# **II.3 FIRM-LEVEL DATA**

Between January and April 2013, we collected firm-level information on investments in physical and intangible assets, export and domestic sales, estimated lifespan of intangible assets, and other firm characteristics of a stratified sample of firms in the Chilean wine industry for the three latest available years (2009 through 2011).<sup>10</sup> In particular, the questionnaire included novel, detailed questions on spending (both in-house and purchased through external providers) on the six main types of intangible assets—software, R&D, design, reputation & branding, training and business process improvements— plus collaboration-related economic competencies (collaborative learning through spending on both foreign consultant services and technology capture trips<sup>11</sup> ).<sup>12</sup>

**Table 2. Chilean wine industry: Universe and sample**

|**Size strata(ha)**|**Uni**<br>No.|**verse**<br>%|**Su**<br>No.|**rvey**<br>%|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|x≤100|120|50.8|9|37.5|
|100<x≤500|83|35.2|8|33.3|
|500<x≤2,000|29|12.3|3|12.5|
|x>2,000|4|1.7|4|16.7|
|**Total**|**236**|**100**|**24**|**100**|

The sample frame was drawn from a database of all registered wine-producing enterprises. Table 2 shows the total number of firms in the Chilean wine industry as of end-2011 and the respondent sample according to firm size (proxied by production hectares). As is evident, the stratum of smallest firms (100 hectares and less) is under-represented in the sample, while the largest firms were intentionally oversampled. Initially the identified, intended sample included 50 firms, weighted proportionally to the population, but the survey period coincided with harvest time in the vineyards and many firm managers did not make themselves available to be surveyed.<sup>13</sup> Thus, only 24 firms (or 48 percent of the original sample) responded the questionnaire. In total, the firms sampled represent 53-54 percent and 56-60 percent of Chilean wine exports between 2009 and 2011, measured in export value and physical output, respectively.

Figure 3 shows the incidence of spending by aggregated intangible asset type, broken down by size group (less than versus more than 500 hectares). Our results are similar to what Awano et al. (2010) found for the UK across all industries, namely that the top three asset types were training, software, and reputation & branding, and that R&D had the lowest incidence – with results holding for both large and small

> 10 The survey instrument used is available in the Appendix. It is a new survey instrument, adapted from the “Investment in Intangible Assets” survey sent to 2,004 UK firms by Awano et al. (2010), which in turn was modified from a template provided by the Central Bureau of Statistics in Israel. Two surveyors visited the sampled firms to apply the questionnaire.

> 11 These were typically structured study tours with local entrepreneurs going abroad.

> 12 The questionnaire is attached in the Appendix.

> 13 There is no indication that the respondents represented a biased sample. Awano et al. (2010) report that 42 percent of firms to which their survey was sent provided knowledge capital spending information.

12