conclusion is reinforced by different studies using firm-level data to analyze the impact of these agencies and export programs in Peru (Promperu), Costa Rica (Procomer), Uruguay (Uruguay XXI), Chile (Prochile), Argentina (Fundancion ExportAR) and Colombia (Proexport).<sup>18</sup> In addition, these studies find that the impact is larger for smaller firms (in the cases of Argentina and Chile) and that bundled services work better. Chen et al. [2011] analyze the case of the Canadian Trade Promotion Services using firm-level data from 1999 to 2006 and find a robust positive effect at the intensive margin. Hiller [2012] analyzes the impact of export association membership on export sales and the number of products in Denmark and finds a more significant effect on the intensive margin (export sales).<sup>19</sup> EPAs’ support has positive effects on facilitating non-exporting firms to become exporters. Cruz [2014] finds that the Brazilian EPA has a positive impact on increasing the probability of a non-exporting firm becoming an exporter in Brazil. Schminke and Van Biesebroeck [2015] and Lederman et al. [2016] also support the findings that EPAs’ support increases the likelihood of non-exporting firms to start exporting.<sup>20</sup> Also, Cruz et al. [2018] find that an EPA program aiming to enhance the competitiveness of SMEs in Brazil have affected the organization of firms, by inducing them to add more layers of different skills and competencies to their workforces.

However, there is no clear evidence that export promotion effects are durable. Cadot et al. [2015] find a positive impact of an export promotion program (Famex) in Tunisia only in the short run (two periods after the treatment).<sup>21</sup> After this period treated and control groups of firms seem to have similar performance. Yet, using firm-level data from Belgium and Peru, Van Biesebroeck et al. [2016] show evidence that export promotion programs helped firms to survive in export markets that experienced a financial crisis, which may suggest long-term positive effects. This finding is alos supported by Lederman et al. [2016], by showing that EPAs’ programs have a positive effect on increasing the survival probability of new exporters.

A common question usually raised regarding the country-level studies refers to their external validity and the comparability of EPAs across different countries. The cross-section studies usually assume comparability between EPAs, but those studies using firm-level data are usually focusing on specific countries. Despite the fact that policy outcomes can vary over different institutional environments across countries, studies using firm-level data show that there are several

> 18See Volpe Martincus and Carballo [2008], Jordana et al. [2010], Volpe Martincus and Carballo [2010a], Volpe Martincus and Carballo [2010c], Volpe Martincus et al. [2010] and Volpe Martincus and Carballo [2010b].

> 19Hiller [2012] also finds a positive impact on the number of products exported.

> 20Bernard and Jensen [2004] find no impact of export promotion on the probability of exporting for firms from the United States. However, they use the log of export promotion expenditures per plant for each state as a covariate, which does not allow them to identify the groups of treated and untreated firms.

> 21Famex is a program that provided firms in Tunisia with matching grants for promoting exporters through co-financing half of the cost of export business plans.

12