The two regressions reveal some notable differences. First, for manufacturing we find an impact from increases in foreign ownership of firm _i_ , where additional ownership increases employment growth (with no evidence that reductions in ownership lower growth). Second, we see that the impact from reductions in the horizontal spillover variable are attributable to manufacturing.<sup>31</sup> Conversely, the backward spillover variables are significant only for services. In addition, for services we now find significant impacts from both increases and decreases in the backward spillovers where, consistent with a mix of persistent learning and transitory leaning effects, the point estimate for entries is greater than for exits. It should be noted, however, that we cannot reject the null hypothesis for equality of these coefficients.<sup>32</sup> This result also lends some support to the notion that new entries may require time before their impacts are felt. If FDI in the service industry comes “on line” faster than that in manufacturing, something suggested by Davies and Desbordes (2016), then this may explain the difference in effects of new entries for manufacturing and services.

In columns (4) through (7), we focus on firm size, with (4) and (5) differentiating by employment (where small firms have less than 20 employees) and (6) and (7) differentiating by revenues (where small firms earn less than 80,000 Jordanian Dinar).<sup>33</sup> On the whole, we find significant spillover effects primarily for small firms, regardless of whether this is measured by employment or revenues. In particular, as in the full sample results, these seem to stem from horizontal and backward exits. One interpretation of these results is that, in order to benefit from FDI spillovers, a given firm must be sufficiently far from the technological frontier, i.e. that it has room to grow. Evidence for this is found in Chinese data by Hu et al. (2005) and across OECD countries by Griffith et al. (2004). In addition, we find that, at least for high revenue firms, that higher foreign ownership in the firm itself is linked with higher employment growth.

Finally, columns (8) and (9) split our sample between old firms (those founded before 1990) and young ones. Overall, we find that older firms are more sensitive to FDI spillovers, a finding consistent with Gorodnichenko et al. (2014). Specifically, we provide evidence that more foreign ownership of firm _i_ increases growth, with a slightly greater effect from increases in foreign ownership than from decreases. Foreign ownership of firm _i_ , however, has no significant impact among the younger firms. Older firms are also affected by horizontal

> 31If we control for sector which attract more FDI as compared to sectors where FDI is leaving we find evidence that this effect is driven by sectors where FDI activity is reduced. In sectors where FDI activity is increasing we find in turn evidence that competition spillover matters. Results are available on request.

> 32The F-statistic for this test was 1.33, resulting in a p-value of 0.25.

> 33Gorodnichenko et al. (2014) use a similar threshold. Our threshold separates the top 5% of companies from the remainder.

16