Moreover, cells receive a black border if the identity of the export-destination for a particular position would change if small exporters are included. For mining this was never the case and for agriculture it only changed the destination country in four cells. In the manufacturing sector, almost half of the top-5 destination identities are different if the contribution of small exporters were excluded. In most cases this would only change the ordering of countries, but in a few cases it even introduces a new country in the table. The most important pattern is that without small exporters the ranking of Uganda would often be lower and in a few years also for Kenya. Ignoring smaller exporters would underestimate the importance of regional trade in manufacturing products. A pattern that is explored further in the next section.

In the Rwandan firms surveyed in the WBES, the median exporter reports to be exporting 160,000 USD a year, or 10% of its total output. The average export value is nine times as large, which underscores the very skewed distribution. This value has decreased slightly from the 2006 to the 2011 survey year. Across all other African countries, the median export value across all exporters is notably higher at 244,000 USD and the mean is far higher still. Omitting the 1% largest export flows because they might be misreported, the average export value over all non-Rwandan firms is 30.1 million USD or more than 100 times the median value. The low values for Rwanda are not inconsistent with the results in the administrative data and they are also low relative to other African countries.

# **4.4 Export destinations: local and concentrated**

It is well-known, see for example Bastos and Silva (2010), that product quality varies across export destinations. Richer consumers in more developed countries have stronger preferences for higher quality products, and firms naturally can charge higher prices in highquality segments. There is evidence suggesting that such variation is not only the result of firms specializing by market, but it is also driven by firms tailoring their products and prices to the destination market (Fafchamps, El Hamine and Zeufack, 2007). The identity and range of export destination markets also provides information on the extent firms are integrated in GVCs.

A first thing to note from Table 1 is that with only the top 5 destinations we cover the vast majority of exports. For many EU countries, exports to the four largest member states and one or two neighbors cover half of their total exports. For Rwanda, we see that the concentration is even more pronounced. The share going to the top destination is never less than 30% of overall exports in a sector. The fifth destination only accounts for 4% (Manufacturing), 5% (Agriculture), or 7% (Mining), averaged over the sample period. The overwhelming majority of exports, almost always more than 90% and in many cases more than 95%, goes to at most five destinations.

For manufacturing, we expanded the table to include exports up to the tenth destination (results available upon request). On average, the tenth destination accounts for only 0.6% of total exports. If we re-compute Table 1, but only consider firms with less than 100 000 USD annual exports (globally), there are several years when fewer than five destinations are served across all firms in Rwanda.

17