firms SME share of known export value

Source: Official Census statistics. 

a

 SME share of total merchandise exports, by product, 2007. 

b

 SME merchandise export growth, 2002–07. 

c

 Change in SME share of total merchandise exports, 2002-07. 

d

 SME share of total merchandise exports, by market, 2007. 
xi 

Role of SMEs in U.S. Services Exports

• Overall: The lack of trade data on SME services inhibits a comprehensive 

understanding of SME participation in U.S. exports.

• Leading markets: In 2006-08, Canada and the U.K. appear to have been among the 

largest destination markets for U.S. SMEs’ services exports. This inference is based 

on known correlations between cross-border exports and affiliate operations of U.S. 

parent firms.

• Profile of U.S. services SMEs: Of the three services industries selected for review in 

this report—wholesale, finance and insurance, and professional services—

professional services is the largest in terms of the total number of firms, the average 

number of employees, and the revenues per firm. Wholesale services rank second. 

General Characteristics of U.S. SMEs

• Economic activity: SMEs accounted for approximately half of private nonagricultural 

gross domestic product (GDP) between 1998 and 2004.

• Number of firms: SMEs accounted for 99.9 percent of the 27 million employer and 

nonemployer private nonfarm businesses in the United States in 2006. The vast 

majority of SMEs are firms with fewer than 20 employees.

• Employment: SMEs employed roughly half of the 120 million nonfarm private sector 

workers in the United States in 2006. Employment within SMEs and larger firms 

grew by comparable rates between 1998 and 2006, and was largely fueled by 

employment growth in services and construction sectors.

• Innovation: SMEs are an important source of innovation processes, products, and 

services and can be more efficient at producing innovation than large firms.

• Entrepreneurial opportunities: SMEs provide important opportunities for all U.S. 

citizens to develop entrepreneurial skills. 

Data Limitations

• Data availability: Two prominent data limitations have inhibited a more extensive 

analysis of the role SMEs play in U.S. exports. These are (1) the lack of firm-size 

information on the manufacturing firms that provide SME wholesalers with their 

goods for distribution, and (2) the absence of published data on SME services sector 

exports.

1-1 

CHAPTER 1 

Introduction

Purpose

This report represents the first in a series of three interrelated studies by the United States 

International Trade Commission (USITC, the Commission), which will collectively 

describe the role of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in U.S. exports. These 

studies are being undertaken at the request of the United States Trade Representative 

(USTR). 

In the United States, as in most industrial countries, SMEs account for a large share of 

both employment and number of enterprises but only a small share of exports. We would 

expect small firms to be likely to export much smaller volumes than large firms. There 

are costs to exporting, however, that may fall disproportionately on small firms—limiting 

their ability to participate in global trade.1

 For example, SMEs’ inability to realize scale 

economies in gathering and maintaining market information can increase the costs of 

finding and retaining markets abroad relative to larger firms. Even after a foreign sale has 

been made, firms must cover the costs of delay between shipping merchandise and 

receiving payment, as well as the risks associated with damage or loss and order 

cancellations. A large firm may be able to finance such costs internally and to reduce its 

risk by diversifying its overseas customers. However, an SME may have to find external 

financing, which may be particularly costly due to its relatively small sales volumes and 

limited overseas customer base, particularly during periods of tightened credit markets. 

Some SMEs appear to overcome such impediments by either exporting through 

wholesalers or associating their business operations with larger firms by integrating with 

global supply chains or franchising.2

This report provides an overview of the current state of SMEs’ participation in U.S. 

merchandise and service exports. It describes the value of overall SME exports, lists the 

principal products/sectors and destination markets involved, and assesses how such 

exports have changed over time. It also provides a general description of SME 

characteristics, explains their role in generating domestic employment and economic 

activity, and highlights areas in which data limitations inhibit a more comprehensive 

understanding of SME participation in U.S. exports. 

The Commission’s second and third reports in this series will build on this report’s 

findings.3

 Specifically, the second report will draw upon information published in this 

report and in other sources to compare U.S. SMEs’ export performance to that of SMEs 

in the European Union and, to a limited extent, other leading economies; identify trade 

barriers reported by U.S. SMEs and strategies firms have employed to overcome those 

barriers; and describe benefits that U.S. SMEs have gained from free trade agreements 

 1

 OECD, Top Barriers and Drivers to SME Internationalization, 2009. 2

 OECD, Enhancing the Role of SMEs in Global Value Chains, 2007. 3

 See October 5, 2009 USTR letter to the USITC (Appendix A). The second SME report, “Small and 

Medium-Sized Enterprises: U.S. and EU Export Activities, and Barriers and Opportunities Experienced by 

U.S. Firms,” will be completed by July 6, 2010—see 74 Fed. Reg. 62812 (December 1, 2009). The third 

SME report, “Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: Characteristics and Performance,” will be completed by 

October 6, 2010—see 74 Fed. Reg. 65787 (December 11, 2009). 
1-2 

and other trading agreements between the United States and other countries. The third 

report will identify, to the extent possible, ways of overcoming some of the data problems 

described in this report to provide a fuller understanding of SMEs’ role in overall U.S. 

exports, most notably in the services sector. The third report will also identify trade 

barriers that may disproportionately affect SME export performance, as well as possible 

linkages between exporting and SME performance. 

Scope

The scope of this report encompasses all sectors of the U.S. economy. U.S. production 

data used in this report encompass all sectors of the U.S. economy as defined by the 

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Similarly, the U.S. 

merchandise export data used in this report encompass all chapters of the international 

Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS). Due to data limitations, 

the export services sector data encompass only U.S. SMEs with foreign affiliates in the 

wholesale trade; finance and insurance; and professional, scientific, and technical service 

sectors (see chapter 4).4

What Is an Enterprise? 

The scope of this report is influenced by the way it defines an enterprise and sets the size 

parameters for various types of enterprises. This report uses the U.S. Census Bureau 

(Census) definition of an enterprise, which is a business organization consisting of one or 

more domestic establishments under common ownership or control.5

 For the purposes of 

this report, the terms “enterprise,” “firm,” “business,” and “company” represent the same 

thing and will be used interchangeably. According to Census, the number of employees 

within an enterprise is determined by the number of full- and part-time workers across all 

associated establishments who were on the payroll during pay periods in the month of 

March. Enterprises’ revenue is determined by consolidating revenues across all 

associated establishments.6

What Is an SME?

There is no universally accepted definition of an SME, even within the U.S. government. 

This situation reflects the relative nature of the “small” and “medium” size 

classifications, which can apply differently to firms in the manufacturing, agricultural, 

and service sectors. In recognition of these differences, using the number of employees 

and annual firm revenue as basic classification criteria, this report will use technical 

 4

 Wholesale trade includes merchant wholesalers of durable and nondurable goods. Finance includes 

credit intermediation and related activities; securities; commodity contracts; other financial investments and 

related activities; and funds, trusts, and other financial vehicles. Insurance includes insurance carriers and 

related activities. Professional, scientific, and technical services include legal services; architecture and 

engineering; computer system design; and management, scientific, and technical consulting, as well as 

advertising and public relations. As noted in chapter 4, wholesale, finance and insurance, and professional 

services were identified as having the largest proportion of affiliate sales by U.S. firms among all services 

sectors. In addition, U.S. cross-border exports of services are highest in the finance and insurance, and 

professional services sectors. 5

 Census, “Statistics of U.S. Businesses - Definitions.” 6

 Ibid. 
1-3 

thresholds previously established by other U.S. government institutions, including those 

of the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce), the U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), as guidelines. 

These definitions are summarized in table 1.1 below. 

TABLE 1.1 USITC Report 1 definitions of small and medium-sized enterprises

Most High valuec

Number of 

employees < 500 < 500 < 500 < 500d

Revenue Not 

applicable ≤ $7 million ≤ $25 million < $250,000

Defining 

institution SBA Advocacye SBA / 

SBA Advocacyf

SBA / 

SBA Advocacyf USDA

Data source U.S. Census ORBIS ORBIS USDA

Source: Compiled by USITC staff. 

f Revenue parameters established by SBA; employee number established by SBA Advocacy for research purposes.

Farms

b Selected on the basis of size and export potential, and includes wholesale trade services; professional, scientific, and 

technical services; and finance and insurance services.

d This threshold was imposed by Commission staff to partially harmonize definitions across sectors; it was not 

imposed by the defining institution.

e SBA Advocacy from Census data.

Exporting services firmsb

c Computer services was the only sector in this category.

Manufacturing and 

non-exporting 

services firmsa

a Includes exporting and nonexporting manufacturing firms and nonexporting services firms.

The definition used for SMEs by SBA’s Office of Advocacy (SBA Advocacy) is the most 

straightforward, as it includes all enterprises with fewer than 500 employees. Census 

employs this definition to delineate its data by firm size across all sectors of the U.S. 

economy (using NAICS categories), which include both manufacturing and service 

enterprises. Box 1.1 identifies how Census matches this information against merchandise 

trade data to obtain information on exporting behavior of firms in various size categories. 

However, because this match is only performed for merchandise trade, export 

information on SME services remains largely unaccounted for. 

To help define and retrieve export data on SME services and farms, information from the 

SBA, USDA, and ORBIS (a commercial database) was used. Specifically, the SBA uses 

annual revenue parameters to classify SMEs in various service subsectors, but these 

parameters differ depending on the value of the services being performed. While the vast 

majority of SME service subsectors fall in the $7 million and under annual revenue 

threshold, a small number of others—those in computer services—have higher revenue 

despite their small number of employees, and consequently are defined by the 
1-4 

BOX 1.1 How Census Derives its Exporter Profile Database 

Using economic censuses and surveys, Census maintains a large database that consolidates a wealth of information 

on all U.S. companies across all nonfarm sectors of the economy. Included in this database are firm-size categories, 

which are defined by the number of workers employed by individual companies. To extract export-specific information 

by firm size classification, Census takes a subset of the company information it maintains on manufacturing firms (not 

services firms) and matches that against supplementary documentation it has on merchandise trade. This information 

is further matched against employment and payroll information maintained by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and 

merchandise export statistics compiled from Shippers’ Export Declarations.a Together, this consolidated information 

helps create Census’s Export Profile database, which allows Census to disaggregate merchandise export information 

by firm size. Because Census does not publish information on data that are matched against services or agricultural 

trade, SME export information in these sectors is largely unaccounted for. 

 

Source: Official Census statistics, A Profile of U.S. Exporting Companies, 2006−07, April 9, 2009. Information for the figure 

was compiled by Commission staff using information from Census and the UPS Web site. 

https://www.ups.com/content/us/en/shipping/international/documents/intl_forms/declaration.html (accessed December 18, 2009). 

a Shipper Export Declarations filings are required by Census for U.S. exports in which the value of at least one commodity 

exceeds $2,500. Shipments to Canada are exempt from filing unless an export license or permit is required. 

Commission using a higher ($25 million) parameter.7 The USDA also uses annual 

revenue to differentiate farms by size, but it does not use a “medium” category; it defines 

as “small” only those farms that earn less than $250,000 in annual revenue, and considers 

all others “large.” 

 7

 Those subsectors that fall under the $7 million revenue parameter are subsumed in the wholesale trade; 

finance and insurance; and professional, scientific, and technical service sectors that are considered in this 

report. For wholesalers, this includes services firms trading both durable and nondurable goods. For finance 

and insurance, this includes services firms in credit intermediation and related activities; securities; 

commodity contracts; other financial investments and related activities; and funds, trusts, other financial 

vehicle services, and insurance carriers and related activities. For professional, scientific, and technical 

services, it includes legal services; architecture and engineering; computer system design; and management, 

scientific, and technical consulting, as well as advertising and public relations. 
1-5 

In an attempt to partially harmonize these definitions, this report uses SBA Advocacy’s 

“fewer than 500 employees” definition of SMEs across all sectors, as that accounts for 

the vast majority (approximately 99 percent) of firms in the data used by the 

Commission. 

Time Frame

Data limitations made it difficult to use a consistent decade-long time interval to analyze 

SME production and export trends across various sectors of the U.S. economy. 

Accordingly, the chosen time frame was dictated by the amount of quality information 

that was available for each sector considered. A 2002–07 time period was primarily used 

for the general characteristics and the SME merchandise trade analyses in chapters 2 and 

3, whereas a 2006–08 time period was used for the SME services trade analysis in 

chapter 4. Whenever possible, attempts were made to supplement the description of 

trends in the given time periods with qualitative and quantitative information for other 

periods of time. 

Analytic Framework

This report examines U.S. SMEs in the context of the well-established findings on U.S. 

firms that export. From the large body of literature that examines Census data in depth, 

researchers have learned that just a small share of U.S. firms export.8

 Those that do are 

distinctive. They tend to be larger and more productive, use relatively more capitalintensive and skilled-worker-intensive production processes, and pay higher wages than 

U.S. non-exporting firms.9

 Many of these characteristics appear to be to “prerequisites” 

for exporting. Most importantly, even SMEs that export display these distinctive 

characteristics relative to nonexporting SMEs. 

To provide context to the analysis of SMEs, comparisons were made to their large-firm 

counterparts as consistently as possible (data permitting). This approach helped 

supplement the analysis by defining attributes of SMEs and identifying those that were 

unique. However, data limitations precluded using such an approach for service sector 

exports. 

Organization of the Report

The structure of this report reflects its aim of providing an overview of publicly available 

information on SMEs that is mostly focused on explaining their participation in U.S. 

exports. 

In addition to providing the framework for this report, chapter 1 provides a summary 

table of data limitations that have inhibited a more comprehensive understanding of SME 

participation in U.S. exports. While these data limitations are identified throughout this 

report, the main ones are summarized in this introductory chapter to give a fuller 

perspective on the data problems. 

 8

 Bernard, Jensen, and Schott, “Importers, Exporters and Multinationals,” 2009, 514; Bernard et al., 

“Firms in International Trade,” April 2007. 9

 Bernard and Jensen, “Exceptional Exporter Performance,” 1999. 
1-6 

Chapter 2 describes broad attributes of U.S. SMEs that differentiate these forms of 

enterprises from larger firms. It begins by explaining distinctions between farm and 

nonfarm firms, and between employer and nonemployer firms, and shows that the vast 

majority of SME production is conducted by nonfarm firms with at least one employee. 

The chapter also gives a general overview of SME characteristics, describes their role in 

generating domestic employment and economic activity, and highlights characteristics of 

SMEs that export. The chapter also describes some of their distinctive traits, such as 

SMEs’ special role with regard to innovation and their higher concentration of minorityowned businesses. 

Chapter 3 provides an overview of the role SMEs have had in U.S merchandise exports. 

It begins by describing how Census disaggregates export data by size and type of firm, 

making it possible to identify differences between SMEs’ and large firms’ exporting 

behavior in manufacturing, wholesaling, and “other” firms.10 The chapter then describes 

the value of overall SME exports, the SME share of total U.S. exports, and how these 

have changed over time. It also describes characteristics of SME exports, including the 

sectors and markets that are their predominant destinations, and shows how these 

characteristics differ from those of the large firms that have a disproportional influence 

on overall U.S. merchandise exports. 

Chapter 4 describes SMEs’ participation in international services trade. It begins by 

explaining that although official services trade data are not disaggregated by firm size, 

most U.S. firms provide services to foreign consumers through foreign affiliates, rather 

than through exports. This chapter describes what is known about the affiliate operations 

of U.S. parent companies to help identify markets to which U.S. services SMEs are most 

likely to export. It adds focus to its analysis by restricting its scope to the three largest 

industries for affiliate activity: wholesale trade; finance and insurance; and professional, 

scientific, and technical services. 

Information Sources 

This report consolidates a large body of publicly available information on SMEs and their 

role in U.S. exports. While the vast majority of data are derived from Census, critical 

quantitative and qualitative information has also come from other branches of Commerce, 

the SBA, and USDA. Publications from additional sources—other U.S. government 

institutions; multinational organizations, including the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and World Bank; the National Bureau of Economic 

Research; and academic institutions—have provided supplementary information. 

Information from ORBIS, a proprietary database, was also used in this report. 

Data Limitations

In this report, the Commission has summarized publicly available data related to U.S. 

SMEs in the manufacturing, agriculture, and services sectors. Table 1.2 outlines the 

principal gaps in the available data for each sector. As noted earlier, the gaps in the data 

inhibit a more comprehensive understanding of SME participation in export trade. 

 10 “Other” firms refers to manufacturers of prepackaged software and books, freight forwarders and 

other transportation service firms, gas and oil extraction companies, coal mining companies, and 

communications service firms. 
1-7 

TABLE 1.2 SME data limitations 

Data Limitation Description Sector Data Source 

Inconsistent SME 

definitions 

Definitions of SMEs: 

• The Small Business Administration (SBA) uses the most 

comprehensive definitions, but different offices within the SBA 

provide different definitions for different purposes. 

• The SBA Office of Size Standards has various definitions, 

mainly for grant and program management, which vary across 

industries based on number of employees and revenues. 

• The SBA Office of Advocacy defines an SME for research 

purposes as employing fewer than 500 workers, but its data and 

analysis are largely confined to nonfarms. 

• The USDA defines farms as “small” or “large” only, a binary 

approach that is confined to the agriculture sector. 

All sectors SBA, SBA 

Advocacy, 

USDA 

Inconsistent SME 

data availability 

Most information about characteristics of nonfarm SMEs comes from 

Census data and analysis by SBA Advocacy. Census data and research 

become available in different time periods. More up-to-date information 

will become available in 2010 with the results of the 2007 Economic 

Census. 

All sectors Census, SBA 

Advocacy 

Firms size of 

original 

manufacturer 

The data classify exports according to the firm size of the owner of 

record at the time of export. This is often a wholesaler or other trading 

firm, so the firm size of record is not necessarily the same as the size of 

the manufacturer of the goods exported. 

Merchandise 

exports 

Census, Profile 

of U.S. 

Exporting 

Companies

Missing data Data on firm size are compiled by Census through a matching process, 

which matches known U.S. exporters to specific export transactions. For 

approximately 12 percent of U.S. exports, there are no matched data. In 

addition, the data set only includes exporters with shipments valued at 

more than $2,500. 

Merchandise 

exports 

Census, Profile 

of U.S. 

Exporting 

Companies

Estimates of the 

number of 

exporters that have 

changed over time 

Census has been improving its ability to match the number of exporters 

with particular export transactions over time. Therefore, Census notes 

that year-to-year comparisons of changes in the number of exporters, 

particularly for small firms, may be due in part to improved Census 

estimation methods. 

Merchandise 

exports 

Census, Profile 

of U.S. 

Exporting 

Companies

No data on U.S. 

services sector 

SMEs that export 

or have affiliates 

The data on firm size compiled by Census are matched only to 

merchandise exports. No similar process or data are available for 

exports of services. 

Services 

exports 

Census 

Available services 

exports do not 

break out data by 

firm size 

Data on cross-border exports of services are compiled by BEA through 

surveys. The BEA does not publish a firm-size breakout, and small firms, 

generally with exports below $6 million, are encouraged but not required 

to complete surveys. 

Services 

exports 

BEA 

Sources: Compiled by Commission staff from the identified sources. 

For the manufacturing sector, Census provides fairly detailed information on 

merchandise exports by SMEs, disaggregated according to various attributes including 

value, products, and principal markets. However, total exports are aggregated by firm 

size (by summing manufacturers, wholesalers, and “other” firms’ exports) which leads to 

ambiguity about the size of the firms that sell wholesalers their products. For 

example, if an SME wholesaler receives its products from a large manufacturing firm, the 

entire export is considered an SME export for statistical purposes, thereby overstating 

SMEs’ export contributions. 

For the services sector, no authoritative export information is available. While this study 

uses information from a proprietary database to provide partial information on SME 
1-8 

participation in services trade, without official export statistics on U.S. services SMEs 

either from Census or from Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) it is not 

possible to furnish a more complete picture. The forthcoming third Commission report on 

SMEs is expected to provide additional insight into this area, largely through information 

collected from a customized questionnaire. 
2-1 

CHAPTER 2 

SME Characteristics 

This chapter presents information on the characteristics of SMEs, with an emphasis on 

the SME role in employment, employment growth, and economic activity. Because the 

focus of this report is on SME exports, this chapter also provides information on the 

characteristics of SME exporters. The data used to describe SMEs mostly cover the 

period 2002–07, although longer periods are occasionally covered to reflect broader 

trends. Whether data are available for more recent years depends on the timing of Census 

surveys, which are the sources of most SME data. More up-to-date information on SME 

characteristics will become available in 2010–11 from the 2007 Economic Census. 

SMEs in the United States vary in size and are represented in all sectors of the economy, 

including manufacturing, services, farming, and other sectors.1

 As noted in Chapter 1, 

SMEs in the nonfarm sector include employer firms with fewer than 500 employees and 

nonemployer firms.2

 Much of the information on nonfarm SMEs focuses on employer 

firms. Nonemployers, the most numerous SMEs, account for a very small share (less than 

4 percent) of nonfarm business receipts.3

 Owner-operators of farm SMEs are primarily 

involved in crop and animal production and have less than $250,000 in farm sales 

annually.4

 Information on SMEs is presented separately in this chapter for nonfarm and 

farm businesses.5

Most businesses in the United States are SMEs (table 2.1). In 2006, 99.9 percent of 

private U.S. nonfarm businesses, were classified as SMEs, according to data from Census 

and SBA Advocacy.6

 Among the 6.0 million employer-based nonfarm businesses in 2006, 

 1

 Throughout this chapter, “manufacturing” includes industries in North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) codes 31–33; “services” include industries in NAICS codes 22 and 42–92; 

“farm sectors” include industries in NAICS codes 111 and 112; and “other nonfarm sectors” include mining, 

quarrying, and oil and gas extraction; construction; and forestry, fishing and hunting, and agricultural support 

services (NAICS codes 21, 23, and 113–115). Services sectors include those classified by the U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS) as “service-providing industries.” See BLS, Service-Providing Industries. 2

 Employer firms are defined as those employing at least one employee (or having payroll expenses 

during the year), whereas nonemployers are businesses that have no paid employees and are subject to federal 

income tax. Most nonemployers are self-employed individuals operating very small unincorporated 

businesses. However, nonemployers can also earn wages in employer firms—e.g., a caterer that works for an 

employer by day, but provides catering services on weekends and evenings. Information on employer and 

nonemployer firms comes from two data sources within Census—Statistics of U.S. Businesses and 

Nonemployer Statistics—both of which exclude farm production enterprises. The Census surveys also 

exclude most government employees and agencies. In the Statistics of U.S. Businesses, the size of a firm is 

determined by the summed employment of all associated establishments, including franchises. See Census, 

Statistics of U.S. Businesses. 3

 Census, Nonemployer Statistics, July 2009. 4

 A farm business is defined as any business where the primary occupation of the operator(s) is farming. 

Information on the number and characteristics of small farms is obtained primarily from the USDA, 

Economic Research Service (ERS) annual Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS). This 

definition does not include farms with operators either reporting being retired or primarily involved in 

occupations other than farming, due to this study’s focus on commercial operations. The definition of large 

farms includes non-family farms since the ARMS does not distinguish between small and large non-family 

farms. 5

 The data are presented separately because data reporting is split between the USDA for farms and the 

SBA for other industries. 6

 SBA Advocacy, Data on Small Business, U.S. Data (dataset). SBA Advocacy’s data on the number of 

SMEs and SME employment are from Census, Statistics of U.S. Businesses. 
2-2 

TABLE 2.1 U.S. businesses by employment size (thousands), 2006–07 

 SME Large Firm Total 

Nonfarma 

Employer 6,004.0 18.1 6,022.1 

Nonemployer 20,768.6 (c

) 20,768.6 

Total 26,772.6 18.1 26,790.7 

Share of total (percent) 99.9 0.1 100.0 

 

Farmsb 

Number 546.0 257.1 803.1 

Share of total (percent) 68.0 32.0 100.0 

Sources: SBA Advocacy, Data on Small Business, U.S. Data, from Census data; USDA, ERS, ARMS, 

August 6, 2009.

a Data are for 2006. 

b Data are for 2007. Farms are classified as small or large. Commercial farms only. c Not applicable. 

only 18,000, or 0.3 percent, had 500 or more employees and were classified as large. In 

2007, among 803,100 commercial farms, 32 percent, or 257,100, were classified as large, 

using a standard of $250,000 or more in farm sales.7

SMEs make significant contributions to the U.S. economy in terms of employment, job 

creation, entrepreneurship, and U.S. economic activity, as measured by gross domestic 

product (GDP).8

 In 2004 (the latest year for which data are available), SMEs contributed 

about 50 percent of U.S. nonagricultural GDP.9

 SME employment and contributions to 

GDP are concentrated in services sectors, followed by manufacturing and mining, and 

construction. Although employment by employer SMEs, as a percentage of private 

nonfarm employment, declined slightly from 53.0 percent to 50.2 percent between 1992 

and 2006, BLS figures show that SME employers were responsible for creating 64.1 

percent of net new jobs from 1992 to 2009.10 Nonemployer SMEs are also important in 

the growth of new employer firms and their employment.11

SME exports contributed just 3.8 percent to the SME share of GDP in 2004, compared to 

11.5 percent for the contribution made by exports to large-firm GDP, based on Census 

data for direct merchandise exports.12 This relatively low SME share partly reflects the 

fact that a higher share of large-firm GDP is associated with goods-producing industries 

in the manufacturing and mining sectors. In addition, economic research has shown that 

larger firms export more, as they tend to be less resource-constrained than smaller 

 7

 Data are from USDA, ERS, ARMS, August 6, 2009. These data are for commercial farms only. 8

 GDP is a common measure of economic activity. It is a measure of a country’s overall economic 

output. 9

 Kobe, The Small Business Share of GDP, 1998–2004, 2007, 1. Kobe’s estimates exclude GDP from 

the agricultural sector (farms, forestry, fishing and hunting, and agricultural support services). 10 BLS, Business Employment Dynamics Database, Supplemental Firm Size Tables, table D, and SBA 

Advocacy, Small Business Data, U.S. Data. 11 Davis et al., “Measuring the Dynamics of Young and Small Businesses,” 2009. 12 Exports as a share of GDP are estimated using Kobe’s figures for large- and small-firm GDP and 

SME and large-firm merchandise exports from Census, Exporter Profiles, 2004–2005, exhibit 1b. These 

numbers are not perfectly comparable, as the GDP estimates do not include value added from the agricultural 

sector, and the exports include agricultural commodities. However, the GDP data capture the value added 

from wholesalers, food processors, and other service providers in exports of goods. Additionally, as noted in 

Chapters 1 and 3, wholesaler exports include goods that originate in large or small firms. 
2-3 

firms.13 However, there is little information on the extent to which SME manufacturers 

export through wholesalers and other intermediaries, as well as indirect exports by SMEs 

through larger companies. 

Characteristics of Nonfarm SMEs 

Number of Businesses and Employment

SMEs tend to employ a limited number of workers: whether employer or nonemployer, 

most have fewer than 20 employees. In 2006, Census counted 26.8 million businesses in 

the United States, including 20.8 million nonemployers 14 and 6.0 million employer 

firms.15 SMEs accounted for 99.7 percent of the employer firms in 2006, and firms with 

fewer than 20 employees accounted for the largest percentage, 89.3 percent, of such firms 

(figure 2.1). Including both employer and nonemployer firms, SMEs accounted for 99.9 

percent of all U.S. firms in 2006. 

 13 See Bernard, Jensen, and Schott, “Importers, Exporters and Multinationals,” 2009, 514; Dhanaraj and 

Beamish, “A Resource-Based Approach to the Study of Export Performance,” 2003, 245. 14 The most recent data for nonemployers for 2007 place their number at 21.7 million. See SBA 

Advocacy, Small Business Profile, October 2009, table 1, 2. 15 SBA Advocacy, Frequently Asked Questions, September 2009, 1. 

FIGURE 2.1Nonfarm private employer firms by firm size, 2006

89.3%

8.9% 1.5%

0.3%

< 20

20–99

100–499

500+

Source: SBA Advocacy, Data on Small Business, U.S. Data, from Census data.

Total number of firms = 6,022,127

Number of

employees per firm

Most employer businesses had fewer than 20 employees

FIGURE 2.1 Nonfarm private employer firms by firm size, 2006

89.3%

8.9% 1.5%

0.3%

< 20

20–99

100–499

500+

Source: SBA Advocacy, Data on Sm all Business, U.S. Data, from Census data.

Total number of firms = 6,022,127

Num ber of 

em ployees per firm

Most employer businesses had fewer than 20 employees
2-4 

While SMEs account for a high percentage of the number of U.S. firms, their share in 

employment is much smaller, although significant. In 2006, SMEs employed slightly 

over half (50.2 percent) of the 119.9 million nonfarm private sector workers in the United 

States, with the remainder employed by large firms (figure 2.2).16 SMEs with fewer than 

100 employees accounted for 35.6 percent of nonfarm employment and 70.9 percent of 

total SME employment, indicating that an important share of employment occurs in 

relatively small firms. 

FIGURE 2.2 Nonfarm private employment by firm size, 2006

< 20

20–99

100–499

500+

49.8%

18.0%

17.6%

14.6%

Source: SBA Advocacy, Data on Sm all Business, U.S. Data, from Census data.

Total employment = 119,917,165

Num ber of 

em ployees per firm

SMEs accounted for over half of U.S. nonfarm private employment

Among employer firms, most SME workers are found in the services sectors, as are most 

U.S. workers from large firms, reflecting broader employment trends in the U.S. 

economy. 17 The services sectors are a large and heterogeneous category, comprising 

wholesale and retail trade services; real estate; professional, scientific, and 

technical services; financial and insurance services; and a number of other services.

Services accounted for 79.0 percent of SME employment in 2006, while manufacturing 

accounted for 10.1 percent, and “other” sectors (e.g., construction and mining) 18

accounted for 10.9 percent. In contrast, large firms employed a slightly higher percentage 

of workers in manufacturing (12.7 percent) and services (85.0 percent) and a much lower 

percentage (2.3 percent) in the “other” category. 

 16 If the 20.8 million nonemployers were included, the percentage of employment in SMEs would be 

higher. Employment in nonemployer and employer firms is not aggregated because the former includes parttime activities of individuals that may be employed elsewhere. 17 U.S. employment in services increased at an annual rate of 1.7 percent from 1996 to 2006, but 

employment fell at an annual rate of 1.9 percent in manufacturing. See Figueroa and Woods, “Industry 

Output and Employment Projections,” 2007, table 1, 54. 18 Construction employment is 92 percent of total employment in this category. 
2-5 

SMEs in the 100- to 499-employee category have the highest percentage of employment 

in manufacturing—14.5 percent—among all sizes of firms (figure 2.3). Important 

manufacturing industries in this size class include fabricated metals, food processing, and 

machinery manufacturing. 

Employment data for the services sectors indicate that the distribution of employees 

among large firms versus SMEs varied somewhat according to sector. Employment in 

wholesale and retail trade sectors in 2006 was substantial for both large and small firms

(figure 2.4). Employment in professional, scientific, and technical services accounted for 

a relatively high share of employment in very small firms—13.1 percent of services 

employment for firms with fewer than 20 employees, compared to 6.1 percent for large 

firms. Among firms with fewer than 20 employees, the most important categories of 

employment in this sector were legal services; architecture, engineering, and related 

services; and accounting, bookkeeping, and tax preparation services. 

Nonemployer firms are also most heavily concentrated in the services sectors. In 2007 

(the latest year for which data are available), 14.0 percent of nonemployer firms were in 

professional, scientific, and technical services, followed by “other services” (13.7 

percent). 19 Additionally, construction accounted for 12.2 percent of nonemployer firms, 

followed by real estate and rental leasing (10.7 percent).20

Employment Growth

The share of employer SMEs (firms with fewer than 500 employees) in total private 

nonfarm employment remained roughly constant from 1998 to 2006; these firms 

accounted for 50.2 percent of employment in 2006, compared to 50.9 percent in 1998. 

This is in contrast to the longer-term trend from 1992 to 2006, when SME employment 

fell from 53.0 percent to 50.2 percent among employer firms. 

Employment in larger SMEs (firms with 100–499 employees) increased at a slightly 

higher rate than employment in other firm sizes, particularly after 2002, thus contributing 

to slowing the long-term trend (figure 2.5).21 The higher employment growth in firms 

with 100–499 employees after 2002 reflects increased employment in construction and 

services sectors, such as accommodation and food services, and finance and insurance. 

For larger firms, the sectors with the highest employment growth rates were enterprise 

management, health care and social services, and education. 

The changes in employment shares between large and small firms reflect the dynamics of 

growing and contracting firms over time. Each year, new firms open and established 

firms exit, or reduce or expand their workforces, altering the employment in firm size 

 19 The “other services” sector includes establishments not classified elsewhere, such as equipment and 

machinery repair, dry cleaning and laundry services, photofinishing services, and dating services, among 

others. 20 SBA Advocacy, Small Business Profile, October 2009, table 1, 2, based on Census, Nonemployer 

Statistics. 21 The data in figure 2.5 show the annual increases in employment for all firms in each size category, 

based on an index where 1998 = 100. The compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) are based on the annual 

employment changes. 
2-6 

FIGURE 2.3 Sectoral em ploym ent by firm size, 2006

81.6% 77.6% 77.7% 79.0% 85.0%

5.5% 11.2% 14.5% 10.1%

12.9% 11.3% 12.7% 7.9% 10.9% 2.3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Other 2,772,835 2,360,652 1,375,708 6,509,195 1,383,937

Manufacturing 1,180,832 2,337,607 2,537,782 6,056,221 7,575,462

Services 17,554,764 16,235,668 13,596,691 47,387,123 50,686,870 

< 20 

em ployees 

20–99 

em ployees

100–499 

em ployees SME total 500+ 

em ployees

Note: "Other" includes m ining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction; and construction. Excludes em ploym ent 

in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting; and data that could not be classified.

Source: SBA Advocacy, Data on Sm all Business, U.S. Data, from Census data.

Services accounted for the bulk of employment in both large firms and SMEs

21.1% 23.3% 22.0% 17.5% 23.1%

10.5% 6.1%

8.4%

9.4% 13.1%

7.9% 12.4%

11.5% 7.0%

5.9%

22.5% 16.8% 16.8%

14.4% 14.5%

14.5% 8.9% 12.0% 11.7% 19.5%

31.7% 27.7% 28.2% 29.3% 32.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Other 5,570,636 4,498,293 3,832,401 13,901,330 16,483,843

Accommodation and food services 2,055,207 3,161,239 1,632,460 6,848,906 4,532,320

Health care and social assistance 2,544,976 2,344,856 3,056,562 7,946,394 8,504,967

Administrative and support and w aste

management and remediation services

1,028,979 1,141,802 1,561,757 3,732,538 6,271,088

Professional, scientific, and technical

services

2,294,506 1,525,636 1,137,873 4,958,015 3,096,079

Wholesale and retail trade 4,060,460 3,563,842 2,375,638 9,999,940 11,798,573

< 20 

employees

20–99 

employees

100–499 

employees SME total 500+ 

employees

Source: SBA Advocacy, Data on Sm all Business, U.S. Data, from Census data. 

Note: "Other" include utilities; transportation and warehousing; inform ation; finance and insurance; real estate and rental 

leasing; managem ent of com panies and enterprises; art, entertainm ent, and recreation; educational services; and other 

services.

FIGURE 2.4 Services sector employment by firm size, 2006

Wholesale and retail trade was an important service sector

 for large and small firms
2-7 

CAGR 0.80%

CAGR 1.06%

CAGR 1.63%

CAGR 1.48%

CAGR 1.13%

100

102

104

106

108

110

112

114

116

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

< 20 20–99 100–499 500+ SME

Index: 1998 = 100

CAGR = Com pound annual growth rate

Source: SBA Advocacy, Data on Sm all Business, U.S. Data, from Census data.

FIGURE 2.5 Growth of nonfarm private employment by firm size, 1998–2006

Num ber of em ployees per firm

Employment grew faster in large SMEs (100–499 employees) and large firms

classes from one year to the next.22 However, changes in employment shares can be 

misleading when examining job creation and net employment by firm size because the 

employment trends include the migration of firms into larger size classes.23

BLS data on net new jobs, which hold the firm’s size class constant, highlight the 

importance of employer SMEs in creating new jobs. 24 According to the data on net new 

jobs, SMEs accounted for 64.1 percent, on average, of net new jobs created per quarter 

by private sector firms during the approximately 16 years from the third quarter of 1992 

to the first quarter of 2009 (figure 2.6).25 Growth in net new jobs was evenly distributed 

across SMEs regardless of firm size. Significantly, 38.4 percent of gross job gains 

occurred in SMEs with fewer than 20 employees, compared to 22.7 percent for firms with 

500 or more employees (figure 2.7). However, these small firms also accounted for 39.1 

percent of gross job losses, reflecting the greater stability of larger firms.26

 22 For example, SBA Advocacy estimates that in 2008, 627,000 new firms were born and 595,000 firms 

closed. According to SBA Advocacy, 7 out of 10 new employer firms last at least two years, and about half 

survive five years. Most new firms start small. SBA Advocacy, Frequently Asked Questions, September 2009, 

1. 23 Edmiston, “The Role of Small and Large Businesses in Economic Development,” 2007, 75–78. 

Edmiston argues that the effects of small business failures and of the migration of small firms into larger size 

classes have outweighed the effects of migration of large firms into smaller size classes and small business 

startups, with the result that the employment share of larger firms has increased over time. 24 BLS uses the dynamic sizing method, which allocates each firm’s employment gain or loss during a 

quarter to the class size in which the change occurred. See BLS Business Employment Dynamics Technical 

Note, November 19, 2009. “Net new jobs” is the difference between job gains from opening or expanding 

firms and job losses from shrinking or closing firms. The data on net new jobs is from the BLS, Business 

Employment Dynamics Database. The database includes job gains and losses by establishments on a 

quarterly basis. It excludes government workers, private households, and establishments without employees. 25 BLS, Business Employment Dynamics Database, Supplemental Firm Size Tables, table D. 26 These job losses result in part from the relatively high exit rates of firms with 1–4 employees. BLS, 

Supplemental Firm Size Tables, table C. 
2-8 

20.3%

35.9%

22.4%

21.4%

< 20

20–99

100–499

500+

Source: BLS, Business Em ploym ent Dynam ics Database, table D.

Note: Data cover the third quarter of 1992 to the first quarter of 2009

Num ber of 

em ployees per firm

SMEs accounted for 64.1 percent of net new jobs

FIGURE 2.6 Average quarterly share of nonfarm private net new jobs by firm size, 1992–2009

Quarterly average net new jobs 1992–2009 = 281,000

22.7%

15.6%

23.4%

38.4%

22.1%

15.3%

23.5%

39.1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

< 20 20–99 100–499 500+

Job gains Job losses

Source: BLS, Business Em ploym ent Dynam ics Database, table C. 

Note: Data cover the third quarter of 1992 to the first quarter of 2009

FIGURE 2.7 Average quarterly share of job gains and losses by firm size, 1992–2009

Num ber of em ployees per firm

Small SMEs (< 20 employees) had the highest percentage of job gains and job losses
2-9 

Business startups, most of which start small, are also significant in generating job growth 

and new employment.27 According to a recent study, private sector business startups 

accounted for 3 percent of new jobs on average per year during 1980–2005.28

The impact of nonemployer firms on employment and employment growth is less clear 

than for employer firms. The number of nonemployers increased faster than the number 

of employer businesses between 1998 and 2006, reflecting the relative ease of exit and 

entry into business for nonemployers (figure 2.8). However, according to research based 

on 2002 Census data, the majority of these businesses are not “job creators,” but rather 

part-time efforts to earn supplemental income.29 Other research has found that some 

nonemployers create the foundation for future employer businesses. In studying nearly 

half of all nonemployer businesses in 40 industries from 1992 to 2000, this research 

found that over a three-year period, 3 percent of 7 million nonemployers (220,000 

businesses) migrated to become employers.30 More significantly, this 3 percent of firms 

represented 28 percent of young firms (three years old or less) in the sample, suggesting 

opportunities for employment growth from nonemployer firms. 

Economic Activity

SMEs contributed $4.7 trillion to the U.S. economy in 2004, or roughly 50 percent of U.S. 

private nonagricultural GDP. 31 The SME share of nonagricultural GDP remained 

relatively stable from 1998 to 2004.32 The services sectors were the most important for 

SME economic activity, accounting for 79.0 percent of SMEs’ contribution to GDP. The 

wholesale and retail trade sectors combined accounted for the largest share of SME GDP 

(15.3 percent), followed by real estate (11.6 percent) and professional, scientific, and 

technical services (11.1 percent). Manufacturing (combined with mining) ranked fourth 

among the economic sectors, accounting for 11.0 percent of SME GDP in 2004, followed 

by construction (10.0 percent) (figure 2.9). 

The GDP pattern is different for large firms, where manufacturing and mining accounted 

for 23.3 percent of large firms’ contribution to GDP in 2004, followed by wholesale and 

retail trade (figure 2.10). Other notable differences between SMEs’ and large firms’ 

contributions to GDP include the relatively larger roles of financial and insurance 

services in large-firm GDP and professional, scientific, and technical services in small- 

 27 According to SBA Advocacy, 99.8 percent of new employer establishments were started by small 

firms. See Frequently Asked Questions, 2009, 1. 28 Haltiwanger, Jarmin, and Miranda, Jobs Created from Business Startups in the United States, 2009, 1. 

This study suggests that U.S. net employment growth would have been negative, on average, without these 

jobs. The authors also found that startups remained robust, even during cyclical contractions, particularly for 

firms with 1–4 employees. 29 Shane, “Nonemployer Firms: The Impact of Companies without Employees,” July 13, 2009. 30 Davis et al., “Measuring the Dynamics of Young and Small Businesses,” 2009, 331. 31 Kobe, The Small Business Share of GDP, 1998–2004, 2007. This study was prepared for SBA 

Advocacy. Kobe notes that estimates of small-firm GDP have often not covered the agricultural sector.

Estimates of large- and small-firm GDP are based on compensation, business taxes, and gross operating 

income data from BEA. 32 Ibid., 1. 
2-10 

FIGURE 2.8 Growth of nonfarm private nonemployer and employer firms, 1998–2006

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Nonem ployers firm s Em ployers firm s

Index: 1998 = 100

Total nonem ployer firm s in 1998 = 15,708,727

Source: SBA Advocacy, Data on Sm all Business, Nonem ployer Statistics and U.S. Data, from Census 

d t

Nonemployers grew faster than employers

FIGURE 2.9 SME nonagricultural GDP by sector, 2004

10.0% 11.0%

11.1%

11.6%

15.3%

8.0%

9.4%

23.5%

Wholesale and retail trade

Real estate

Professional, scientific, and technical services

Manufacturing and m ining

Construction

Health care and social assistance

Finance and insurance

Other

Note: "Other" includes services sectors: utilities, transportation, inform ation, education, entertainm ent, 

accom m odation and food, adm inistrative and support and waste m anagem ent and rem ediation services, 

m anagem ent of com panies, and other services.

Source: Kobe, The Sm all Business Share of GDP, 1998 – 2004 , 2007, 8-9.

Services sectors accounted for the largest shares of SME GDP

SME GDP = $4.7 trillion
2-11 

20.6%

4.4%

23.3%

16.6%

9.6% 11.9%

7.8%

5.7%

Manufacturing and m ining

Wholesale and retail trade

Finance and insurance

Inform ation

Health care and social assistance

Professional, scientific, and technical services

Transportation and warehousing

Other

Source: Kobe, The Sm all Business Share of GDP, 1998-2004 , 2007, 8-9.

FIGURE 2.10 Large firms' nonagricultural GDP by sector, 2004

Note: " Other" includes construction and services sectors: utilities, education, entertainm ent, accom m odation 

and food, adm inistrative and support and waste m anagem ent and rem ediation services, m anagem ent of 

com panies, and other services.

Manufacturing and mining sectors accounted for the largest share, but services 

sectors as a group predominated

Large firms' GDP = $4.6 trillion

firm GDP. SMEs accounted for over 80 percent of the construction and “other services” 

sectors’ contributions to U.S. GDP.33

Other indicators of economic activity highlight the importance of SMEs in the U.S. 

economy. In 2002 (latest available data), SMEs accounted for 40 percent of U.S. firm 

sales.34 Additionally, SMEs accounted for 44 percent of U.S. payrolls in 2006.35

Other Characteristics of SMEs 

Besides employment, SMEs provide two other unique contributions to the U.S. economy. 

These contributions are (1) the role that SMEs play in innovation and (2) the 

opportunities they provide for all citizens, including minorities, to develop 

entrepreneurial skills and grow businesses. 

SMEs are an important source of innovative processes, products, and services. One way 

to measure a firm’s propensity to innovate is through patent filings. A recent study 

released by SBA Advocacy demonstrates that small firms produce significantly more 

patents per employee than large firms and that their patents are more technologically 

important, according to patent impact metrics.36 Small firms also have been found to be 

 33 Kobe, The Small Business Share of GDP, 1998–2004, 2007, 1. 34 SBA Advocacy, Data on Small Business, U.S. Data. 

35 Ibid. 

36 Breitzman and Hicks, An Analysis of Small Business Patents, November 2008, iii. 
2-12 

more profit- and cost-efficient, producing more innovations for a given amount of 

research and development expenditures.37 While both large firms and SMEs undertake 

innovations that result in technological advances, SMEs can be more efficient in the 

innovative process.38

In 2002, minority-owned businesses represented roughly 18 percent of all firms and were 

mostly SMEs rather than large companies. 39 In comparison, minorities represented 

approximately 27 percent of the labor force in 2000, according to Census. 40 More 

specifically, among employer firms, minority-owned businesses accounted for 

approximately 11.6 percent of firms with fewer than 500 employees and for an estimated 

2.5 percent of firms with 500 or more employees in 2002.41 Approximately 85 percent of 

minority-owned employer firms employed fewer than 10 employees, as compared to an 

estimated 80 percent of white-owned employer firms.42 Small-business opportunities are 

also important to minorities and immigrants because an increasing percentage of 

remittances abroad from immigrants in the United States are related to small-business 

transactions.43 Additionally, a study for SBA Advocacy found that approximately 16 

percent of the companies in their sample of high-tech companies had at least one foreignborn person among their founding teams, which highlights the important role of foreignborn individuals in U.S. high-tech entrepreneurship.44

Characteristics of Small Farm Businesses

Although 68 percent of all U.S. farm businesses in 2007 were small farms, small farms 

accounted for only 11 percent ($31 billion) of the total commercial value of all 

agricultural production in 2007 (figure 2.11). By contrast, large farms accounted for 32 

percent of all farm businesses and 89 percent of the value of farm production. 

Although small farms contributed less than one-third of the total value of farm production 

for any given commodity in 2007, small farm contributions varied significantly by 

commodity. Small farms accounted for 15–30 percent of the value of production of 

various field crops (e.g., grains and oilseeds) and other livestock (e.g., horses, sheep, and 

goats) (figure 2.12). The smallest farms were more likely to be involved in agricultural 

production requiring less labor and capital investment and having lower costs, such as 

grazing animals (e.g., cattle and other livestock).45 

 37 Vossen, “Combining Small and Large Firm Advantages in Innovation,” 1998, 6–7. 38 Edmiston, “The Role of Small and Large Businesses,” 2007, 89. 

39 “Minority-owned” is defined as any firm with “Black or African American, American Indian and 

Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, or Hispanic or Latino” owners holding a 

51 percent or larger stake. Census, 2002 Survey of Business Owners: Statistics for Minority-owned Firms. 40 The Commission defined a minority as an individual of “Black or African American, American Indian 

and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, or Hispanic or Latino” race or 

ethnicity. To derive labor force participation rates for this segment of the population, the Commission 

subtracted Census’ “White non-Hispanic” U.S. labor force data from U.S. labor force totals. See Census, 

2000 EEO Data Tool. Minority-owned business statistics for SMEs and large firms can be found in Census, 

2002 Survey of Business Owners: Company Summary, 2006, table C (firms with employees) and table D 

(firms with no paid employees). 41 Census, 2002 Survey of Business Owners: Small Employer Firms, 2009. 42 Census, 2002 Survey of Business Owners: Company Summary, 2006, table Q. 43 National Minority Business Council, e-mail message to Commission staff, December 2, 2009. 44 Hart, Acs, and Tracy, High-Tech Immigrant Entrepreneurship in the United States, July 2009, 33. 45 Hoppe et al., Structure and Finances of U.S. Farms, June 2007, 9. 
2-13 

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Sm all farm s

Large farm s

Num ber of farm s Value of production

Source: USDA, ERS, ARMS , August 6, 2009.

FIGURE 2.11 Value of commercial farm production and number of farms by farm size, 2007

The value of commercial production for large farms was much higher than for small 

farms, despite the smaller number of large farms

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Wheat

Soybeans

General livestock

Other field crops

General cash grains

Tobacco, cotton, peanuts

Corn

Cattle

Dairy

Fruit, vegetables, nursery

Hogs

Poultry

Small farms Large farms

Source: USDA, ERS, ARMS , August 6, 2009.

FIGURE 2.12 Value of commercial farm production by crop and farm size, 2007

Large farms have a higher share in the value of commercial crop and livestock 

production than small farms
2-14 

Farms whose size was near the boundary between “large” and “small” were more likely 

to specialize in field crop production, while the largest farms were more apt to be 

involved in poultry, hogs, and high-value crops (e.g., fruits, vegetables, and nurseries). 

Higher-value agricultural products are typically produced on large farms due to higher 

labor requirements and necessary marketing expertise.46 Swine production, for example, 

is dominated by large farms due to production efficiencies associated with larger 

operations that specialize in a single phase of production and contract production.47

It is uncommon for a farmer to directly engage in exporting agricultural products. Instead, 

agricultural products are typically purchased by an intermediary, such as a cooperative or 

private firm (e.g., Cargill), that purchases large quantities of a commodity from numerous 

farmers. The intermediary then either processes the commodity or sells the commodity 

directly to a domestic or foreign buyer. 

Characteristics of SMEs as Exporters

Characteristics of Firms That Export

Most U.S. firms, including SMEs, do not export directly to foreign markets. According to 

a study for SBA Advocacy, less than 2 percent of all U.S. firms exported directly in 

2002.48 Merchandise exports also constituted a smaller share of the economic activity of 

SMEs than of larger firms. As noted above, exports accounted for 3.8 percent of SME 

GDP in 2004—only one-third of the proportion (11.5 percent) that exports contributed to 

large-firm GDP, based on Census figures for direct merchandise exports. 

According to a recent study, while most firms do not export, those that do tend to be 

larger and more productive. One study found that 3.1 percent of U.S. firms exported 

goods in 2000 and that the top 1 percent of these exporting firms accounted for 11.0 

percent of U.S. workers and 80.9 percent of the value of U.S. exports.49 This study also 

found that firms that exported (particularly firms in the retail and wholesale trade), as 

well as those that switched from nonexporting to exporting, increased their employment 

more rapidly than other firms between 1993 and 2000. Significantly, exporters have been 

shown to be more skill- and capital-intensive, to display higher productivity, and to pay 

higher wages than nonexporting firms. 50 These same characteristics differentiate 

exporting and nonexporting firms regardless of the size of the exporting firm.51

Manufacturers, service providers, and farms have different marketing channels they use 

to supply foreign markets. They can sell directly to foreign customers or use export 

intermediaries (such as wholesalers, transportation companies, brokers, or processors) 

who use their products/services in their sales abroad (figure 2.13). Further research is 

 46 Hoppe et al., Structure and Finances of U.S. Farms, June 2007, 10. 47 Key and McBride, “The Changing Economics of U.S. Hog Production,” December 2007, 27. 48 Headd and Sadde, Do Business Definition Decisions Impact Small Business Research Results? 2008. 

Data are from the Census’ 2002 Survey of Business Owners. This survey will be updated in 2010. 49 Bernard, Jensen, and Schott, “Importers, Exporters and Multinationals,” 2009, tables 1 and 2, 514. 50 Bernard et al., “Firms in International Trade,” 2007, 105.

51 Ibid. 
2-15 

FIGURE 2.13 Avenues for firm exports

needed to more fully understand the characteristics of SMEs that contribute to export 

supply chains. 

Constraints on SME Exporters

Compared to larger firms, SMEs are typically characterized as “resource-constrained,” a 

situation that lessens their ability to export. SMEs are more likely to face scarcities of 

financial and human resources that limit their ability to act on opportunities abroad. For 

example, such factors as limited personnel, the inability to meet quality standards, lack of 

financial backing, and insufficient knowledge of foreign markets may be important 

constraints affecting SME exporters.52 Exporting is often viewed as a risky venture that 

can be costly to the firm; to be successful, a small firm must acquire sufficient resources 

to mitigate the higher risk of operating in international markets.53 To help SMEs mitigate 

some of the risk associated with selling abroad, several U.S. government agencies, 

 52 Patel and D’Souza, Leveraging Entrepreneurial Orientation to Enhance SME Performance, 2009, 3. 

These constraints are often referred to as organizational impediments. 53 Dhanaraj and Beamish, “A Resource-Based Approach to the Study of Export Performance,” 2003, 

245. 
2-16 

including the U.S. Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the 

SBA, Commerce, and others, have instituted formal programs that facilitate SME exports. 

According to a study for the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), SMEs 

must often deal with higher costs of goods sold and a reduced ability to absorb regulatory 

and other business costs because the unit cost of many goods and services declines as 

companies become larger and purchases increase. 54 Scale economies provide larger 

manufacturing establishments a competitive advantage in exporting, according to The 

Manufacturing Institute (TMI).55 However, the Internet, government programs, and new 

technologies that benefit smaller-scale production of commoditized products have helped 

to increase SME export sales. 56 The share of manufacturing SMEs reporting to the 

National Association of Manufacturers that exports account for more than one-fourth of 

their sales grew from 3.8 percent in 2001 to 12.8 percent in 2008.57

Many of the businesses operated by SMEs are not export-oriented. In a survey 

undertaken for the NFIB in 2008, “Exporting My Products/Services” was ranked as the 

least important problem, out of 75, facing small business owners, and had remained 

unchanged since 1986.58 According to this survey, growth for small businesses often 

means expanding in the local area, not selling in foreign markets. On the other hand, 

“Exporting My Products/Services” was considered a “critical” problem for 2 percent of 

the firms in the NFIB survey. 

Entrepreneurial Orientation and SME Exports

Recently, a study for SBA Advocacy examined entrepreneurial orientation, as defined by 

risk-taking, proactiveness, and innovativeness, as a factor affecting SMEs’ ability to 

export.59 Based on a survey of 270 manufacturing SMEs,60 this study found that certain 

entrepreneurial characteristics, such as being proactive and taking risks, helped small 

firms overcome export impediments and improve export performance. Proactive firms, as 

defined in this study, are those that anticipate future market needs; risk-taking firms were 

defined as those that deviate from the status quo; and innovative firms were defined as 

those that engage in and support new ideas and creativity.61 The study suggested that 

proactiveness and risk-taking help firms to create a first-mover advantage through 

anticipating future demand and bringing new products quickly into the marketplace. In 

regard to innovation and export performance, the study suggested that resource-strapped 

SMEs might imitate, rather than innovate, and standardize their products or services as 

strategies to reduce the liabilities of being small.62

 54 Phillips and Wade, Small Business Problems & Priorities, June 2008, 49. 55 TMI, Facts about Modern Manufacturing, 2009, 20. 56 Ibid. 

57 Ibid. 

58 Phillips and Wade, Small Business Problems & Priorities, June 2008, 10. Roughly 80 percent of the 

NFIB survey firms had fewer than 20 employees, a firm category reflective of the size distribution in the U.S.

economy. The problem of most concern to the survey firms was the cost of health care. 59 Patel and D’Souza, Leveraging Entrepreneurial Orientation to Enhance SME Performance, 2009. 60 Their study limited SMEs to less than 250 employees. 

61 These three attributes were measured using nine-item, seven-point scales developed in the literature. 62 Patel and D’Souza, Leveraging Entrepreneurial Orientation to Enhance SME Performance, 2009, 23.
3-1 

CHAPTER 3 

The Role of SMEs in U.S. Merchandise 

Exports 

SMEs accounted for approximately 30 percent of known U.S. merchandise exports 

between 1997 and 2007 (figure 3.1). During this period, the value of SMEs’ merchandise 

exports increased from $152.9 billion to $306.6 billion (100.5 percent), and large firms’ 

merchandise exports increased from $385.1 billion to $719.2 billion (86.7 percent).1

While SMEs’ principal export products and markets were broadly similar to those of 

large firms as of 2007, SMEs exported a higher share to higher-income small markets. 

FIGURE 3.1 U.S. merchandise exports by firm size and share of exports by SMEs, 1997–2007

SMEs accounted for approximately 30 percent of total exports 

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Export Value (Billions of $)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Share (%)

SMEs Unknown Large firms SME share of known export value

Source: Official Census statistics. 

Note: SME and large-firm export data are classified as known values—export values for which Census was able to 

match the reported exporter with its firm size. The “unknown” value is the difference between total recorded exports 

and the known values. 

The characteristics of exports by SMEs and large firms are broadly similar: the principal 

markets for both are Canada and Mexico, and the principal products exported are 

computers and electronics products and machinery. SMEs differ from large firms in 

terms of which export markets they sell to and the type of export products they sell. For 

example, SMEs have substantially increased their share of merchandise exports to highincome small markets such as Israel and Switzerland as well as their export share of 

lower export value product categories, such as apparel and wood products. In addition, 

 1

 Total U.S. merchandise exports amounted to $1.2 trillion in 2007, up 69.1 percent from 

1997. Both SME export growth (100.5 percent) and large-firm export growth (86.7 percent) were 

higher than total export growth because of the negative growth associated with the “unknown” 

portion of the data (the data for which the size of the exporting firm is unknown). 
3-2 

whereas large firms increased export value almost exclusively by increasing the average 

amount each firm exported (value per firm), SME merchandise exports grew during 

1997–2007 both because existing SMEs were exporting more (value per firm) and 

because more SMEs were exporting (number of exporting SMEs). 

As described in chapter 1, data on SME merchandise exports come from various sources 

within Census and cover the period 1997–2007.2

 These data include merchandise exports 

broken down by firm type (manufacturing, wholesale, and “other”), firm size, types of 

products exported, and export markets (see box 3.1).3

 Census matched merchandise 

export data (from such sources as Shippers Export Declarations and IRS information) 

with information in its Business Register database to develop export statistics with firm 

size and firm type attributes of “known” values. The “unknown” export value, therefore, 

is the merchandise export data that Census was unable to match to a specific company in 

its Business Register database.4

 This chapter presents data on trends in overall 

merchandise export value, principal export markets, and principal export products, by 

SME and large firms.5

 Each section also provides data and analysis by firm type and firm 

size, as appropriate.6

 The data presented hereafter do not include the exports by firms for 

which the size of the exporting firm is “unknown” (see footnote 1). 

Although manufacturers accounted for the largest share of merchandise exports—64.0–

74.5 percent of all U.S. merchandise exports between 1997 and 2007 (figure 3.2)— 

exports by nonmanufacturers (wholesalers and “other”) grew at a much faster pace (130.4 

percent) than total U.S. merchandise exports (69.1 percent). Consequently, 

nonmanufacturers increased their share of total export value by approximately 6 

percentage points. Within nonmanufacturing exports, the value of wholesalers’ exports 

increased much faster than the value of exports by “other” firms—11.1 percent per year 

compared to 6.1 percent per year during 1997–2007. As a result, wholesaler exporters 

 2

 SME export data are available from 1997 to 2007. The Commission chose 2002 as the base 

year for product- and market-specific analysis because of two factors: 2002 was the first year to 

have significantly fewer missing data than previous years, and 2002 coincided with the Economic 

Census. The Economic Census (conducted every five years by Census) generated detailed 

information on production and employment for SMEs for 1997 and 2002 that can be easily 

matched to the export data given in this report. 3

 Firm type includes manufacturer, wholesaler, and “other.” The wholesaler firm type includes 

firms engaged in wholesaling of merchandise, generally without transformation. “Other” firms 

include manufacturers of prepackaged software and books; freight forwarders and other 

transportation service firms; business services firms; firms that provide engineering and 

management services; gas and oil extraction companies; coal mining companies; communications 

service firms; and a number of small specialties. Firm sizes include 0–19 employees, 20–99 

employees, 100–499 employees, and 500+ employees. As described in chapter 1, SMEs are firms 

with 0–499 employees. Product data are available by 3-digit North America Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) categories, 2002–07. Merchandise export data by country cover 

the top 20 countries based on 2007 SME exports for the 2002–07 period. 4

 Two sources of possible data distortion should be noted. First, because Census was unable to 

match every merchandise export transaction to its Business Register database, it gave priority to 

higher export values. Second, because the percentage of merchandise trade value that is unknown 

tended to decrease each year, the number of small exporting companies and their associated 

“known” value are most likely understated in earlier years. 5

 Data on merchandise exports by market and product are available only at the 

manufacturer/nonmanufacturer level. U.S. merchandise exports data by wholesalers and “other” 

firms are unavailable. 6

 See appendix C for additional data. 
3-3 

BOX 3.1 Limited Information on Original Manufacturers 

Assessment of the overall value, attributes, and source of growth of SME exports is hampered by the lack of 

information on the original suppliers of manufactured goods. The limitations associated with SME wholesalers’ 

exports present a particular challenge: although the exporting firm may be an SME, it may have sourced the exported 

products either from another SME or from a large firm. The same is true for large wholesalers. Consequently, figures 

on SME wholesaler exports do not necessarily comprehensively reflect SME production, exports of SME products, or 

SME manufacturing employment. Moreover, the heterogeneous nature of “other” firms also obscures comparisons 

between export activity and domestic economic activity. The Commission believes, however, that for manufacturers, 

the size of the producing and exporting firms are more closely associated than for exports by nonmanufacturing firms 

such as wholesalers. The figure below illustrates how official wholesale SME export data could reflect manufacturing 

conducted by large manufacturers, which would skew our understanding of SME export behavior. 

Major components of SME merchandise export data 
3-4 

FIGURE 3.2 U.S. merchandise exports by firm type, 1997–2007 

Manufacturers’ exports dominate total U.S. merchandise exports, 

but the export share of wholesalers is growing 

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Value (Billions of $)

Manufacturers Wholesalers Other companies

Source: Official Census statistics.

increased their share of nonmanufacturer exports from 47 percent to 60 percent over this 

period. 

SME participation, however, differs substantially across different types of firms. Whereas 

SMEs represented a small share of manufacturer exports (15.7 percent), they represented 

the majority of nonmanufacturer exports (57.1 percent). SMEs’ share of nonmanufacturer 

exports has, however, declined from 65.3 percent in 1997, as exports by large 

nonmanufacturer firms grew faster than those by SME nonmanufacturer firms. 

Furthermore, as discussed in box 3.1, due to data limitations, it is unclear what share of 

these merchandise exports were actually manufactured primarily by SMEs, as 

wholesalers may purchase their merchandise from both SMEs and large firms. 

Merchandise exports by SMEs also were more evenly distributed among firm types than 

merchandise exports by large firms (figure 3.3). 

As noted, total exports generally increased either because more firms exported (increase 

in the number of exporting firms) or because exporting firms, on average, exported more 

(increase in the average per-firm export value), or both. The role of these two sources of 

export value growth differed between large firms and SMEs, as well as among SME size 

categories. While total SME merchandise exports increased rapidly between 1997 and 

2007, this increase is attributable both to an approximately 80 percent increase in the 

export value per firm and to an approximately 30 percent increase in the number of 

exporting firms (an increase of nearly 60,000 firms from 190,000 in 1997). By contrast, 

the number of large exporting firms remained relatively unchanged (increasing by 75 

firms or 1.1 percent), whereas export value per firm increased 48.1 percent during this 

period. Therefore, while SMEs contributed 31.5 percent of the overall export value 

growth, they accounted for nearly 100 percent of the growth in the number of exporting 

firms (figure 3.4). 
3-5 

FIGURE 3.3 U.S. merchandise exports by firm type and firm size, 1997–2007 

SME exports are more evenly split among firm types 

Manufacturers' exports dominate large-firm exports

Large-firm exports

SME exports

-

100

200

300

400

500

600

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Value (Billions of $)

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Share (%)

Manufacturers Wholesalers Other companies Manufacturer share

-

100

200

300

400

500

600

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Value (Billions of $)

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Share (%)

Manufacturers Wholesalers Other companies Manufacturer share

Source: Official Census statistics. 
3-6 

FIGURE 3.4 U.S. merchandise exports, by value of exports, number of exporting firms, and average 

export value per firm by firm size, 1997 and 2007 

By value, exports for all firm sizes increased substantially during 1997–2007, but the number of 

exporting firms with fewer than 20 employees also increased 

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

-50,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000

Firms (number)

Export value (Millions of $)

Note. The size of the 

bubble corresponds to 

the average per-firm 

export value.a

Large-firm exports, 2007: 

$102.3 million per firm

Large-firm exports, 1997: 

$55.4 million per firm

SME exports, 1997: $0.8 

million per firm

SME exports, 2007: $1.2 

million per firm

Source: Official Census statistics. 

Note: Space was needed on the left of the 0 value on the horizontal axis to accommodate the size of the bubbles. 

a The average exports value per firm size for 1997 and 2007 is plotted by the total value of exports (Y-axis) and total 

number of exporting firms (X-axis). The bubble titles include information on firm size, year, and the per-firm average 

export value (total firm size divided by number of exporting firms). 

The extent to which SMEs exported depended on the size of the firm. In general, the 

larger the SME, the more it exported and the more the average export value per firm 

increased.7

 Census data confirmed that SMEs with fewer than 20 employees accounted 

for almost all of the growth in the number of exporting firms (94.8 percent in 1997–

2007). However, they exported, on average, only $0.76 million per firm (an increase of 

53.3 percent over 1997). SME firms with 20–99 employees each exported an average of 

nearly $1.5 million (an increase of 63.0 percent over 1997), and SMEs with 100–499 

employees exported nearly $5.4 million per firm (an increase of 105.1 percent over 

1997). 

 7

 This is consistent with what Bernard and Jensen found in 1999. Bernard and Jenson, 

“Exceptional Exporter Performance,” 1999. 
3-7 

Export Markets 

NAFTA partners Canada and Mexico were the largest export markets for both SME and 

large -irm merchandise during 2002–07. Combined, these markets accounted for 30.8 

percent of total U.S. merchandise exports in 2007—21.8 percent of SME exports and 

32.9 percent of large-firm exports (figure 3.5). As noted above, the principal SME 

exports to Canada and Mexico were computers and electrical products, machinery, and 

chemicals. Compared to large firms, SMEs accounted for a higher share of exports to 

smaller high-income markets, such as Hong Kong, Israel, and Switzerland. For example, 

the SME share of total U.S. merchandise exports to Hong Kong, Israel, and Switzerland 

combined was 41.6 percent in 2007, well above the SME share of total exports (30.2 

percent). The main SME exports to Hong Kong, Israel, and Switzerland were 

miscellaneous manufactured commodities, computers and electrical products, and 

chemicals. 

Although Canada and Mexico were the leading markets for both SME and large-firm 

exports between 2002 and 2007, export growth to these markets during this period was 

below average. Whereas total exports grew by 96.7 percent for SMEs and 63.0 percent 

for large firms, export growth to Canada and Mexico combined was 70.8 percent for 

SMEs and 48.0 percent for large firms. In contrast, emerging markets such as China and 

India had above-average export growth for both SMEs and large firms. SME and largefirm exports to China and India combined increased more than 200 percent (225.7 

percent for SMEs and 214.9 percent for large firms) between 2002 and 2007. The product 

categories that contributed the most to SME export growth to these emerging markets 

were machinery, chemicals, and computers and electrical products. As a result of the 

differing growth rates between the leading markets (Canada and Mexico) and emerging 

markets (China and India), the former’s share of total SME exports decreased from 29.8 

percent in 2002 to 25.9 percent in 2007, and the latter’s share of total SME exports 

increased from 5.0 percent to 8.4 percent over the same period. 

Manufacturer Exports by Market

As shown in figure 3.6, for the 20 markets examined, manufacturer SME exports 

exhibited a closer relationship between market characteristics (such as size of market, per 

capita income, and GDP growth) and performance (e.g., SME export market share and 

change in SME export market share from 2002 to 2007) than large-firm manufacturer 

exports did.8

 Specifically, SME performance was generally above average for U.S. export 

markets in the highest-income small markets, average for U.S. export markets in the 

largest markets, and below average for U.S. export markets in large emerging markets 

(figure 3.6).9

 For example, the markets where manufacturer SMEs had the largest export 

 8

 Analysis similar to that displayed in figure 3.6 was done for exports from all firm types. The 

corresponding figure can be found in Appendix C (figures C.1 and C.2). 9

 “Highest-income small markets” are countries in which the 2007 GDP PPP per capita was 

more than $32,000 and to which the United States exported more than $10 billion but less than 

$35 billion. “Largest markets” are countries that are not defined as emerging markets and that 

received more than $45 billion in exports from the United States in 2007. “Large emerging 

markets” are countries in which 2007 GDP PPP per capita was less than $10,000, GDP growth 

was more than 5 percent, and exports from the United States exceeded $15 billion. Hong Kong 

and Singapore were excluded as outliers due to their roles in transshipment. 
3-8 

FIGURE 3.5 U.S. merchandise exports to 20 major markets 

Canada and Mexico have been major destinations 

0 50 100 150 200

Malaysia

Israel

Italy

Singapore

Australia

India

Switzerland

France

Brazil

Belgium

Taiwan

Hong Kong

Netherlands

Korea

Germany

United Kingdom

Japan

China

Mexico

Canada

SMEs Large firms

23.2

20.6

38.0

32.0

18.1

28.6

29.9

37.6

21.6

27.3

27.1

25.7

46.6

33.8

33.7

26.0

34.2

31.0

34.3

28.9

74.4

54.4

58.7

54.6

66.8

119.4

232.3

129.5

80.2

142.2

147.6

45.9

73.3

216.5

74.1

114.7

93.1

28.8

224.3

66.4

1.8

5.3

-7.9

2.1

0.1

9.9

-8.9

5.9

4.1

4.5

5.8

-1.0

2.4

13.8

3.7

2.4

7.2

1.1

2.8

4.1

World Average: 30.2 96.7 3.8

SME 

share, 

2007

(%)

SME 

growth, 

2002–07

(% change)

Change in 

share, 

2002–07 

(percentage 

points)

Billions of $

Source: Official Census statistics. 
3-9 

FIGURE 3.6 U.S. manufacturer merchandise exports by major destination market, 2007. 

Israel

Switzerland

Malaysia

Hong Kong

Italy

India

Australia

Brazil

Taiwan

Singapore

Belgium

France

Korea

Netherlands

Germany United Kingdom

Japan

China

Mexico

Canada

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

10 15 20 25 30

SME share of manufacturer exports, 2007 (percent)

Change in SME share of manufacturer exports, 2002-07 (percentage points)

SME exports to highest-income small markets 

were above average in terms of SME share of 

exports and increase in SME share.

SME exports to the largest markets were average 

in terms of SME share of exports and increase in 

SME share.

SME exports to large emerging markets were 

largely below average in terms of SME share of 

exports and increase in SME share. Average = 15.7

Average = 2.4

Source: Official Census statistics. 

Note: The large ovals group together the different types of major markets to which SMEs export: highest-income 

small markets, largest markets, and large emerging markets. The small circles represent the relative value of SME 

manufacturer exports. The grid lines show the relative position of two significant for all destination markets: the SME 

share of exports (15.7 percent) and the change in SME share of exports (2.4 percentage points). 

market share and the largest increase in export market share were the Netherlands and 

Switzerland. By contrast, despite a 190.4 percent increase in manufacturer SME exports, 

manufacturer SME export share in emerging markets such as China, Brazil, and India 

remained below average and changed very little from 2002 to 2007. 

Nonmanufacturer Exports by Market 10

In general, the breakdown of leading markets for nonmanufacturer SMEs by value was 

broadly similar to that for SME exports from all firm types. Nonmanufacturer exports, 

however, reflect the relatively large role of SMEs in nonmanufacturer (wholesaling and 

“other”) exports. As described above, SMEs represent 57.1 percent of nonmanufacturer 

exports, compared to 30.2 percent of exports from all firm types. As a result, the 

relatively large SME shares in almost all markets for nonmanufactured goods reflect this 

difference in SME exporting activity by firm type. In addition, SME market shares in 

emerging markets were substantially higher than the SME share of total nonmanufacturer 

 10 Merchandise exports by firms other than the manufacturers, e.g., wholesalers. 
3-10 

exports (57.1 percent). For example, the SME nonmanufacturer share for China and India 

combined was 69.4 percent, more than 12 percentage points above the average. 

Principal Products

Like those of large firms, SME exports are concentrated in four main product categories: 

computers and electronic products, chemicals, machinery, and transportation equipment. 

These four product categories combined accounted for almost 50 percent of total SME 

exports (figure 3.7). SME export market shares for these product categories were either 

below or essentially equal to the SME share of total exports. Transportation equipment 

had the smallest SME market share (15.2 percent) relative to large firms. The leading 

product categories in terms of SME export market share were in two of the lowest 

export value product categories: wood products, and apparel and accessories. Although 

these products combined made up less than 1 percent of total exports, SMEs accounted 

for more than 50 percent of the value of these products. 

A surge in petroleum prices explains much of the almost 500 percent increase in the 

value of petroleum product exports between 2002 and 2007. Primary metals, beverages 

and tobacco products, and chemicals also had relatively large percent increases in export 

value over the period. Although the primary export markets for these high-growth 

products were Canada and Mexico, increases in exports to the Netherlands, China, and 

Germany also played an important role. 

While petroleum products led in percent growth of SME export value, SMEs gained the 

most export market share in smaller product categories, such as beverages and tobacco 

products, apparel and accessories, and leather products. SMEs increased their export 

market share by an average of 11.0 percentage points for these product categories, 

compared to an average increase in SME market share of 3.8 percentage points. Unlike 

other product categories, the increase in SME market share for apparel and accessories is 

largely the result of a steep decline in exports of these products by large firms since 2002. 

The largest markets for SME exports of beverages and tobacco products, apparel and 

accessories, and leather products combined were Mexico, Canada, and Japan. 

Manufacturer Exports by Product 

Similar to SME exports from all firm types, computers and electronic products, 

machinery, and chemicals were the leading export product categories for manufacturer 

SMEs, and SMEs had relatively larger shares of manufacturer exports in smaller product 

categories. Whereas petroleum products led in growth of SME export value from all firm 

types, primary metals led in manufacturer SME export value growth, increasing almost 

200 percent from 2002 to 2007. Similar to petroleum, however, this large increase is 

generally due to the high relative increase in prices for raw materials, especially metals, 

during that period. As with SMEs of all firm types (figure 3.7), manufacturer SMEs 

gained the most market share in smaller product categories, such as beverages and 

tobacco products, apparel and accessories, and leather products. 
3-11 

FIGURE 3.7 U.S. merchandise exports by product category 

SMEs export chiefly computers/electronic products, machinery, chemicals, and transportation 

equipment 

0 50 100 150 200

All nonmanufactured products

Textile mill products

Furniture and fixtures

Leather and allied products

Beverages and tobacco products

Apparel and accessories

Printed matter and related products, n.e.s.o.i.

Nonmetallic mineral products

Wood products

Textiles and fabrics

Paper

Plastics and rubber products

Electrical equipment, appliances, and component

Petroleum and coal products

Fabricated metal products, n.e.s.o.i.

Primary metal manufacturing

Food and kindred products

Miscellaneous manufactured commodities

Transportation equipment

Chemicals

Machinery, except electrical

Computers and electronics products

SMEs Large firms

27.6

49.2

40.5

29.2

56.2

36.4

29.4

62.7

36.0

26.8

33.3

26.4

31.7

37.6

32.5

45.4

44.3

15.2

24.8

30.6

38.4

40.3

59.9

138.3

70.1

172.5

-10.0

12.0

67.7

42.2

9.0

43.7

61.0

83.4

488.2

109.5

209.3

75.2

106.7

66.8

143.8

95.4

68.3

61.5

5.6

-3.0

-1.5

16.3

15.9

-12.5

3.5

2.5

-2.0

-0.8

6.8

2.1

8.6

7.4

2.1

4.5

-0.2

0.5

5.4

2.3

4.6

7.8

Billions of $

SME 

share, 

2007

(%)

SME 

growth, 

2002–07

(% change)

Change in 

share, 

2002–07 

(percentage 

points)

Average for all products: 30.2 96.7 3.8

Source: Official Census statistics. 

Note: The abbreviation “n.e.s.o.i.” stands for “not elsewhere specified or included.”

Nonmanufacturer Exports by Product 

As was the case with SME exports from all firm types, the leading product categories for 

nonmanufacturer SME exporters were computers and electronic products, transportation 

equipment, machinery, and chemicals. These products accounted for 42.3 percent of all 

nonmanufacturer SME exports in 2007 (figure 3.7). One significant difference between 

exports from all firm types and nonmanufacturer exports was the SME share of 

transportation equipment exports. Whereas the SME share of this product category was 

15.2 percent for exports from all firm types (well below the average SME market share 

for all firm types), SMEs captured 66.2 percent of nonmanufacturer exports (above the 

average for SME nonmanufacturer exports). As with exports from all firm types, 

petroleum products and primary metals had the largest percentage increases in value 

among all nonmanufacturer SME exports (almost 700 percent and more than 200 percent, 

respectively) from 2002 to 2007. Nonmanufacturer SMEs gained the most export share in 

beverages and tobacco products, increasing from 59.6 percent in 2002 to 87.1 percent in 

2007. 

4-1 

CHAPTER 4 

The Role of SMEs in U.S. Services Exports

Limited information exists regarding exports of services by SMEs.1 However, this 

chapter provides some information pertaining to the likely destination of SME services 

exports by comparing data on affiliate transactions with data on traditional cross-border 

exports in three services sectors: wholesale trade services; professional, scientific, and 

technical services; and finance and insurance services (box 4.1). At the firm level, 

affiliate transactions and cross-border exports are often complements, a point that will be 

further discussed at the end of this chapter. 

BOX 4.1 BEA Data on International Service Transactions, and Differences Between Tradable and Nontradable 

Services

The BEA publishes data on both cross-border and affiliate trade in services. “Cross-border transactions” occur when 

suppliers in one country sell services to consumers in another country, with people, information, or money crossing 

national boundaries in the process. Such transactions appear explicitly as imports and exports in the balance of 

payments. Firms also provide services to foreign consumers through affiliates established in host countries, with the 

income generated by “affiliate transactions” appearing as direct investment income in the balance of payments. The 

channel of delivery used by service providers depends primarily on the nature of the services. For example, finance 

and insurance services and professional services may be supplied through both cross-border trade and affiliate 

transactions. Wholesale services, however, are typically provided through affiliate transactions rather than through 

cross-border channels. 

There is a significant body of economic literature that refers to tradable and nontradable services. In this literature, a 

tradable service is one that (a) can be exported in the conventional sense of the term (i.e., it crosses a border en 

route from the provider to the consumer) and (b) is captured as an export in the U.S. balance of payments. A 

tradable service occurs, for instance, when a U.S. firm, large enough to be included in BEA trade data, electronically 

transmits an architectural design to a Canadian builder. A nontradable service fails to meet one of the two criteria 

above. Haircuts and auto repairs are typical examples of nontradable services. The premise of the distinction is that 

though haircut and auto repair services may be traded, for instance, by the establishment of a foreign affiliate, their 

contributions to the U.S. economy in terms of jobs and GDP, may be different. 

The United States is one of the world’s leading participants in global services trade. 

Before 1997, U.S. services trade had been largely dominated by cross-border exports and 

imports. In recent years, however, growth in U.S. cross-border trade has been outpaced 

by growth in U.S. affiliate transactions.2

 The establishment of foreign affiliates by U.S. 

services firms is increasingly common, as firms recognize that most services are better 

supplied in proximity to the principal or final customers.3

 In addition, in some sectors, 

foreign regulations may effectively limit the provision of services to affiliate transactions. 

For example, in the insurance sector, some countries require that the foreign provision of 

personal lines of insurance be carried out by affiliates in order to comply with domestic 

financial solvency requirements.4

 In other services sectors, uncertainty over the 

protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) in foreign markets leads some firms to 

provide services through affiliates, thus keeping their intellectual property in-house, 

 1

 In a services roundtable hosted by the USITC on December 2, 2009, participants noted both the lack of 

comprehensive data on the services sector, as compared to the manufacturing sector, and the unavailability of 

specific data on cross-border trade by services SMEs. Hearing transcript, in connection with the Services 

Roundtable 2009, 44, 46–47. 2

 BEA, Survey of Current Business, October 2009, Table F, 33. 3

 Ibid., 22–23 and Table F, 33. Approximately 20 percent of affiliate transactions take place with 

customers outside the host country of the affiliate. 4

 USITC, Property and Casualty Insurance Services: Competitive Conditions in Foreign Markets, 

Investigation No. 332-499, March 2009, 3-1. 
4-2 

rather than through cross-border exports to unaffiliated firms.5 In 2006, U.S. firms’ sales 

of services through their foreign affiliates reached $890 billion, whereas U.S. crossborder exports of services were less than half that amount at $411 billion.6

 U.S. crossborder exports of services were largest in business, professional, and technical services;7

travel services; and royalties and license fees (figure 4.1).8

 

The affiliate transactions data presented in this chapter were gathered from ORBIS, a 

proprietary database. Although the ORBIS database is used primarily by investment 

banks and government agencies to track corporate financial activity, it is used in this 

chapter to obtain specific information on U.S. services SMEs with foreign affiliates. This 

information is not presently published by Census or BEA, though some SME activity 

may be captured by BEA in its aggregate data on cross-border trade and affiliate 

transactions in services (box 4.2).9

 It should be noted that while ORBIS data provide a 

preliminary snapshot of activity by U.S. services SMEs and their foreign affiliates, the 

data represent only a subset of total U.S. services SMEs operating domestically 

and in foreign markets. A comparison of Census and ORBIS data on U.S. services 

SMEs shows that ORBIS captures approximately 19 percent of services SMEs in the 

three primary services sectors examined here: wholesale trade services; professional, 

scientific, and technical services; and finance and insurance services (table D.1, appendix 

D).10

Overview of Trade Data on U.S. Services SMEs 

As noted previously, data on cross-border exports by U.S. SMEs in the services sector are 

unavailable.11 This section discusses data on services supplied by foreign affiliates of 

U.S. services SMEs in three industries: wholesale trade services; professional, scientific, 

and technical services; and finance and insurance services.12 In 2006, the latest year for 

which complete data are available from BEA, sales in these three industries accounted for 

55 percent of total sales by foreign affiliates of U.S. firms. No other industry accounted 

for more than 10 percent of total sales (figure 4.2).13

 5

 BEA, Survey of Current Business, October 2009, 30. 6

 Ibid., 23. 

7

 Ibid., 40 and 61. The category “business, professional, and technical services” found in BEA crossborder trade data is similar to the category of “professional, scientific, and technical services” found in BEA 

affiliate transaction data. However, the former includes such services as mining and operational leasing, 

whereas the latter does not. 8

 BEA, Survey of Current Business, October 2009, 40. 9

 In 2006, Census published data on U.S. services firms under its County Business Patterns survey. The 

data cover approximately 15 services sectors. For each sector, the data provide information on the number of 

firms in the sector (which includes the total number of both SME and non-SME firms), the number of 

employees in the sector, and total annual payrolls. The services data in the County Business Patterns survey 

do not capture any information on trade by U.S. services firms. 10 See Appendix D, Tables 2 and 3, showing the distribution of ORBIS data vis-à-vis Census data for all 

firms by employment category and for firms within the finance, professional, and wholesale services sectors 

by employment category. In both cases, the distributions for ORBIS and Census data are roughly the same, 

indicating that the ORBIS sample may be representative of the data captured by Census. 11 BEA official, e-mail correspondence with USITC staff, October 26, 2009; BEA, “Channels of 

Delivery of Services Sold in International Markets,” October 1999, 50. 12 Services sector categories are based on industry codes in the North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS). 13 BEA, Survey of Current Business, October 2009, 61. 
4-3 

Telecommunications 2%

Passenger fares 5%

Transportation 11%

Travel 21%

Royalties & license fees 

17%

Finance and insurance 

14%

All other 9%

Business, professional, & 

technical services 21%

FIGURE 4.1 U.S. cross-border exports of services, by industry, 2006

Source: BEA, Survey of Current Business , table 1, October 2009, 40.

Note: Trade data exclude public-sector transactions.

Total = $410.8 billion

Business and travel services lead U.S. cross-border exports of services

BOX 4.2 Collection Methods for BEA Data on Cross-Border Trade and Affiliate Transactions 

BEA compiles data on U.S. cross-border exports (and imports) of services and U.S. affiliate sales (and purchases) of 

services from surveys that it distributes to U.S. and foreign firms. The surveys require that firms report export receipts 

or affiliate sales above a specified dollar amount. For certain professional services, for example, firms are required to 

report exports or sales in excess of $6 million. The floor for reporting certain financial services is $20 million, and for 

insurance services, $8 million. The limits are set so as not to unduly burden smaller businesses, which may lack the 

resources needed to respond to such surveys. However, U.S. firms with export receipts or affiliate sales below 

established thresholds are required to provide estimates of their earnings “based on recall, without conducting a 

manual records search.” Although BEA does not capture or report information on firm size for U.S. parent companies 

or their foreign affiliates, it is likely that a portion of U.S. firms that report below-threshold income from exports or 

affiliate sales are SMEs. 

Source: BEA, “International Services Surveys Conducted by the BEA,” March 2007; hearing transcript, in connection 

with the Services Roundtable 2009, 47; and BEA official, e–mail correspondence with Commission staff, October 26, 

2009.

The effects on U.S. employment from sales by foreign affiliates of U.S. services firms are 

likely to be less than those arising from cross-border exports of services. In general, 

whereas an increase in cross-border exports of services by U.S. firms may lead to a direct 

expansion of U.S. employment, the establishment of foreign affiliates of U.S. firms 

increases employment in the location of the foreign affiliate.14 Nonetheless, there may be 

marginal gains to U.S. employment arising from foreign affiliate sales. For example, the 

establishment of foreign affiliates by U.S. firms may require additional U.S. personnel to 

 14 BEA, “Channels of Delivery of Services Sold in International Markets,” October 1999, 50. 
4-4 

Retail 6%

Real estate and rental 

and leasing 4%

Information 10%

Finance and insurance 

22%

Wholesale 20%

Professional, scientific, 

and technical 13%

All other 25%

FIGURE 4.2 Sales by foreign affiliates of U.S. services firms, by industry, 2006a

Source: BEA, Survey of Current Business , table 9.1, October 2009, 61.

 a Services supplied by majority-owned foreign affiliates of U.S. parent firms.

Total = $889.8 million

Wholesale, finance, and professional services led sales by foreign affiliates of U.S firms

monitor and comply with regulations in the foreign affiliate’s host country and to 

coordinate activities between the foreign affiliate and its U.S. parent.15

Profile of U.S. Services SMEs 

For the purposes of gathering data on U.S. services SMEs from ORBIS, the Commission 

established an employee ceiling of 499 and a revenue ceiling of $7 million for all selected 

services sectors, except computer services.16 Because it appears from ORBIS that most 

U.S. services SMEs have far fewer than 500 employees, the revenue ceiling served as the 

binding constraint for the data search. The data search was further refined by selecting 

U.S. services SMEs that have affiliate operations in foreign countries, with the U.S. SME 

identified as the foreign affiliates’ global ultimate owner, or parent firm.17 No limitations 

regarding employment size or operating revenues were placed on foreign affiliates of 

U.S. services SMEs. 

 15 USITC, Property and Casualty Insurance Services: Competitive Conditions in Foreign Markets, 

Investigation No. 332-499, March 2009, 3-1. 16 The employee ceiling of 499 conforms to the ceiling used in the report’s companion analysis of U.S. 

SMEs in the manufacturing sector. The revenue ceiling of $7 million was imposed to ensure the relevance of 

data search results on ORBIS and was based on guidelines published by the U.S. Small Business 

Administration in Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification 

System Codes (effective August 22, 2008). According to these guidelines, the revenue ceiling for the 

computer services sector is $25 million. 17 A global ultimate owner must have a minimum ownership share of 25.01 percent in its affiliates. 
4-5 

Among the three large service categories selected for review—wholesale, finance and 

insurance, and professional services—professional services is the largest sector in terms 

of the total number of firms, the average number of employees, and the revenues per 

firm, followed by wholesale services (table 4.1). For all three industries, the total number 

of firms decreases as average employment size increases: the number of firms reporting 

0–19 employees is 383; 20–99 employees, 372; 100–299 employees, 219; and 300–499 

employees, 81 (table 4.2).18 However, the revenues per firm recorded in all three 

industries appear to rise substantially as firms increase employment from 0–19

available yeara

Sector Number of firms Average employees

Revenues per firm 

(thousand $)

Wholesale trade 318 81 1,888

Merchant wholesalers, durable goods 224 78 1,961

Merchant wholesalers, nondurable goods 94 90 1,710

Finance and insurance 231 72 1,486

Credit intermediation and related activities 13 58 787

Securities, commodity contracts, and other financial Investments and 

related activities 143 78 1,435

Insurance carriers and related activities 19 61 1,506

Funds, trusts, and other financial vehicles 56 63 1,761

Professional, scientific, and technical services 506 85 4,622

Legal services 6 57 163

Architectural, engineering, and related services 40 103 1,652

Computer systems design and related services 283 84 6,815

Management, scientific, and technical consulting servicesb 141 83 1,582

Advertising, public relations, and related services 36 85 2,397

 All sectors 1,055 81 3,201

 a Aggregated from latest available firm-level data for the years 2006, 2007, and 2008.

 b Includes administrative management and general management services, information services, and other management

 consulting services such as medical technology and healthcare consulting services.

TABLE 4.1 Number of firms, average employees, and revenues per firm for SMEs in selected services industries, latest 

Source: Bureau Van Dijk, ORBIS database, accessed November 6, 2009.

 18 It is uncertain whether the decrease in the number of firms reporting a total number of employees of 

between 100 and 499 is reflective of a general trend among U.S. services SMEs or a function of the revenue 

ceiling established for the purposes of the data search. 
4-6 

Sector 0-19 20-99 100-299 300-499

Wholesale trade 127 102 62 27

Merchant wholesalers, durable goods 88 73 47 16

Merchant wholesalers, nondurable goods 39 29 15 11

Finance and insurance 104 73 32 22

Credit intermediation and related activities 9 2 11

Securities, commodity contracts, and other financial investments 

and related activities 66 42 21 14

Insurance carriers and related activities 6 7 24

Funds, trusts, and other financial vehicles 23 22 8 3

Professional, scientific, and technical services 152 197 125 32

Legal services 4 0 20

Architectural, engineering, and related services 9 17 9 5

Computer systems design and related services 67 126 77 13

Management, scientific, and technical consulting servicesb 60 42 26 13

Advertising, public relations, and related services 12 12 11 1

 All sectors 383 372 219 81

TABLE 4.2 Number of firms by employment size for SMEs in selected service sectors, latest available yeara

 b Includes administrative management and general management services, information services, and

 other management consulting services such as medical technology and healthcare consulting

 services.

Source: Bureau Van Dijk, ORBIS database.

 a Aggregated from latest available firm-level data for the years 2006, 2007, and 2008.

employees to 20–99 employees (table 4.3). The data are insufficient to determine whether 

this trend continues as firms’ employment exceeds 100. 

In terms of geography, the majority of U.S. services SMEs with foreign affiliates (in the 

three industries selected for review) are located in California (18 percent), New York (16 

percent), and Massachusetts (7 percent). These three states also account for the largest 

number of U.S. services SME employees as well as the highest total revenues. The 

majority of foreign affiliates of U.S. services SMEs are located in Europe (52 percent), 

followed by Asia and Oceania (24 percent), North American neighbors Canada and 

Bermuda (15 percent), and Latin America and the Caribbean (8 percent) (figure 4.3). 

Canada and the United Kingdom are the top two host countries for foreign affiliates of 

U.S. firms in wholesale and professional services (table 4.4). In both sectors, these two 

countries account for more than 60 percent of foreign affiliates established by U.S. 

services SMEs. 

By contrast, in finance and insurance services, Japan is the leading destination for foreign 

affiliates (18 percent), followed by the United Kingdom (13 percent) and Canada (6 

percent).19 In general, foreign affiliates of U.S. SMEs in finance and insurance services 

appear more geographically dispersed than do those in the wholesale and U.S. 

 19 BEA, Survey of Current Business, October 2009, 61. According to BEA data from 2006, the leading 

markets for foreign affiliate sales of U.S. firms in wholesale, professional, and finance and insurance services 

include, among others, Canada, Japan, and the United Kingdom. 
4-7 

TABLE 4.3 Revenues per firm by employment size for SMEs in selected services industries (thousand $), latest 

available yeara 

Sector 0-19 20-99 100-499 

Wholesale trade 1,293 4,262 (b) 

Merchant wholesalers, durable goods 1,214 4,483 1,042 

Merchant wholesalers, nondurable goods 1,457 3,331 (

b

) 

Finance and insurance 575 3,745 (b

) 

Credit intermediation and related activities 783 1,600 (b

) 

Securities, commodity contracts, and other financial investments & 

related activities 566 4,029 2,561 

Insurance carriers and related activities 780 2,100 2,658 

Funds, trusts, and other financial vehicles 480 3,639 (b

) 

Professional, scientific, and technical services 886 5,531 (b

) 

Legal services 163 (b

) (b) 

Architectural, engineering, and related services 317 2,893 (b) 

Computer systems design and related services 1,193 6,633 16,134 

Management, scientific, and technical consulting servicesc

 590 3,766 2,650 

Advertising, public relations, and related services 1,664 3,715 (

b

) 

All sectors 920 4,975 (b

) 

Source: Bureau Van Dijk, ORBIS database, accessed November 6, 2009. 

Note: Due to incomplete data, sector revenue per firm does not include all subsectors within NAICS 6-digit categories. 

a

 Aggregated from latest available firm-level data for the years 2006, 2007, and 2008. b

 Not available. 

c

 Includes administrative management and general management services, information services, and other 

management consulting services such as medical technology and healthcare consulting services. 

Europe

52%

Asia & Oceania

24%

Africa

1%

Latin America & 

Caribbeanc

8%

 North Americab

15%

FIGURE 4.3 Geographic location of foreign affiliates of U.S. services SMEs, by region, 

latest available yeara

Source: Bureau Van Dijk, ORBIS database, accessed November 6, 2009.

 a Latest data available, 2006–08.

 b Comprises Bermuda and Canada.

 c Includes Mexico.

Foreign affiliates of U.S. services SMEs are most prevalent in Europe
4-8 

Country

Number of 

affiliates

Percent 

share Country

Number of 

affiliates

Percent 

share Country

Number of 

affiliates

Percent 

share

Canada 108 31.1 United Kingdom 287 48.4 Japan 2,014 18.0

United Kingdom 106 30.6 Canada 82 13.8 United Kingdom 1,494 13.4

Mexico 31 8.9 Germany 52 8.8 Canada 666 6.0

Germany 19 5.5 Netherlands 30 5.1 Korea 621 5.6

France 12 3.5 Mexico 20 3.4 Taiwan 606 5.4

Netherlands 12 3.5 France 15 2.5 Australia 483 4.3

Spain 6 1.7 China 12 2.0 India 411 3.7

Ireland 6 1.7

British Virgin 

Islands 9 1.5 Bermuda 357 3.2

Russia 4 1.2 Brazil 6 1.0 Germany 313 2.8

Brazil 3 0.9 Spain 6 1.0 France 295 2.6

Total (top 10) 310 88.6 Total (top 10) 523 87.5 Total (top 10) 7,543 65.0

Source: Bureau Van Dijk, ORBIS database.

 a Aggregated from latest available firm-level data for the years 2006, 2007, and 2008. 

TABLE 4.4 Top 10 countries for foreign affiliates of U.S. services SMEs, by industry, latest available yeara

Wholesale Trade Services

Professional, Scientific, and 

Technical Services Finance and Insurance Services

professional services sectors. Whereas the top 10 destinations for foreign affiliates of 

SMEs in wholesale and professional services account for nearly 90 percent of all foreign 

affiliates in these sectors, in finance and insurance services, this ratio is only 65 percent. 

Overall, foreign affiliates of U.S. services SMEs were located in 97 countries. 

Connection between Affiliate Sales and Cross-Border Exports

Comparison of ORBIS data and international services data published by BEA suggest 

that predominant affiliate host countries also tend to be predominant export markets 

(table 4.5). Specifically, countries identified as the predominant affiliate host markets by 

ORBIS represent 6 of the top 10 export markets for finance and insurance services and 7 

of the top 10 markets for professional services,20 suggesting the two modes of provision 

are complements. A similar statement for wholesaling cannot be made due to the nature 

of this service, which is provided largely through affiliates. While the BEA data capture 

exports by all firms, not only those by SMEs, this relationship between affiliate sales and 

exports could provide clues to SME service export destinations. 

Recent empirical analysis tends to support the view that exports and affiliate sales are 

complements.21 A horizontally integrated firm, which provides identical services at 

different locations, will decide to export or establish affiliates based on its size, its 

 20 BEA, “Sales by Majority-Owned Nonbank Foreign Affiliates,” 2007. 21 See, for instance, Blonigen, “In Search of Substitution between Foreign Production and Exports,” 

February 2001, 81–104; Helpman et al., “Export Versus FDI,” January 2003; Buch and Lipponer, “FDI 

Versus Exports: Evidence from German Banks,” March 2007, 805–26. 
4-9 

 Affiliatesa Cross-border exportsb Affiliatesa Cross-border exportsb

Japan United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom

United Kingdom Canada Canada Japan

Canada Japan Germany Canada

Korea Bermuda Netherlands Ireland

Taiwan Netherlands Mexico Germany

Australia Germany France Netherlands

India France China Switzerland

Bermuda Switzerland British Virgin Islands Mexico

Germany Australia Brazil France

France Belgium-Luxembourg Spain China

TABLE 4.5 Top 10 countries for foreign affiliates of U.S. services SMEs and cross-border exports in selected 

service industries

Finance and insurance services Professional, scientific, and technical services

Source: Bureau Van Dijk, ORBIS database, BEA, Survey of Current Business , tables 5.2 and 6.1, October 

2009, 52−55.

 b Cross-border exports are for 2008.

Note: BEA does not report wholesale trade services in part due to the nature of the service, which must be 

delivered in proximity to consumers.

 a Aggregated from latest available firm-level data for the years 2006, 2007, and 2008.

productivity, actual or anticipated variable transportation and information costs, tariff and 

nontariff measures, and fixed costs associated with establishing an affiliate. Firms tend to 

export (rather than establish overseas affiliates) when they are smaller or less productive, 

target relatively open markets, and perceive variable costs as being lower than fixed 

costs. Since firms differ from each other with respect to these factors, some will export 

while others will establish affiliates. Vertically integrated firms, organized to reduce 

costs, commonly feature exports from one division to another, with the recipient selling 

services in its local market. Intermediate services typically include management services, 

back-office services (e.g., accounting and data processing), financial services, and 

transfers of intangible intellectual property. BEA data indicate that in 2008, U.S. parents 

exported services valued at $106.7 billion to foreign affiliates, while U.S. affiliates 

exported services valued at $26.2 million to foreign parents. Combined, these exports 

accounted for 26 percent of total U.S. services exports. 22

 22 BEA, Survey of Current Business, October 2009, p. 40. 

Bibliography 

BEA, see U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economics Analysis. 

Bernard, Andrew B., and J. Bradford Jensen. “Exceptional Exporter Performance: Cause, Effect or 

Both?” Journal of International Economics 47, no. 1 (1999): 1–25. 

Bernard, Andrew B., J. Bradford Jensen, and Peter K. Schott. “Importers, Exporters and Multinationals: 

A Portrait of Firms in the U.S. That Trade Goods.” In Producer Dynamics: New Evidence from 

Microdata, edited by Timothy Dunne, J. Bradford Jensen, and Mark J. Roberts, 513–556. 

National Bureau of Economic Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009. 

Bernard, Andrew B., J. Bradford Jensen, Stephen J. Redding, and Peter K. Schott. “Firms in 

International Trade.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 21, no. 3 (2007): 21–105. 

Blonigen, Bruce A. “In Search of Substitution between Foreign Production and Exports.” Journal of 

International Economics 53, no. 1 (February 2001). 

BLS, see U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Brady, Samantha, Allison Gosney, Tani Fukui, and Marinos Tsigas. “Property and Casualty Insurance 

Services: Foreign Market Effects on Labor.” USITC. Research Note No. RN-2009-01-A. 

Washington, DC: USITC, February 2009. 

Breitzman, Anthony, and Diana Hicks. An Analysis of Small Business Patents by Industry and Firm Size. 

Prepared for the SBA, Office of Advocacy, November 2008. 

http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs335tot.pdf. 

Buch, Claudia M., and Alexander Lipponer. “FDI versus Exports: Evidence from German Banks.” 

Journal of Banking and Finance 31, no. 3 (March 2007), 805–26. 

Bureau Van Dijk. ORBIS Database. http://orbis.bvdep.com (accessed various dates). 

Census, see U.S. Census Bureau 

Chintakananda, Asda, Anne S. York, Hugh O’Neill, and Mike W. Peng. “Structuring Dyadic 

Relationships between Export Producers and Intermediaries.” European Journal of International 

Management 3, no. 3 (2009): 302–327. 

Davis, Steven J., John Haltiwanger, Ron S. Jarmin, C. J. Krizan, Javier Miranda, Alfred Nucci, and 

Kristin Sandusky. “Measuring the Dynamics of Young and Small Businesses: Integrating 

Employer and Nonemployer Universes.” In Producer Dynamics: New Evidence from Microdata, 

edited by Timothy Dunne, J. Bradford Jensen, and Mark J. Roberts, 329–68. National Bureau of 

Economic Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009. 

Dhanaraj, Charles, and Paul W. Beamish. “A Resource-Based Approach to the Study of Export 

Performance.” Journal of Small Business Management 41, no. 3 (2003): 242–61. 

Edmiston, Kelly. “The Role of Small and Large Business in Economic Development.” Federal Reserve 

Bank of Kansas City Economic Review 92, no. 2 (2007): 73–97. 

Biblio-1 
Biblio-2 

Figueroa, Eric B., and Rose A. Woods. “Industry Output and Employment Projections to 2016.” Monthly 

Labor Review 130, no. 11 (2007): 53–85. 

Haltiwanger, John, Ron S. Jarmin, and Javier Miranda. Jobs Created from Business Startups in the United 

States. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, January 2009. 

http://www.kauffman.org/Section.aspx?id=Research_And_Policy. 

Hart, David M., Zoltan J. Acs, and Spencer L. Tracy. High-Tech Immigrant Entrepreneurship in the 

United States. Prepared for the SBA, Office of Advocacy, July 2009. 

Headd, Brian, and Radwan Sadde. Do Business Definition Decisions Impact Small Business Research 

Results? Prepared for the SBA, Office of Advocacy, August 2008. 

Helpman, Elhanan, Marc J. Melitz, and Stephen R. Yeaple. “Export Versus FDI.” National Bureau of 

Economic Research. Working Paper 9439, January 2003. 

Hoppe, Robert A., Penni Korb, Erik J. O’Donoghue, and David E. Banker. Structure and Finances of 

U.S. Farms: Family Farm Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research 

Service (ERS), June 2007. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib24/eib24.pdf. 

Key, Nigel, and William McBride. The Changing Economics of U.S. Hog Production. Economic 

Research Report 52. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service 

(ERS), December 2007. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/handle/6389. 

Kobe, Katherine. The Small Business Share of GDP, 1998–2004. Prepared for the SBA, Office of 

Advocacy, April 2007. http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs299tot.pdf. 

Patel, Pankaj, and Rodney D’Souza. Leveraging Entrepreneurial Orientation to Enhance SME Export 

Performance. Prepared for the SBA, Office of Advocacy, January 2009.

http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs337tot.pdf. 

Peng, Mike W. Behind the Success and Failure of U.S. Export Intermediaries: Transactions, Agents, and 

Resources. Westport, CT, and London: Quorum Books, 1998. 

Phillips, Bruce D., and Holly Wade. Small Business Problems & Priorities. National Federation of 

Independent Business (NFIB) Research Foundation, June 2008. 

OECD. “Enhancing the Role of SMEs in Global Vlaue Chains.” OECD: Paris, France, 2007. 

———. “Top Barriers and Drivers to SME Internationalization.” Report by the OECD Working Party on 

SMEs and Entrepreneurship. OECD: Paris, France, 2009. 

SBA, see U.S. Small Business Administration. 

Shane, Scott. “Nonemployer Firms: The Impact of Companies without Employees.” You’re the Boss—

NYTimes.com, July 13, 2009. http://boss.blogs.nytimnes.com/tag/non-employer-firms/. 
Biblio-3 

The Manufacturing Institute (TMI). The Facts about Modern Manufacturing. 8th ed. The Manufacturing 

Institute and the National Association of Manufacturers, 2009.

http://www.nam.org/~/media/AboutUs/ManufacturingInstitute/FactsAboutModernManufacturing

Ver8.ashx. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). “Business Employment Dynamics Technical Note,” November 19, 

2009. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cewbd.tn.htm. 

———. Business Employment Dynamics Database. http://www.bls.gov/bdm/#data (accessed December 

15, 2009). 

———. Service-Providing Industries. http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag07.htm (accessed December 21, 

2009). 

U.S. Census Bureau (Census). “A Profile of U.S. Exporting Companies, 2006−07,” April 9, 2009. 

———. County Business Patterns Survey, 2006. http://www.census.gov/econ/cbp/index.html (accessed 

various dates). 

———. Foreign Trade Division (FTD). Exporter Profiles, 2004–2005, January 10, 2007. 

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/edb/2005/. 

———. Nonemployer Statistics, July 2009. http://www.census.gov/econ/nonemployer/. 

———. “Statistics of U.S. Businesses—Definitions.” 

http://www.census.gov/econ/susb/definitions.html(accessed December 5, 2009). 

———. Statistics of U.S. Businesses. http://www.census.gov/econ/susb/introduction.html (accessed 

December 15, 2009). 

———. 2002 Survey of Business Owners: Company Summary, September 14, 2006.

http://www.census.gov/econ/sbo/02/cosumsof.html. 

———. 2002 Survey of Business Owners: Small Employer Firms, November 

2009.http://www.census.gov/econ/sbo/02/smallsof.html. 

———. 2002 Survey of Business Owners: Statistics for Minority-owned Firms. 

(http://www.census.gov/econ/sbo/#cbo (accessed October 28, 2009).

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2007 Census of Agriculture, February 4, 2009. 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/. 

———. “Limited Resource Program Definition,” October 1, 2009. 

http://www.lrftool.sc.egov.usda.gov/LRP-D.htm. 

USDA. Economic Research Service (ERS). Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS), August 

6, 2009. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/ARMS/. 

———. “Farm Household Economics and Well-Being: Glossary,” February 12, 2009. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/BRIEFING/WellBeing/glossary.htm. 
Biblio-4 

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). International Services Surveys 

Conducted by the Bureau of Economic Analysis: Reporting Requirements for Forms BE−9, 

BE−29, BE−30, BE−37, BE−45, BE−80, BE−120, BE−125, BE−185, March 2007. 

http://www.bea.gov/surveys/pdf/surveysu.pdf. 

———. BEA. “Channels of Delivery of Services Sold in International Markets: Cross-Border Trade and 

Sales through Affiliates.” Survey of Current Business, October 1999, 48–95.

http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/INTERNAT/INTSERV/1999/1099srv.pdf 

———. BEA. “International Services Surveys Conducted by the Bureau of Economic Analysis: 

Reporting Requirements for Forms BE-9, BE-29, BE-30, BE-37, BE-45, BE-80, BE-120, BE125, BE-185.” March 2007. http://www.bea.gov/surveys/pdf/surveysu.pdf 

———. BEA. “Sales by Majority-Owned Nonbank Foreign Affiliates, Country by Industry, 2007.” 

http://www.bea.gov/international/xls/mofas_sales.xls 

———.BEA. Survey of Current Business 89, no. 10 (October 2009). 

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Property and Casualty Insurance Services: Competitive 

Conditions in Foreign Markets. USITC Publication 4068. Washington, DC: USITC, March 2009. 

U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). Office of Advocacy. Frequently Asked Questions, updated 

September 2009. http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.pdf. 

———. Data on Small Business. Nonemployer Statistics (from Census data). 

http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/ind97_07.pd (accessed November 8, 2009). 

———. Data on Small Business. U.S. Data (from Census data). 

http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/us06_n6.pdf (accessed October 28, 2009). 

———. Small Business Profile, October 2009. http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/profiles/09us.pdf. 

———. Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification 

System Codes (effective August 22, 2008). 

www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/.../sba.../serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf.

Vossen, Robert W. “Combining Small and Large Firm Advantages in Innovation: Theory and Examples.” 

SOM Research Report 98B21. Research School Systems Organisation and Management. 

Universitatsbibliothek Groningen, 1998. 
APPENDIX A 

Request Letter 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 

WASHI NGTON, D.C. 20508 

The Honorable Shara L. Aranoff 

Chairman 

October 5, 2009 

U.S. International Trade Commission 

500 E Street, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20436 

Office of the 

Secretary 

Dear Chairman Aranoff, Int'I frade Commission 

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are vital to the U.S. economy. SMEs 

represent over 99 percent of employer firms in the United States and account for just over 

half of all private sector employment. Even more important to a country seeking rapid job 

gains in a post-recession economy, SMEs have generated almost two-thirds of net new 

jobs in the last 15 years. Although SMEs constitute 97 percent of all exporting firms, they 

only account for 30 percent of the total value of U.S. exports. Many analysts believe that 

the SMEs' share of U.S. exports could be larger if national policy more clearly focused 

on the special constraints to exporting faced by these firms. 

As U.S. trade policies strive to open markets, enforce trade agreements, and support 

the healthy expansion of trade, it is critical that SMEs benefit as much as possible 

from exporting goods and services to foreign markets and contribute as much as 

they can to overall U.S. export growth. To achieve this goal, certain constraints to 

exports by these firms may need to be removed. 

As the Administration considers policy initiatives to strengthen the export presence of 

U.S. SMEs in the global marketplace, it would benefit significantly from a detailed 

assessment ofthe present role of SMEs in U.S. trade. It is notable, in reviewing current 

infonnation, that there are many gaps in our understanding of SME's and their exports. 

The Commission's specialized knowledge of U.S. trade and the breadth and depth of the 

Commission's trade-focused resources can address these gaps. Therefore under the 

authority of section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, I request that the Commission 

investigate the role of U.S. SMEs in trade, using data obtained from the U.S. Bureau of 

the Census and other databases, a literature review, and primary data collected through 

questionnaires, interviews, and hearings, to the extent possible. I further request that the 

Commission deliver its work in three reports, as follows: 

Report I 

In the first report, the Commission should give an overview of the current state of SMEs' 

participation in U.S. exports. The report should describe, to the extent possible, 

characteristics of SMEs, their exports, and their role in generating employment and 

economic activity in the U.S. economy. The report should focus on merchandise and 

services exports by U.S. SMEs, providing information on the value ofSME exports, the 
products and sectors involved, large markets for U.S. SMEs' exports, and how SME 

exports have changed over time with respect to these factors. This report should also 

identify gaps in currently available data that may inhibit a more comprehensive 

understanding of SME participation in export trade. The report should be delivered 

within three months from receipt of this letter. 

Report II 

In the second report, we request that the Commission assist in analyzing the 

performance of U.S. SME firms in exporting compared to SME exporting in other 

leading economies. As one way of comparing American performance to that of 

other countries we request that the Commission compare the exporting activity of EU 

and u.s. SMEs and analyze the distinctions between U.s. and EU firms in terms of 

sectoral composition, firm characteristics, and exporting behavior. The Commission 

should also identify barriers to exporting noted by U.s. SMEs, as well as SME strategies 

to overcome special constraints and reduced trade costs on SME exports. Also, the 

Commission should identify the benefits to SMEs from increased export opportunities, 

including free trade agreements and other trading arrangements. The second report should 

be delivered no later than nine months from the receipt of this letter. 

Report III 

The third report should, to the extent possible, examine U.S. SMEs engaged in providing 

services, including the characteristics of firms that produce tradable services, the growth 

in these services exports, and the differences between SME and large services exporters. 

Also, the Commission should identify how data gaps might be overcome to further 

enhance our understanding of SMEs in services sector exports. In addition, for both 

goods and services exports, the third report should identify trade barriers (nontariff 

barriers and tariffs) that may disproportionately affect SME export performance, as well 

as possible linkages between exporting and SME performance. Finally, it should provide 

insights on the degree to which SMEs operate as multinationals, as affiliate firms, or as 

contributors of "indirect exports" to international trade through sales to larger exporting 

firms. The third report should be delivered one year from receipt of the request letter. 

I anticipate that the Commission's reports will be made available to the public in its 

entirety. Therefore, the reports should not contain any confidential business or national 

security information. 

Ronald Kirk 
APPENDIX B 

Federal Register Notice 

B-1 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Notices 55581 

available on request (contact 

information below). In order to ensure 

sufficient seating and hand-outs, it is 

requested that visitors pre-register by 

October 30. Members of the public 

wishing to make a statement to the 

Committee should provide notice of that 

intention by October 30 so that time 

may be allotted in the agenda. 

DATES: November 4, 2009, commencing 

at 10:30 a.m. and adjourning at 5:30 

p.m., and November 5, 2009, 

commencing at 8:30 a.m. and 

adjourning at Noon. 

Contact: Dr. Michael Blanpied, 

Executive Secretary, National 

Earthquake Prediction Evaluation 

Council, U.S. Geological Survey, MS 

905, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, 

Reston, Virginia 20192. (703) 648–6696, 

E-mail: mblanpied@usgs.gov. 

Cost Center Billing Code: 10–7908– 

99500. 

Dated: October 21, 2009. 

Peter Lyttle, 

Acting Associate Director for Geology. 

[FR Doc. E9–25914 Filed 10–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4311–AM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS-R9-MB-2009-N214] 

[91100-3740-GRNT 7C] 

Meeting Announcement: North 

American Wetlands Conservation 

Council 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The North American 

Wetlands Conservation Council 

(Council) will meet to select North 

American Wetlands Conservation Act 

(NAWCA) grant proposals for 

recommendation to the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission 

(Commission). This meeting is open to 

the public, and interested persons may 

present oral or written statements. 

DATES: Council Meeting: December 9, 

2009, 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. (noon). If you 

are interested in presenting information 

at the North American Wetlands 

Conservation Council (Council) public 

meeting, contact the Council 

Coordinator no later than November 24, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Witt Stephens Jr. Central Arkansas 

Nature Center, 602 President Clinton 

Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72201. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mike Johnson, Council Coordinator, by 

phone at (703) 358-1784; by e-mail at 

dbhc@fws.gov; or by U.S. mail at U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. 

Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop MBSP 4501- 

4075, Arlington, VA. 22203. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with NAWCA (Pub. L. 101- 

233, 103 Stat. 1968, December 13, 1989, 

as amended), the State-private-Federal 

Council meets to consider wetland 

acquisition, restoration, enhancement, 

and management projects for 

recommendation to, and final funding 

approval by, the Commission. 

Project proposal due dates, 

application instructions, and eligibility 

requirements are available on the 

NAWCA Web site at http:// 

www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/ 

NAWCA/Standard/US/Overview.shtm. 

Proposals require a minimum of 50 

percent non-Federal matching funds. 

The Council will consider U.S. Standard 

and Mexican grant proposals at the 

December meeting. The date for the 

Commission meeting is March 10, 2010. 

Dated: October 14, 2009 

Paul R. Schmidt, 

Assistant Director–Migratory Birds. 

[FR Doc. E9–25934 Filed 10–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 332–508] 

Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: 

Overview of Participation in U.S. 

Exports 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of investigation. 

SUMMARY: Following receipt of a request 

on October 6, 2009, from the United 

States Trade Representative (USTR) 

under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 

1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)), the 

Commission instituted investigation No. 

332–508, Small and Medium-Sized 

Enterprises: Overview of Participation 

in U.S. Exports, for the purpose of 

preparing the first of a series of three 

reports requested by the USTR relating 

to small and medium-sized enterprises. 

DATES: January 12, 2010: Transmittal of 

Commission report to the USTR. 

ADDRESSES: All Commission offices, 

including the Commission’s hearing 

rooms, are located in the United States 

International Trade Commission 

Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, 

DC. All written submissions should be 

addressed to the Secretary, United 

States International Trade Commission, 

500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 

20436. The public record for this 

investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/ 

edis.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Project Leaders Laura Bloodgood (202– 

708–4726 or laura.bloodgood@usitc.gov) 

or Alexander Hammer (202–205–3271 

or alexander.hammer@usitc.gov) for 

information specific to this 

investigation. For information on the 

legal aspects of this investigation, 

contact William Gearhart of the 

Commission’s Office of the General 

Counsel (202–205–3091 or 

william.gearhart@usitc.gov). The media 

should contact Margaret O’Laughlin, 

Office of External Relations (202–205– 

1819 or margaret.olaughlin@usitc.gov). 

Hearing-impaired individuals may 

obtain information on this matter by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal at 202–205–1810. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). 

Persons with mobility impairments who 

will need special assistance in gaining 

access to the Commission should 

contact the Office of the Secretary at 

202–205–2000. 

Background: In his letter the USTR 

requested, under the authority of section 

332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, that the 

Commission provide three reports 

during the next 12 months relating to 

small- and medium-sized enterprises. In 

this notice the Commission is instituting 

the first of three investigations under 

section 332(g) for the purpose of 

preparing the first report, which is to be 

transmitted to the USTR by January 12, 

2010. The Commission will institute 

separate investigations under section 

332(g) at later dates for the purpose of 

preparing the second and third reports. 

In the first report the Commission 

will, as requested, provide an overview 

of the current state of SMEs’ 

participation in U.S. exports. The report 

will describe, to the extent possible, 

characteristics of SMEs, their exports, 

and their role in generating employment 

and economic activity in the U.S. 

economy. The report will focus on 

merchandise and services exports by 

U.S. SMEs, providing information on 

the value of SME exports, products and 

sectors involved, large markets for U.S. 

SMEs’ exports, and how SME exports 

have changed over time with respect to 

these factors. The Commission will also 

seek to identify gaps in currently 

available data that may inhibit a more 

comprehensive understanding of SME 

participation in export trade. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
55582 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Notices 

In the second report the Commission 

will compare the exporting activity of 

SMEs in the United States and the 

European Union, identify barriers to 

exporting noted by U.S. SMEs and 

strategies used by SMEs to overcome 

special constraints and reduce trade 

costs, and identify the benefits to SMEs 

from increased export opportunities 

including those arising from free trade 

agreements and other trading 

arrangements. The USTR requested that 

the Commission transmit this report by 

July 6, 2010. 

In the third report the Commission 

will, among other things, examine U.S. 

SMEs engaged in providing services, 

including the characteristics of firms 

that produce tradable services, growth 

in services exports, and the differences 

between SME and large services 

exporters. It will also examine U.S. 

goods and services exports by SMEs and 

identify trade barriers that may 

disproportionately affect SME export 

performance, as well as possible 

linkages between exporting and SME 

performance. In addition, the report will 

identify how data gaps might be 

overcome to enhance our understanding 

of SMEs in service sector exports. The 

USTR requested that the Commission 

transmit this report by October 6, 2010. 

Public Hearing: The Commission does 

not plan to hold a public hearing in 

connection with this investigation, but 

expects to hold one or more hearings in 

the course of preparing the second and/ 

or third reports. The time and place of 

those hearings will be announced at a 

later date. 

Written Submissions: Interested 

parties are invited to file written 

submissions concerning this 

investigation. All written submissions 

should be addressed to the Secretary, 

and should be received not later than 

5:15 p.m. on November 17, 2009. All 

written submissions must conform with 

the provisions of section 201.8 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 201.8). Section 201.8 

requires that a signed original (or a copy 

so designated) and fourteen (14) copies 

of each document be filed. In the event 

that confidential treatment of a 

document is requested, at least four (4) 

additional copies must be filed, in 

which the confidential information 

must be deleted (see the following 

paragraph for further information 

regarding confidential business 

information). The Commission’s rules 

authorize filing submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means only to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the rules (see Handbook 

for Electronic Filing Procedures, http:// 

www.usitc.gov/secretary/ 

fed_reg_notices/rules/documents/ 

handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). 

Persons with questions regarding 

electronic filing should contact the 

Secretary (202–205–2000). 

Any submissions that contain 

confidential business information must 

also conform with the requirements of 

section 201.6 of the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

201.6). Section 201.6 of the rules 

requires that the cover of the document 

and the individual pages be clearly 

marked as to whether they are the 

‘‘confidential’’ or ‘‘non-confidential’’ 

version, and that the confidential 

business information be clearly 

identified by means of brackets. All 

written submissions, except for 

confidential business information, will 

be made available for inspection by 

interested parties. 

In his request letter, the USTR stated 

that his office intends to make the 

Commission’s reports available to the 

public in their entirety, and asked that 

the Commission not include any 

confidential business information or 

national security classified information 

in the reports that the Commission 

transmits to his office. Any confidential 

business information received by the 

Commission in this investigation and 

used in preparing this report will not be 

published in a manner that would 

reveal the operations of the firm 

supplying the information. 

Issued: October 23, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–25947 Filed 10–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–641] 

Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines 

and Components Thereof; Notice of 

Commission Determination To Extend 

the Deadline for Public Submissions 

on Remedy, the Public Interest, and 

Bonding, and for Responses to All 

Remedy, Public Interest, and Bonding 

Submissions 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to extend 

the deadline for public submissions on 

remedy, the public interest, and 

bonding, and for responses to all 

remedy, public interest, and bonding 

submissions in the above-captioned 

investigation under section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 

U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 337’’). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James A. Worth, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3065. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

investigation was instituted on March 

31, 2008, based upon a complaint filed 

on behalf of General Electric Company 

of Fairfield, Connecticut on February 7, 

2008. 73 FR 16910. The complaint 

alleged violations of section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in 

the importation into the United States, 

the sale for importation, and the sale 

within the United States after 

importation of certain variable speed 

wind turbines and components thereof 

that infringes claims 121–125 of U.S. 

Patent No. 5,083,039 and claims 1–12, 

15–18, and 21–28 of U.S. Patent No. 

6,921,985. 

On August 7, 2009, the ALJ issued his 

final ID finding a violation of section 

337. 

On October 8, 2009, the Commission 

issued notice of its decision to reviewin-part the final ID, requesting briefing 

on the issues on review, including 

certain specific questions, and on 

remedy, the public interest, and 

bonding. 

On October 19 and 20, 2009, 

respectively, Iberdrola Renewables filed 

a motion and corrected motion to 

extend the date for public submissions 

until two weeks after the issuance of the 

public version of the final initial 

determination and recommended 

determination on remedy, the public 

interest, and bonding (‘‘ID’’). 

The public version of the ID issued on 

October 21, 2009. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
APPENDIX C 

Additional Information on SME Merchandise Exports 

FIGURE C.1 U.S. total merchandise exports by major destination market, 2007 

Israel

Switzerland

Malaysia

Hong Kong Italy

India

Australia

Brazil

Taiwan

Singapore

Belgium

France

Korea

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Germany

Japan

China

Mexico

Canada

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

SME share of total exports, 2007 (percent)

Change in SME share of total exports, 2002-07 (percentage points)

Source: Official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 

Note: The large ovals group together the different types of major markets to which SMEs export: 

highest-income small markets, largest markets, and large emerging markets. The small circles 

represent the relative value of SME manufacturer exports. The grid lines show the relative 

position of two significant for all destination markets: the SME share of exports (30.2 percent) and 

the change in SME share of exports (3.8 percentage points). 

 C-3 
FIGURE C.2 U.S. nonmanufacturer merchandise exports by major destination market, 2007 

Canada

Japan

China United Kingdom

Korea

Germany

Netherlands

Hong Kong

Taiwan

Brazil

France

Singapore

Israel

India

Italy

Malaysia

Mexico

Switzerland

Belgium

Australia

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

35 45 55 65 75

SME share of nonmanufacturer exports, 2007 (percent)

Change in SME share of nonmanufacturer exports, 2002-07 (percentage points)

Source: Official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 

Note: The large ovals group together the different types of major markets to which SMEs export: 

highest-income small markets, largest markets, and large emerging markets. The small circles 

represent the relative value of SME manufacturer exports. The grid lines show the relative 

position of two significant for all destination markets: the SME share of exports (57.1 percent) and 

the change in SME share of exports (5.9 percentage points). 

C-4
TABLE C.1 U.S. merchandise exports, 1997–2007 (Billions of $)

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

All companies

0–19 employees 64.7 64.8 68.2 86.3 87.5 85.1 67.8 83.7 97.8 

20–99 employees 39.7 40.4 40.9 38.9 36.1 36.3 42.2 47.1 50.6 

100–499 employees 48.4 47.7 50.7 57.6 51.8 51.8 55.8 68.6 77.1 

SME subtotal 152.8 159.8 182.8 175.4 173.1 165.9 199.3 152.9 225.5 

500+ employees 390.0 414.6 470.9 439.2 444.0 455.5 504.1 385.2 555.9 

 Total 542.9 574.4 653.7 614.6 617.1 621.4 703.4 538.1 781.4 

Manufacturers

0–19 employees 14.6 12.6 15.2 20.0 22.4 21.8 15.1 17.9 21.0 

20–99 employees 11.2 12.3 12.7 14.0 13.8 13.9 14.8 16.1 17.1 

100–499 employees 27.3 28.4 29.6 32.8 30.2 30.2 32.4 38.4 40.3 

SME manufacturers 53.2 53.4 57.5 66.8 66.3 65.8 62.3 72.4 78.4 

500+ employees 323.2 349.7 404.9 377.8 381.7 364.9 408.2 332.3 427.3 

 Total 376.4 407.2 471.7 444.1 447.5 427.2 480.5 385.7 505.7 

Wholesalers

0–19 employees 25.5 28.1 26.2 33.7 33.3 33.2 30.9 39.4 46.4 

20–99 employees 14.4 15.5 13.6 14.3 14.7 14.7 17.3 20.7 22.0 

100–499 employees 11.6 11.1 10.9 13.9 13.5 13.4 14.4 18.8 24.3 

SME wholesalers 51.5 54.6 50.8 61.9 61.5 61.4 62.7 78.8 92.7 

500+ employees 30.2 16.6 31.4 34.7 32.0 32.3 55.6 54.3 77.9 

 Total 81.7 71.2 82.2 96.6 93.5 93.7 118.2 133.2 170.6 

Other

0–19 employees 24.6 24.1 26.7 32.7 31.8 30.1 21.8 26.4 30.4 

20–99 employees 14.1 12.6 14.5 10.5 7.7 7.7 10.2 10.4 11.5 

100–499 employees 9.4 8.3 10.3 10.9 8.2 8.2 9.0 11.4 12.4 

"Other" SMEs 48.2 45.0 51.5 54.1 47.6 45.9 40.9 48.1 54.4 

500+ employees 36.6 36.3 33.4 31.3 29.4 30.0 35.1 41.6 50.7 

 Total 84.8 81.3 85.0 85.4 76.9 75.9 76.0 89.7 105.1 

Source: Official Census statistics.

C-5 
TABLE C.2 Number of U.S. merchandise exporting firms, 1997–2007

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 200

All companies

0–19 employees 130,491 127,931 149,064 159,254 156,416 158,826 148,331 155,119 162,632 170,3520–99 employees 45,850 42,458 44,301 46,411 45,995 46,413 45,597 46,046 46,281 45,64100–499 employees 18,223 17,320 17,534 18,518 17,771 17,986 16,491 16,432 16,599 16,15

SME subtotal 194,564 187,709 210,899 224,183 220,182 223,225 210,419 217,597 225,512 232,14

500+ employees 6,955 6,975 7,574 7,724 7,388 7,475 6,751 6,542 6,459 6,60 Total 201,519 194,684 218,473 231,907 227,570 230,700 217,170 224,139 231,971 238,74

Manufacturers

0–19 employees 26,901 26,374 29,804 32,387 32,847 33,164 30,760 32,733 33,154 34,5620–99 employees 23,685 22,094 22,285 22,844 22,877 23,029 21,876 22,306 22,352 21,73100–499 employees 11,317 10,524 10,197 10,502 10,064 10,148 9,203 8,986 9,169 8,69

SME manufacturers 61,903 58,992 62,286 65,733 65,788 66,341 61,839 64,025 64,675 64,99

500+ employees 3,691 3,531 3,509 3,520 3,346 3,358 2,952 2,866 2,738 2,76 Total 65,594 62,523 65,795 69,253 69,134 69,699 64,791 66,891 67,413 67,75

Wholesalers

0–19 employees 51,831 48,628 52,803 56,110 56,415 56,864 57,332 61,083 63,495 65,9420–99 employees 12,679 11,404 11,714 12,383 12,358 12,478 12,490 12,521 12,632 12,60100–499 employees 2,910 2,892 2,882 3,081 3,071 3,114 2,876 2,918 3,017 3,00

SME wholesalers 67,420 62,924 67,399 71,574 71,844 72,456 72,698 76,522 79,144 81,55

500+ employees 480 639 701 749 726 730 638 637 759 77 Total 67,900 63,563 68,100 72,323 72,570 73,186 73,336 77,159 79,903 82,32

Other

0–19 employees 51,759 52,929 66,457 70,757 67,154 68,798 60,239 61,303 65,983 69,8420–99 employees 9,486 8,960 10,302 11,184 10,760 10,906 11,231 11,219 11,297 11,30100–499 employees 3,996 3,904 4,455 4,935 4,636 4,724 4,412 4,528 4,413 4,46

"Other" SMEs 65,241 65,793 81,214 86,876 82,550 84,428 75,882 77,050 81,693 85,60

500+ employees 2,784 2,805 3,364 3,455 3,316 3,387 3,161 3,039 2,962 3,06 Total 68,025 68,598 84,578 90,331 85,866 87,815 79,043 80,089 84,655 88,66

Source: Official Census statistics.

C-6 
TABLE C.3 Average U.S. merchandise exports, per firm, 1997–2007

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

All companies

0–19 employees 0.51 0.50 0.46 0.54 0.56 0.54 0.46 0.54 0.60 

20–99 employees 0.94 0.88 0.92 0.84 0.79 0.78 0.93 1.02 1.09 

100–499 employees 2.79 2.62 2.89 3.11 2.91 2.88 3.38 4.17 4.64 

SME 0.81 0.79 0.76 0.82 0.80 0.78 0.79 0.92 1.00 

500+ employees 55.92 55.38 54.74 60.97 59.44 59.39 67.48 77.05 86.07 

 Total 2.79 2.67 2.63 2.82 2.70 2.67 2.86 3.14 3.37 

Manufacturers

0–19 employees 0.55 0.47 0.51 0.62 0.68 0.66 0.49 0.55 0.63 

20–99 employees 0.51 0.52 0.57 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.68 0.72 0.77 

100–499 employees 2.60 2.51 2.90 3.13 3.00 2.97 3.52 4.27 4.39 

SME manufacturers 0.90 0.86 0.92 1.02 1.01 0.99 1.01 1.13 1.21 

500+ employees 91.54 90.03 99.66 115.02 112.92 113.66 123.61 142.42 156.06 

 Total 6.02 5.88 6.19 6.81 6.42 6.42 6.59 7.18 7.50 

Wholesalers

0–19 employees 0.52 0.54 0.50 0.60 0.59 0.58 0.54 0.64 0.73 

20–99 employees 1.26 1.22 1.16 1.16 1.19 1.18 1.38 1.65 1.74 

100–499 employees 4.00 3.80 3.79 4.50 4.39 4.32 5.02 6.43 8.07 

SME wholesalers 0.82 0.81 0.75 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.86 1.03 1.17 

500+ employees 47.27 34.48 44.84 46.39 44.02 44.27 87.11 85.32 102.64 

 Total 1.28 1.05 1.21 1.34 1.29 1.28 1.61 1.73 2.14 

Other

0–19 employees 0.47 0.47 0.40 0.46 0.47 0.44 0.36 0.43 0.46 

20–99 employees 1.57 1.33 1.41 0.94 0.71 0.71 0.91 0.92 1.02 

100–499 employees 2.41 2.08 2.31 2.22 1.76 1.73 2.03 2.52 2.82 

"Other" SMEs 0.73 0.69 0.63 0.62 0.58 0.54 0.54 0.62 0.67 

500+ employees 13.05 13.04 9.94 9.05 8.86 8.85 11.09 13.68 17.13 

 Total 1.24 1.19 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.86 0.96 1.12 1.24 

Source: Official Census statistics.

C-7 
TABLE C.4 Total U.S. merchandise exports, by country and firm size, 2002 and 2007

SME Large Total SME Large Total SME Large Total

Canada 26,014 121,633 95,619 150,036 45,378 195,413 56.9 74.4 60.7 

Mexico 21,239 64,463 85,702 35,347 86,927 122,273 34.8 66.4 42.7 

China 14,226 6,542 20,768 21,214 40,693 61,907 186.0 224.3 198.1 

Japan 14,314 33,500 47,814 18,430 40,994 59,424 22.4 28.8 24.3 

Germany 18,313 5,643 23,956 12,116 34,535 46,650 88.6 94.7 114.7 

United Kingdom 21,593 7,967 29,561 15,388 29,637 45,025 37.3 93.1 52.3 

Korea 14,546 6,232 20,778 10,847 21,379 32,226 47.0 74.1 55.1 

Netherlands 13,494 3,375 16,869 10,681 20,874 31,555 54.7 87.1 216.5 

France 14,420 3,057 17,477 20,007 5,509 25,516 38.7 80.2 46.0 

Taiwan 12,231 4,448 16,679 18,750 6,490 25,241 53.3 45.9 51.3 

Singapore 12,098 2,650 14,747 20,039 4,418 24,458 65.6 66.8 65.8 

Belgium 2,617 12,275 9,658 17,428 6,482 23,910 80.5 94.8 147.6 

Brazil 2,612 11,466 8,855 16,883 6,327 23,210 90.7 102.4 142.2 

Hong Kong 5,007 11,331 6,325 8,679 9,940 18,619 57.2 73.3 64.3 

Australia 2,197 11,747 9,550 12,057 4,819 16,876 26.2 43.7 119.4 

India 1,452 2,293 3,745 11,327 4,825 16,151 393.9 232.3 331.2 

Switzerland 2,229 4,818 7,047 5,116 8,498 13,613 76.4 93.2 129.5 

Italy 2,709 6,376 9,086 4,190 8,921 13,111 39.9 54.6 44.3 

Malaysia 1,500 8,294 9,794 2,316 8,920 11,236 7.5 14.7 54.4 

Israel 2,456 2,891 5,347 3,899 6,356 10,255 119.9 58.7 91.8 

 Subtotal 124,259 373,564 497,823 232,468 584,201 816,669 56.4 87.1 64.0 

All other 34,233 102,017 67,784 135,121 79,216 214,337 99.3 110.1 131.4 

Total 158,492 441,347 599,839 311,684 719,322 1,031,007 63.0 96.7 71.9 

Canada 16.4 21.7 20.3 14.6 20.9 19.0 -1.9 -0.8 -1.3

Mexico 13.4 14.6 14.3 11.3 12.1 11.9 -2.1 -2.5 -2.4

China 4.1 3.2 3.5 6.8 5.7 6.0 2.7 2.4 2.5

Japan 9.0 7.6 8.0 5.9 5.7 5.8 -3.1 -1.9 -2.2

Germany 3.6 4.1 4.0 3.9 4.8 4.5 0.3 0.7 0.5

United Kingdom 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.1 4.4 -0.1 -0.8 -0.6

Korea 3.9 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.1 -0.5 -0.3 -0.3

Netherlands 2.1 3.1 2.8 3.4 2.9 3.1 1.3 -0.2 0.2

France 1.9 3.3 2.9 1.8 2.8 2.5 -0.2 -0.5 -0.4

Taiwan 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.1 2.6 2.4 -0.7 -0.2 -0.3

Singapore 1.7 2.7 2.5 1.4 2.8 2.4 -0.3 0.0 -0.1

Belgium 1.7 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.4 2.3 0.4 0.2 0.3

Brazil 1.6 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.3 0.4 0.3 0.3

Hong Kong 3.2 1.4 1.9 2.8 1.4 1.8 -0.4 -0.1 -0.1

Australia 1.4 2.2 2.0 1.5 1.7 1.6 0.2 -0.5 -0.3

India 0.9 0.5 0.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 0.6 1.1 0.9

Switzerland 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.6 1.2 1.3 0.2 0.1 0.1

Italy 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.3 -0.4 -0.2 -0.2

Malaysia 0.9 1.9 1.6 0.7 1.2 1.1 -0.2 -0.6 -0.5

Israel 1.5 0.7 0.9 1.3 0.9 1.0 -0.3 0.2 0.1

 Subtotal 78.4 84.6 83.0 74.6 81.2 79.2 -3.8 -3.4 -3.8

All other 21.6 15.4 17.0 25.4 18.8 20.8 3.8 3.4 3.8

Source: Official Census statistics.

2002–07

Change (%)

Change in share (%)

2002 2007

Value (Millions of $)

Share (%)

C-8 
TABLE C.5 Manufacturers merchandise exports, by country and firm size, 2002 and 2007

SME Large Total SME Large Total SME Large Total

Canada 10,422 78,757 89,179 121,138 19,478 140,617 86.9 53.8 57.7 

Mexico 52,185 7,078 59,264 13,049 72,949 85,998 84.4 39.8 45.1 

China 11,183 2,087 13,270 34,155 5,907 40,063 205.4 183.0 201.9 

Japan 23,217 3,631 26,849 29,152 5,875 35,028 61.8 25.6 30.5 

Germany 15,552 2,460 18,011 28,438 5,525 33,964 82.9 124.6 88.6 

United Kingdom 16,919 3,330 20,250 22,905 5,374 28,279 61.4 35.4 39.7 

Netherlands 1,391 10,385 8,994 15,092 5,606 20,697 67.8 303.0 99.3 

Korea 10,494 1,549 12,043 17,133 2,400 19,533 55.0 63.3 62.2 

France 12,122 1,442 13,564 16,109 2,758 18,867 91.3 32.9 39.1 

Belgium 1,072 7,793 8,864 14,535 3,530 18,065 86.5 229.4 103.8 

Singapore 1,384 10,613 9,230 15,811 2,094 17,905 51.3 71.3 68.7 

Taiwan 1,630 10,710 9,080 14,079 2,105 16,184 29.1 55.1 51.1 

Brazil 6,860 672 7,532 13,311 1,841 15,152 94.0 173.8 101.2 

Australia 8,092 933 9,025 2,352 12,031 9,680 19.6 151.9 33.3 

India 1,581 339 1,920 1,137 10,613 9,476 499.2 235.5 452.6 

Italy 1,048 5,100 6,148 1,785 7,616 9,401 49.3 70.3 52.9 

Hong Kong 1,582 4,123 5,704 2,554 6,407 8,961 55.4 61.5 57.1 

Malaysia 5,229 736 5,965 1,018 7,325 8,343 40.1 38.2 39.9 

Switzerland 2,800 527 3,327 1,293 4,140 145.5 5,433 47.9 63.3 

Israel 1,777 438 2,215 3,413 957 118.6 4,369 92.0 97.3 

 Subtotal 291,088 43,750 334,838 462,864 86,637 549,501 98.0 59.0 64.1 

All other 51,122 8,672 59,794 105,681 19,422 125,102 106.7 124.0 109.2 

Total 342,209 52,422 394,632 106,059 568,545 674,603 102.3 66.1 70.9 

Canada 19.9 23.0 22.6 18.4 21.3 20.8 -1.5 -1.7 -1.8

Mexico 13.5 15.2 15.0 12.3 12.8 12.7 -1.2 -2.4 -2.3

China 4.0 3.3 3.4 5.6 6.0 5.9 1.6 2.7 2.6

Japan 6.9 6.8 6.8 5.5 5.1 5.2 -1.4 -1.7 -1.6

Germany 4.7 4.5 4.6 5.2 5.0 5.0 0.5 0.5 0.5

United Kingdom 6.4 4.9 5.1 5.1 4.0 4.2 -1.3 -0.9 -0.9

Netherlands 2.7 2.6 2.6 5.3 2.7 3.1 2.6 0.0 0.4

Korea 3.0 3.1 3.1 2.3 3.0 2.9 -0.7 -0.1 -0.2

France 2.7 3.5 3.4 2.6 2.8 2.8 -0.1 -0.7 -0.6

Belgium 2.0 2.3 2.2 3.3 2.6 2.7 1.3 0.3 0.4

Singapore 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.0 2.8 2.7 -0.7 0.1 0.0

Taiwan 3.1 2.7 2.7 2.0 2.5 2.4 -1.1 -0.2 -0.3

Brazil 1.3 2.0 1.9 1.7 2.3 2.2 0.5 0.3 0.3

Australia 1.8 2.4 2.3 2.2 1.7 1.8 0.4 -0.7 -0.5

India 0.6 0.5 0.5 1.1 1.7 1.6 0.4 1.2 1.1

Italy 2.0 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.3 1.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.2

Hong Kong 3.0 1.2 1.4 2.4 1.1 1.3 -0.6 -0.1 -0.1

Malaysia 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.3 1.2 -0.4 -0.2 -0.3

Switzerland 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.2 -0.1 0.0

Israel 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1

 Subtotal 83.5 85.1 84.8 81.7 81.4 81.5 -1.8 -3.6 -3.4

All other 16.5 14.9 15.2 18.3 18.6 18.5 1.8 3.6 3.4

Source: Official Census statistics.

Share (%) Change in share (%)

2002 2007 2002–07

Value (Millions of $) Change (%)

C-9 
TABLE C.6 Nonmanufacturer merchandise exports, by country and firm size, 2002 and 2007

SME Large Total SME Large Total SME Large Total

Canada 16,862 15,592 32,454 25,899 28,897 54,796 66.1 71.4 68.8 

Mexico 12,277 14,161 26,438 22,297 13,978 36,275 57.5 13.9 37.2 

Japan 10,282 10,683 20,965 12,554 11,842 24,396 17.5 15.2 16.4 

China 3,043 4,455 15,307 7,498 21,844 6,537 114.8 243.6 191.3 

United Kingdom 4,674 4,637 10,015 9,311 16,746 6,731 44.0 116.0 79.9 

Korea 4,052 4,683 8,735 8,447 12,693 4,246 4.8 45.3 80.4 

Germany 2,761 3,184 5,945 6,590 12,686 6,096 120.8 107.0 113.4 

Netherlands 4,500 1,984 6,484 5,075 10,858 5,782 28.5 155.8 67.5 

Hong Kong 2,202 3,425 5,627 6,125 3,533 9,658 60.5 78.8 71.6 

Taiwan 3,152 2,817 5,969 4,385 4,671 9,056 48.2 55.6 51.7 

Switzerland 2,018 1,702 3,720 3,822 4,358 8,180 124.5 115.9 119.9 

Brazil 1,995 1,939 3,934 4,486 3,572 8,059 131.3 79.1 104.8 

France 2,298 1,615 3,913 2,751 3,898 6,649 69.6 70.3 69.9 

Singapore 2,868 1,266 4,134 2,325 4,228 6,553 47.4 83.6 58.5 

Israel 1,114 2,018 3,132 2,942 2,943 5,885 164.3 45.8 87.9 

Belgium 1,865 1,546 3,411 2,952 2,894 5,845 55.1 91.0 71.4 

India 1,113 1,825 712 3,688 1,851 5,538 231.3 160.0 203.5 

Australia 1,459 1,263 2,722 2,467 2,377 4,845 62.9 95.4 78.0 

Italy 1,276 1,662 2,938 2,405 1,306 3,711 44.7 2.3 26.3 

Malaysia 3,066 763 3,829 1,298 1,595 2,894 (48.0) 70.1 (24.4) 

 Subtotal 82,476 80,509 162,984 145,831 121,337 267,168 47.1 81.1 63.9 

All other 14,522 21,244 35,765 54,709 29,311 84,020 101.8 157.5 134.9 

Total 101,752 96,997 198,750 200,540 150,648 351,188 55.3 97.1 76.7 

Canada 15.3 17.4 16.3 12.9 19.2 15.6 -2.4 1.8 -0.7

Mexico 13.9 12.7 13.3 11.1 9.3 10.3 -2.8 -3.4 -3.0

Japan 10.5 10.6 10.5 6.3 7.9 6.9 -4.2 -2.7 -3.6

China 4.4 3.1 3.8 7.6 4.3 6.2 3.3 1.2 2.4

United Kingdom 4.6 4.8 4.7 5.0 4.5 4.8 0.4 -0.4 0.1

Korea 4.6 4.2 4.4 4.2 2.8 3.6 -0.4 -1.4 -0.8

Germany 3.1 2.8 3.0 3.3 4.0 3.6 0.2 1.2 0.6

Netherlands 1.9 4.6 3.3 2.5 3.8 3.1 0.6 -0.8 -0.2

Hong Kong 3.4 2.3 2.8 3.1 2.3 2.8 -0.3 0.1 -0.1

Taiwan 2.8 3.2 3.0 2.2 3.1 2.6 -0.6 -0.1 -0.4

Switzerland 1.7 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.9 2.3 0.2 0.8 0.5

Brazil 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

France 1.6 2.4 2.0 1.4 2.6 1.9 -0.2 0.2 -0.1

Singapore 1.2 3.0 2.1 1.2 2.8 1.9 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2

Israel 2.0 1.1 1.6 1.5 2.0 1.7 -0.5 0.8 0.1

Belgium 1.5 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.9 1.7 0.0 0.0 -0.1

India 1.1 0.7 0.9 1.8 1.2 1.6 0.7 0.5 0.7

Australia 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.6 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.0

Italy 1.6 1.3 1.5 1.2 0.9 1.1 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4

Malaysia 0.7 3.2 1.9 0.6 1.1 0.8 -0.1 -2.1 -1.1

 Subtotal 79.1 85.0 82.0 72.7 80.5 76.1 -6.4 -4.5 -5.9

All other 20.9 15.0 18.0 27.3 19.5 23.9 6.4 4.5 5.9

Source: Official Census statistics.

Share (%) Change in share (%)

2002 2007 2002–07

Value (Millions of $) Change (%)

C-10 
C-11 

TABLE C.7 Merchandise exports, by product and firm size, 2002 and 2007

SME Large Total SME Large Total SME Large Total

Transportation equipment 101,257 17,460 118,716 29,117 162,002 191,119 66.8 60.0 61.0 

Computer and electronic products 103,922 29,461 133,384 47,099 123,314 170,412 59.9 18.7 27.8 

Chemicals 14,422 59,762 74,184 35,168 106,644 141,812 78.4 143.8 91.2 

Machinery, except electrical 18,595 46,934 65,529 36,337 82,221 118,558 95.4 75.2 80.9 

Miscellaneous manufactured 

commodities 10,024 12,469 22,493 20,723 26,025 46,748 108.7 106.7 107.8 

Primary metal manufacturing 4,359 9,966 14,324 13,481 27,939 41,420 180.3 209.3 189.2 

Food and kindred products 13,537 9,340 22,877 16,364 19,713 36,077 75.2 45.6 57.7 

Electrical equipment, appliances, and 

components 14,750 4,733 19,483 8,681 24,182 32,862 83.4 63.9 68.7 

Petroleum and coal products 1,602 5,340 6,943 9,425 20,332 29,757 280.7 488.2 328.6 

Fabricated metal products, nesoi 11,033 4,789 15,822 10,031 16,613 26,645 50.6 109.5 68.4 

Paper 3,422 8,970 12,391 4,916 13,432 18,347 43.7 49.7 48.1 

Plastic and rubber products 10,102 3,644 13,746 5,869 11,744 17,613 61.0 16.3 28.1 

Nonmetallic mineral products 1,388 3,979 5,366 2,327 5,594 7,921 67.7 40.6 47.6 

Textiles and fabrics 2,583 4,213 6,796 2,816 5,005 7,820 9.0 18.8 15.1 

Printed matter and related products, 

nesoi 1,829 1,905 3,733 2,049 3,573 5,622 12.0 87.6 50.6 

Wood products 1,929 1,276 3,205 2,743 1,635 4,378 42.2 28.2 36.6 

Beverages and tobacco products 2,955 439 3,394 1,196 2,896 4,092 (2.0) 20.5 172.5

Apparel and accessories 2,106 3,125 5,231 1,896 1,480 3,376 (52.6) (10.0) (35.5) 

Leather and allied products 1,514 730 2,244 1,179 1,744 2,923 61.5 15.2 30.3 

Furniture and fixtures 689 951 1,641 1,172 1,722 2,895 70.1 81.0 76.5 

Textile mill products 500 979 1,480 842 1,349 2,192 68.3 37.8 48.1 

All nonmanufactured products 24,447 22,409 46,857 58,253 60,163 118,416 168.5 138.3 152.7 

 Total 158,492 441,347 599,839 311,684 719,322 1,031,007 63.0 71.9 96.7

Transportation equipment 11.0 22.9 19.8 9.3 22.5 18.5 -1.7 -0.4 -1.3

Computer and electronic products 18.6 23.5 22.2 15.1 17.1 16.5 -3.5 -6.4 -5.7

Chemicals 9.1 13.5 12.4 11.3 14.8 13.8 2.2 1.3 1.4

Machinery, except electrical 11.7 10.6 10.9 11.7 11.4 11.5 -0.1 0.8 0.6

Miscellaneous manufactured 

commodities 6.3 2.8 3.7 6.6 3.6 4.5 0.3 0.8 0.8

Primary metal manufacturing 2.7 2.3 2.4 4.3 3.9 4.0 1.6 1.6 1.6

Food and kindred products 5.9 3.1 3.8 5.3 2.7 3.5 -0.6 -0.3 -0.3

Electrical equipment, appliances, and 

components 3.0 3.3 3.2 2.8 3.4 3.2 -0.2 0.0 -0.1

Petroleum and coal products 1.0 1.2 1.2 3.0 2.8 2.9 2.0 1.6 1.7

Fabricated metal products, nesoi 3.0 2.5 2.6 3.2 2.3 2.6 0.2 -0.2 -0.1

Paper 2.2 2.0 2.1 1.6 1.9 1.8 -0.6 -0.2 -0.3

Plastic and rubber products 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.9 1.6 1.7 -0.4 -0.7 -0.6

Nonmetallic mineral products 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.8 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1

Textiles and fabrics 1.6 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.8 -0.7 -0.3 -0.4

Printed matter and related products, 

nesoi 1.2 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.5 -0.5 0.1 -0.1

Wood products 1.2 0.3 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.4 -0.3 -0.1 -0.1

Beverages and tobacco products 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 -0.3 -0.2

Apparel and accessories 1.3 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.2 0.3 -0.7 -0.5 -0.5

Leather and allied products 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1

Furniture and fixtures 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 -0.1 0.0 0.0

Textile mill products 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

All nonmanufactured products 15.4 5.1 7.8 18.7 8.4 11.5 3.3 3.3 3.7

Source: Official Census statistics.

2002 2007 2002–07

Share (%) Change in share (%)

Value (Millions of $) Change (%)
TABLE C.8 Manufacturer merchandise exports, by product and firm size, 2002 and 2007

SME Large Total SME Large Total SME Large Total

Transportation equipment 95,641 3,481 99,122 7,150 151,059 158,209 57.9 59.6 105.4

Computer and electronic products 11,678 54,058 65,736 18,724 101,682 82,958 53.5 54.7 60.3

Chemicals 49,385 6,436 55,820 17,345 101,469 84,124 70.3 81.8 169.5

Machinery, except electrical 39,961 8,312 48,273 17,519 66,922 84,442 67.5 74.9 110.8

Primary metal manufacturing 1,661 7,568 9,229 4,859 22,116 26,976 192.2 192.5 192.3 

Electrical equipment, appliances, and 

components 13,408 2,149 15,557 4,390 21,260 25,650 58.6 64.9 104.3

Miscellaneous manufactured 

commodities 3,148 9,373 12,521 6,256 15,794 22,051 98.7 68.5 76.1 

Food an kindred products 11,848 2,224 14,072 4,495 16,730 21,224 41.2 50.8 102.1

Fabricated metal products, nesoi 2,480 9,771 12,251 5,636 14,541 20,177 48.8 64.7 127.3 

Petroleum and coal products 4,052 552 4,604 1,386 13,804 15,190 240.7 151.0 229.9 

Paper 1,003 8,047 9,050 1,997 12,566 14,563 99.0 56.2 60.9 

Plastics and rubber products 1,900 9,340 11,239 3,113 10,509 13,622 63.8 12.5 21.2 

Nonmetallic mineral products 3,500 847 4,347 1,355 5,107 6,462 60.0 45.9 48.7 

Textiles and fabrics 1,343 3,243 4,585 1,681 3,981 5,663 25.2 22.8 23.5 

Beverages and tobacco products 2,762 160 2,923 406 2,779 3,186 0.6 9.0 153.2

Wood products 1,107 836 1,943 1,255 1,447 2,701 50.1 30.7 39.0 

Furniture and fixtures 815 1,067 252 505 1,461 1,967 79.3 84.3 100.6

Leather and allied products 1,211 251 1,463 486 1,240 1,726 93.4 2.4 18.0 

Apparel and accessories 1,155 2,434 3,589 792 833 1,625 (31.4) (65.8) (54.7) 

Printed matter and related products, 

nesoi 527 272 799 379 1,073 1,451 39.1 103.5 81.6 

Textile mill products 758 189 947 373 958 1,331 97.2 26.5 40.6 

All nonmanufactured products 13,400 2,095 15,495 5,956 37,279 43,235 178.2 184.3 179.0 

 Total 342,209 52,422 394,632 106,059 568,545 674,603 66.1 70.9 102.3

Transportation equipment 6.6 27.9 25.1 6.7 26.6 23.5 0.1 -1.4 -1.7

Computer and electronic products 22.3 15.8 16.7 17.7 14.6 15.1 -4.6 -1.2 -1.6

Chemicals 12.3 14.4 14.1 16.4 14.8 15.0 4.1 0.4 0.9

Machinery, except electrical 15.9 11.7 12.2 16.5 11.8 12.5 0.7 0.1 0.3

Primary metal manufacturing 3.2 2.2 2.3 4.6 3.9 4.0 1.4 1.7 1.7

Electrical equipment, appliances, and 

components 4.1 3.9 3.9 4.1 3.7 3.8 0.0 -0.2 -0.1

Miscellaneous manufactured 

commodities 6.0 2.7 3.2 5.9 2.8 3.3 -0.1 0.0 0.1

Food an kindred products 4.2 3.5 3.6 4.2 2.9 3.1 0.0 -0.5 -0.4

Fabricated metal products, nesoi 4.7 2.9 3.1 5.3 2.6 3.0 0.6 -0.3 -0.1

Petroleum and coal products 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 2.4 2.3 0.3 1.2 1.1

Paper 1.9 2.4 2.3 1.9 2.2 2.2 0.0 -0.1 -0.1

Plastics and rubber products 3.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 1.8 2.0 -0.7 -0.9 -0.8

Nonmetallic mineral products 1.6 1.0 1.1 1.3 0.9 1.0 -0.3 -0.1 -0.1

Textiles and fabrics 2.6 0.9 1.2 1.6 0.7 0.8 -1.0 -0.2 -0.3

Beverages and tobacco products 0.3 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.1 -0.3 -0.3

Wood products 1.6 0.3 0.5 1.2 0.3 0.4 -0.4 -0.1 -0.1

Furniture and fixtures 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Leather and allied products 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.0 -0.1 -0.1

Apparel and accessories 2.2 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.2 -1.5 -0.6 -0.7

Printed matter and related products, 

nesoi 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 -0.2 0.0 0.0

Textile mill products 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 -0.1 0.0

All nonmanufactured products 4.0 3.9 3.9 5.6 6.6 6.4 1.6 2.6 2.5

Source: Official Census statistics.

Share (%) Change in share (%)

2002 2007 2002–07

Value (Millions of $) Change (%)

C-12 
C-13 

TABLE C.9 Nonmanufacturer merchandise exports, by product and firm size, 2002 and 2007

SME Large Total SME Large Total SME Large Total

Computer and electronic products 49,450 16,927 66,376 27,392 40,355 67,747 61.8 2.1 (18.4)

Chemicals 10,102 7,481 17,582 17,503 22,520 40,024 134.0 127.6 122.9 

Machinery, except electrical 6,706 9,766 16,471 18,431 15,297 33,728 88.7 104.8 128.1 

Transportation equipment 13,481 18,951 5,470 21,442 10,942 32,385 59.1 70.9 100.0 

Miscellaneous manufactured 

commodities 3,021 6,701 13,401 9,722 10,230 23,631 100.0 143.1 238.7 

Food and kindred products 1,665 6,843 11,770 8,508 2,982 14,752 72.0 73.4 79.1

Petroleum and coal products 1,225 1,025 2,250 8,010 6,528 14,537 681.6 546.2 432.9 

Primary metal manufacturing 2,280 2,597 4,877 8,159 5,822 13,982 214.2 186.7 155.3 

Electrical equipment, appliances, and 

component 1,284 2,471 3,754 4,138 2,921 7,059 67.5 88.0 127.6 

Fabricated metal products, nesoi 1,203 2,164 3,367 4,282 2,072 6,354 97.8 88.7 72.2

Printed matter and related products, 

nesoi 1,362 1,516 2,878 1,610 2,500 4,110 6.2 42.8 83.6

Plastics and rubber products 1,547 720 2,267 2,681 1,235 3,916 73.3 72.8 71.6

Paper 2,226 500 2,726 2,791 865 3,657 25.4 34.1 73.1

Textiles and fabrics 1,173 934 2,107 1,119 1,023 2,143 (4.6) 1.7 9.6

Apparel and accessories 677 1,566 889 1,084 647 1,731 21.9 10.5 (4.4)

Wood products 1,068 162 1,230 1,459 188 1,647 36.7 34.0 16.0

Nonmetallic mineral products 476 517 993 949 487 1,436 83.6 44.7 2.3

Leather and allied products 299 475 774 676 504 1,180 42.4 52.5 68.5

Furniture and fixtures 425 136 561 652 261 912 53.3 62.7 92.1

Beverages and tobacco products 184 271 455 783 116 900 189.3 97.8 (36.8)

Textile mill products 219 302 521 444 391 835 46.7 60.2 78.7

All nonmanufactured products 21,889 30,814 8,925 51,763 22,762 74,525 136.5 141.9 155.0 

 Total 101,752 96,997 198,750 200,540 150,648 351,188 97.1 76.7 55.3

Computer and electronic products 16.6 51.0 33.4 13.7 26.8 19.3 -3.0 -24.2 -14.1

Chemicals 7.4 10.4 8.8 8.7 14.9 11.4 1.4 4.5 2.6

Machinery, except electrical 9.6 6.9 8.3 9.2 10.2 9.6 -0.4 3.2 1.3

Transportation equipment 13.2 5.6 9.5 10.7 7.3 9.2 -2.6 1.6 -0.3

Miscellaneous manufactured 

commodities 6.6 3.1 4.9 6.7 6.8 6.7 0.1 3.7 1.8

Food and kindred products 6.7 1.7 4.3 5.9 2.0 4.2 -0.9 0.3 -0.1

Petroleum and coal products 1.0 1.3 1.1 4.0 4.3 4.1 3.0 3.1 3.0

Primary metal manufacturing 2.6 2.4 2.5 4.1 3.9 4.0 1.5 1.5 1.5

Electrical equipment, appliances, and 

component 2.4 1.3 1.9 2.1 1.9 2.0 -0.4 0.6 0.1

Fabricated metal products, nesoi 2.1 1.2 1.7 2.1 1.4 1.8 0.0 0.1 0.1

Printed matter and related products, 

nesoi 1.5 1.4 1.4 0.8 1.7 1.2 -0.7 0.3 -0.3

Plastics and rubber products 1.5 0.7 1.1 1.3 0.8 1.1 -0.2 0.1 0.0

Paper 2.2 0.5 1.4 1.4 0.6 1.0 -0.8 0.1 -0.3

Textiles and fabrics 1.2 1.0 1.1 0.6 0.7 0.6 -0.6 -0.3 -0.5

Apparel and accessories 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.5 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3

Wood products 1.0 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.5 -0.3 0.0 -0.1

Nonmetallic mineral products 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.0 -0.2 -0.1

Leather and allied products 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 -0.1 0.0 -0.1

Furniture and fixtures 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 -0.1 0.0 0.0

Beverages and tobacco products 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 -0.1 0.0

Textile mill products 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.0

All nonmanufactured products 21.5 9.2 15.5 25.8 15.1 21.2 4.3 5.9 5.7

Source: Official Census statistics.

Share (%) Change in share (%)

2002 2007 2002–07

Value (Millions of $) Change (%)

APPENDIX D 

Additional Information on SME Services Exports 

TABLE D.1 Percentage share of total number of services firms in Census data captured in ORBIS database, by 

sector and employment category, 2006 

Sector 0–19 20–99 100–299 300–499 <500 500+ Total

Wholesale trade 18.8 29.7 29.2 29.1 20.3 20.3 20

Finance and insurance 16.9 62.0 66.7 57.0 20.5 20.5 21

Professional servicesa 16.1 27.7 37.4 38.6 16.9 16.9 17

Total 17.0 35.2 40.6 38.6 18.7 27.1 19

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns Survey, 2006, and Bureau Van Dijk, ORBIS database 

(accessed November 24, 2009). 

a

 Professional services include advertising, public relations, and related services; architectural, engineering, 

and related services; computer systems design and related services; legal services; and management, scientific, 

and technical consulting services. 

TABLE D.2 Comparison of total number of firms in Census and ORBIS databases by employment category, 2006

0–19 20–99 100–499 <500 500+ Total

All Firms Census 5,377,631 535,865 90,560 6,004,056 18,071 6,022,127

ORBIS 866,099 104,583 30,512 1,001,194 10,865 1,012,059

 0–19 20–99 100–499 500+ 

———————————Percent————————— 

All Firms Census 89.3 8.9 1.5 0.3

ORBIS 85.6 10.3 3.0 1.1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns Survey, 2006, and Bureau Van Dijk, ORBIS database 

(accessed November 24, 2009). 

TABLE D.3 Comparison of total number of firms in Census and ORBIS databases by sector, 2006 

Sector 0–19 20–99 100–299 300–499 <500 500+

—————————————Percent————————————

Wholesale trade Census 85.5 11.1 2.0 0.4 99.1 0.9

 ORBIS 79.4 16.3 2.9 0.6 99.2 0.8

Finance and insurance Census 91.7 6.1 1.3 0.3 99.4 0.6

 ORBIS 75.2 18.2 4.3 0.8 98.4 1.6

Professional servicesa Census 93.4 5.2 0.8 0.2 99.6 0.4

 ORBIS 88.8 8.5 1.7 0.4 99.4 0.6

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns Survey, 2006, and Bureau Van Dijk, ORBIS database 

(accessed November 24, 2009). 

a

 Professional services include advertising, public relations, and related services; architectural, engineering, and 

related services; computer systems design and related services; legal services; and management, scientific, and 

technical consulting services. 

D-3