firms (such as manufacturers of personal protective equipment, who need workers). This evidence corroborates the findings from the GFC, in that although globally engaged firms are intrinsically more sensitive to trade shocks (Claessens et al., 2012), they managed to save more jobs, stay more productive and were more likely to survive than non-exporters (Eppinger et al., 2018). Our study enriches this literature by providing clear evidence of stronger resilience of globally engaged firms in the form of faster recovery of their sales and improvement in financial position.

Several mechanisms can be hypothesized for why globally engaged firms may have been more resilient to the COVID-19 pandemic. _First_ , globally engaged firms benefit from a more diversified portfolio of markets beyond the domestic market which allows them to buffer negative shocks (Esposito, 2022; Hyun et al., 2020; Borin et al., 2021). _Second_ , globally engaged firms have better capabilities such as better management practices (Grover and Torre, 2019; Tanaka, 2020) and stronger technology adoption (Bustos, 2011) and are more productive (Melitz, 2003), which helps them cope with negative shocks (though causality likely runs both ways). Our study confirms these patterns for firms in the BPS data. Emerging evidence reveals that better management practices lead firms to more sound decisions during the COVID-19 crisis (Grover and Karplus, 2021) and multinationals have turned to digital technologies during the pandemic to optimize capacity and improve logistics (Saurav et al., 2021).

Nevertheless, most globally engaged firms have less market power in global trade and their products are more easily substitutable across competitors worldwide, making them more susceptible to negative shocks (Hyun et al., 2020). In this regard, public policy support can play a key role in helping such firms mitigate the adverse impacts of recessions and economic shocks and contribute to a more robust recovery. Export promotion policies helped firms in Belgium and Peru weather the GFC (Van Biesebroeck et al., 2016): supported firms were more likely to survive in the international market and to continue exporting to destination countries hit by the GFC. Support from government credit guarantees in Germany helped firms sustain their exports after the GFC, as the guarantees lifted liquidity constraints and cushioned increases in the cost of credit (Felbermayr et al., 2012). While an emerging set of studies is examining the set of policy measures that governments have relied on to help firms and households face the pandemic (e.g., Chetty et al., 2020; Kozeniauskas et al., 2020; Baldwin and Weder, 2020; Cirera et al., 2021a; Guerrero-Amezaga et al., 2022), we contribute to this literature by examining the differential access by globally engaged firms.

# **3. Data and Methodology**

## **3.1 Data**

To understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the performance of firms across countries, the World Bank, conducted Business Pulse Surveys (BPS) and the Enterprise Surveys (WBES) - henceforth designated as ’BPS data’ for simplicity - in three waves: May-September 2020, October 2020-March 2021, and April-October 2021. The survey questionnaire includes modules on firm characteristics and outcomes, including exports, since the onset of COVID-19. Other trade outcomes 7