local suppliers with other domestic ...rms, or any large ...rms.<sup>20</sup> In particular, the fact that both domestic sibling presence and ...rm size sibling presence are not statistically signi...cant suggest that our ...nding of SSS is not driven by large ...rms.<sup>21</sup> It should also be noted that when FSPit is included in these columns, the coe¢ cients on FSPit remain positive and signi...cant, similarly to the estimates listed in Columns (1) and (9) of Table 5. So including these other possible channels do not a¤ect the ...ndings of SSS. Due to space constraints, this set of results are not reported but is available upon request.<sup>22</sup>

# 6.2 Placebo experiment –random siblings

Another concern could be that the sibling relationship is, somehow, random and the previous result is just coincidental. There is also a concern that using the top supplier list of 2003 to estimate foreign sibling presence for the previous years, I may introduce large and systematic measurement errors that may a¤ect the regression results. Finally, for each ...rm, I only have information on their top three local suppliers, which may leave out other local suppliers if the ...rms have more. To address these concerns, I use an arti...cial foreign sibling presence variable, constructed when domestic ...rms are randomly assigned FDI siblings. I repeated this placebo experiment 50 times and report the mean and standard deviation of the estimated coe¢ cients from these 50 regressions in Columns (5) and (10) of Table 6. The randomized foreign sibling presence does not have any explanatory

> 20 In addition, we also use EBA as an IV for domestic sibling presence, given that when EBA was announced in 2000, both FDI and domestic ...rms may a¤ect their investment decision which a¤ects the foreign sibling presence and domestic sibling presence of the same domestic ...rms. In other words, we have two “treated groups,” and it is important to show that sibling foreign presence did not pick up the in‡uence of domestic sibling presence. In both the restricted sample of non-EU exporters and the full sample, domestic sibling presence is not statistically signi...cant in the second stage across all dependent variables. In the ...rst stage, while the interaction term is positive and signi...cant, domestic sibling that export to the EU is not statistically signi...cant. When I also include FDI siblings that export to the EU in the ...rst stage, together with its interaction term with EBA and woven dummies, only the FDI siblings variables are positive and signi...cant and the domestic sibling variables have wrong sign and insignicant. Overall, this result shows that domestic siblings do not have a positive impact on the performance of other domestic ...rms and only FDI siblings are important.

> 21 It should also be noted that in the survey data, each ...rm also reports whether their top manager has worked in a FDI ...rm prior to joining the ...rm. I tried to explore whether there is any spillover from FDI ...rms to domestic ...rms through such movement of workers. I failed to ...nd any statistically meaningful results. Across ...rms, those that have top manager with FDI experience do not out perform ...rms that do not have top manager with FDI experience. Within ...rm, there is no robust evidence indicating those FDI trained managers make their ...rms grow faster. Due to space constraint, these results are not reported but are available upon request.

> 22 Note that another alternative hypothesis could be that foreign sibling presence captures the e¤ect of “exporter sibling presence,”–may be by sharing local suppliers with an exporter, domestic ...rms may perform better. However, given that all ...rms in our sample are exporters, there will be no meaningful variation in the exporter sibling presence variable to explain the performance of domestic ...rms.

22