||[0.100]|[0.128]||
|---|---|---|---|
|**Permanent overseas representation**||||
|No permanent overseas representation|0.300|0.500|-0.200|
||[0.153]|[0.129]||
|Permanent overseas representation via IPA staff at national embassy|0.100|0.313|-0.212|
||[0.100]|[0.120]||
|Permanent overseas representation via IPA’s own offices abroad|0.600|0.188|0.412**|
||[0.163]|[0.101]||

Note: The value displayed for t-tests are the differences in the means across the groups. High-performing IPAs are identified based on the sectoral gravity model with country interaction effects (see section 4.1). IPA = Investment Promotion Agency. Greenhighlighted fields indicate statistically significant differences between high-performing IPAs and other IPAs. ***, **, and * indicate significance at the 1, 5, and 10 percent critical level.

# **Investor Service Delivery**

Finally, it appears that high-performing IPAs also differ in the way that they provide their services, partly by engaging in more smart, sectoral analytics (Table 12). While Heilbron and Kronfol (2020) noted the importance of _quality_ service delivery, it is not possible to gauge the quality of such services from an IPAreported service. Instead, we therefore focus on the way in which IPAs implement their sectoral promotion strategy – an important indicator of quality, as shown in the wider literature (see section 2.1) and in our results (see 5.1). This finds that while high-performing IPAs and other IPAs have a lot in common in how they implement their sectoral promotion plans. Yet, high-performing IPAs are much more likely to engage in sectoral analytics – either by preparing sector profiles that detail their country’s relative advance (100 percent of high-performing IPAs vs. less than 70 percent for other IPAs) or by purchasing sectoral intelligence/research reports (60 percent vs. 25 percent). In both cases, this difference is significant at the 10 percent level. Another striking feature is that high-performing IPAs are more likely to engage in each one of the 11 listed options<sup>7</sup> than other IPAs are, thus indicating the breadth of sectoral promotion activities undertaken by such high-performing IPAs.

While tools and systems to facilitate IPA operations are commonplace in both groups – high-performing IPAs are more likely to adopt systems for identifying investor complaints or disputes (Table 12). In both groups, all respondents noted having a customer relationship management software, and were similar in adopting standard operating procedures, and having an electronic database with updated contact information for investors. Yet the high-performing group was considerably more likely in adopting a system for gathering investor complaints or disputes (80 percent vs. 44 percent, significant at the 10 percent level). The use of this tool may therefore also be important helping IPAs to identify investor priorities and strengthen their service delivery.

**Table 12: Investor Services**

|Variable|High-performingIPAs|Other IPAs|Difference|
|---|---|---|---|
|**Implementation of investment promotion plans for priority sectors**||||
|Preparation of sector profiles, detailing country’s relative advantages|1.000|0.688|0.313*|
||[0.000]|[0.120]||
|Participation in sector events/conferences|0.900|0.625|0.275|
||[0.100]|[0.125]||
|Participation in sector trade shows|0.800|0.563|0.237|
||[0.133]|[0.128]||
|Organization of events, conferences, and trade shows|0.800|0.500|0.300|

7 These include development of sector profiles, sector events, trade shows, sector-specialized staff, investor and communications campaigns, relationship-building, sectoral website sections, purchase of sector intelligence, and investor databases.

22