Using the first round of surveys with EPAs described in the previous section, Lederman et al. [2010] present a cross-country statistical analysis of the impact of EPAs on exports. They find that on average EPAs have a positive and statistically significant effect on exports. Their estimates suggest that a 10 percent increase in EPA budgets at the mean leads to a 0.6 to 1 percent increase in exports. The authors also suggest that EPAs seem to be more effective when they can help circumvent trade barriers abroad or asymmetric information associated with a large share of heterogeneous goods in the export bundle. Their results are in line with other cross-country analysis at the aggregated level. Hayakawa et al. [2011] also find a positive effect of promotion agencies on the export increases in Japan and the Republic of Korea. Their results suggest that the effect of establishing an EPA office abroad on exports is almost equivalent to signing a free trade agreement (FTA) with the same country, while Gil-Pareja et al. [2014] provide evidence of a positive impact of regional export promotion offices for Spain. These offices seem to be more effective in promoting exports, the more distant they are from their country.<sup>15</sup> Yet, the aggregated approach does not identify the impact at the level of the firms that benefit from the programs. Since the 2000s, there have been numerous papers evaluating impacts of EPAs using firm-level data from different countries and regions.<sup>16</sup> Most of these studies take advantage of a greater availability of data and new econometric techniques used in impact evaluations to deal with selection issues in non-experimental settings. All in all, most of their findings converge with the positive results found by the more aggregated approach. Van Biesebroeck et al. [2016] provide a comprehensive review of the literature on the impact of EPAs on different export dimensions focusing on firm-level analysis, including several recent studies between 2012 and 2015.

These studies suggest that EPAs may have a positive effect on firms’ export performance at the intensive and extensive margins of trade.<sup>17</sup> Espinoza and Crespi [2000] show a positive impact of Prochile (Trade Comission of Chile, responsible for implementing and enhancing Chile’s trade policy) on firms’ export performance in Chile, particularly on the extensive margin due to a scheme called export committee. Volpe Martincus [2010] provides evidence of the effectiveness of EPAs in many Latin American countries on the intensive and the extensive margins of trade. His

> 15They attribute this effect to the incomplete information barriers problem.

> 16Seringhaus and Botschen [1991] also used a small sample from a survey carried out with 312 firms in Austria and 271 firms in Canada to compare the difference between the services provided by EPAs in both countries taking into account the fact that they were public in Canada and private in Austria.

> 17Trade economists usually refer to the margins of trade as a way to understand the dynamics of export or import behavior. In this case, the intensive margin of exports refers to an increase in the export value of firms that are already exporting. The extensive margin can be decomposed into different components, such as: a) Exports by new firms (pure extensive margin); b) Exports by existing firms of a new product to a new market; c) Exports by existing firms of a new product to an existing market; d) Exports by existing firms of an existing product to a new market. Understanding these dynamics might be helpful to design more effective export promotion policies.

11