Despite extensive research on decentralisation, the role of local governments in promoting the internationalisation of firms has been rather neglected in the literature. Based on a sample of 144 Portuguese municipalities, and resorting to logistic econometric estimations, we found that: (1) the majority of municipalities have been involved in activities to promote economic development and the internationalisation of firms; (2) municipalities are essentially involved in the branding of regions (image building) or in organising fairs and trade missions and (3) municipalities more active in promoting the internationalisation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) tend to be more peripheral, with a relatively high area and population density, higher purchasing power, higher proportion of population with secondary schooling, lower density entrepreneurial context but with higher amounts of exports. Although there is still a long way to go for a more profound and comprehensive decentralisation at this level in Portugal, given the knowledge municipalities possess about the firms that are located in their vicinity, we contend that it would be desirable that more decentralised efforts be put towards the implementation of information, and education/training-related programmes aiming at promoting SMEs internationalisation.
AgrawalARibotJC (1999) Accountability in decentralization: A framework with South Asian and West African Cases. The Journal of Developing Areas33: 473502.
2.
AnderssonKPGibsonCCLehoucqF (2006) Municipal politics and forest governance: Comparative analysis of decentralization in Bolivia and Guatemala. World Development34(3): 576595.
3.
AzfarOKähkönenSMeagherP (2001) Conditions for Effective Decentralized Governance: A Synthesis of Research Findings, Washington, DC: IRIS Center, University of Maryland, The World Bank.
4.
Balaguer-CollMTPriorDTortosa-AusinaE (2010) Decentralization and efficiency of local government. Annals of Regional Science45(3): 571601.
5.
BarberiaLGBidermanC (2010) Local economic development: Theory, evidence, and implications for policy in Brazil. Geoforum41(6): 951962.
6.
Blackburn RA and Schaper MT (2012) Introduction. In: Blackburn RA and Schaper MT (eds) Government, SMEs and Entrepreneurship Development: Policy, Practice and Challenges. Farnham: Gower, pp. 1–13.
7.
BlairH (2000) Participation and accountability at the periphery: Democratic local governance in six countries. World Development28(1): 2139.
8.
BooneC (2003) Decentralization as political strategy in West Africa. Comparative Political Studies36(4): 355380.
9.
CalderónHFayósTCerveraA (2005) A model for valuation of government export promotion policies: An empirical analysis in the Spanish context from a market oriented perspective. International Review on Public and Non Profit Marketing2(2): 3449.
10.
Cassey AT (2008) State trade missions. Paper seminar, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University, Spring 2008, pp. 1–29. Available at: www.ses.wsu.edu/ seminar/papers_Spring08/Cassey_State_trade_missions_4.pdf (accessed 7 October 2010).
11.
Cavusgil ST and Naor J (1987) Firm and management characteristics as discriminators of export marketing activity. Journal of Business Research 15(3): 221–235.
12.
ChangY-CChenM-HLinY-P (2012) Measuring regional innovation and entrepreneurship capabilities: The case of Taiwan Science Parks. Journal of the Knowledge Economy3(2): 90108.
13.
ChapmanDBarcikowskiESowahM (2002) Do communities know best? Testing a premise of educational decentralization: Community members' perceptions of their local schools in Ghana. International Journal of Educational Development22(2): 181189.
14.
ChapmanDW (2000) Trends in educational administration in developing Asia. Educational Administration Quarterly36(2): 283308.
15.
ChapmanDWMählckLOSmuldersA (1997) From Planning to Action: Government Initiatives for Improving School Level Practice, Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.
16.
CoxKR (2004) Globalization and the politics of local and regional development: The question of convergence. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers29(2): 179194.
17.
DeFilippisJ (1999) Alternatives to the “new urban politics”: Finding locality and autonomy in local economic development. Political Geography18(8): 973990.
18.
De VriesMS (2012) Decentralisation: What does it contribute to? The added value of decentralisation for living conditions in core cities of the EU. Public Policy and Administration11(4): 545562.
19.
DurmuşoğluSSApfelthalerGNayirDZ (2012) The effect of government-designed export promotion service use on small and medium-sized enterprise goal achievement: A multidimensional view of export performance. Industrial Marketing Management41(4): 680691.
20.
FaguetJ-P (2004) Does decentralization increase government responsiveness to local needs? Evidence from Bolivia. Journal of Public Economics88(3–4): 867893.
21.
FaguetJ-P (2014) Decentralization and governance. World Development53: 213.
22.
FinebergA (2013) Promoting sustainable local economic development for all areas: Looking forward or looking back?Local Economy28(7–8): 914920.
23.
Gençtürk E and Kotabe M (2001) The effect of export assistance program usage on export performance: A contingency explanation. Journal of International Marketing 9(2): 51–72.
24.
GibsonCLehoucqF (2003) The local politics of decentralized environmental policy in Guatemala. Journal of Environment and Development12(1): 2849.
25.
GillespieKRiddleL (2004) Export promotion organization emergence and development: A call to research. International Marketing Review21(4/5): 462473.
26.
GilSLlorcaRMartínez SerranoJ (2008) Measuring the impact of regional export promotion: The Spanish case. Papers in Regional Science87(1): 139147.
27.
GopalakrishnaSLilienGLWilliamsJD (1995) Do trade shows pay off?Journal of Marketing59(3): 7583.
28.
Greene W (2012) Econometric Analysis. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
29.
JoanisM (2014) Shared accountability and partial decentralization in local public good provision. Journal of Development Economics107: 2837.
30.
KamotoJClarksonGDorwardP (2013) Doing more harm than good? Community based natural resource management and the neglect of local institutions in policy development. Land Use Policy35: 293301.
31.
KauneckisDAnderssonK (2009) Making decentralization work: A cross-national examination of local governments and natural resource governance in Latin America. Studies in Comparative International Development44(1): 2346.
32.
LedermanDOlarreagaMPaytonL (2010) Export promotion agencies: Do they work?Journal of Development Economics91(2): 257265.
33.
LeonidouLCPalihawadanaSTheodosiouM (2011) National export-promotion programs as drivers of organizational resources and capabilities: Effects on strategy, competitive advantage, and performance. Journal of International Marketing19(2): 129.
34.
LeschWCEshghiAEshghiGS (1990) A review of export promotion programs in the ten largest industrial states. In: CavusgilSTCzinkotaMR (eds) International Perspectives on Trade Promotion and Assistance, New York: Quorum Books, pp. 2537.
35.
LewisRJ (1990) Foreword. In: CavusgilSTCzinkotaMR (eds) International Perspectives on Trade Promotion and Assistance, New York: Quorum Books, pp. viiixiv.
36.
LitvackJAhmadJBirdR (1998) Rethinking decentralization in developing countries. The World Bank Sector Study Series, Paper no. 21491, Washington, DC: The World Bank.
37.
LitvackJSeddonJ (1999) Decentralization Briefing Notes, Washington, DC: The World Bank.
38.
LobaoLKraybillD (2009) Poverty and local governments: Economic development and community service provision in an era of decentralization. Growth and Change40(3): 418451.
39.
MarinettoM (2003) Governing beyond the centre: A critique of the Anglo-governance school. Political Studies51(3): 592608.
40.
NanettiRYRatoHRodriguesM (2004) Institutional capacity and reluctant decentralization in Portugal: The Lisbon and Tagus Valley Region. Regional and Federal Studies14(3): 405429.
41.
OatesWE (1972) Fiscal Federalism, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
42.
OatesWE (1999) An essay on fiscal federalism. Journal of Economic Literature37(3): 11201149.
43.
O'GormanCEversN (2011) Network intermediaries in the internationalisation of new firms in peripheral regions. International Marketing Review28(4): 340364.
44.
PachecoP (2004) What lies behind decentralization? Forest, powers and actors in lowland Bolivia. European Journal of Development Research16(1): 90119.
45.
PinhoJCMartinsL (2010) Exporting barriers: Insights from Portuguese small- and medium-sized exporters and non-exporters. Journal of International Entrepreneurship8(3): 254272.
46.
RibotJC (1999) Accountable representation and power in participatory and decentralized environmental management. Unasylva, FAO50(4): 1822.
47.
Ribot JC (2001) Local actors, powers and accountability in African decentralizations: A review of issues. Paper prepared for IDRC, assessment of social policy reforms initiative, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
48.
RibotJC (2002) Democratic Decentralization of Natural Resources: Institutionalizing Popular Participation, Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
49.
RoddenJ (2003) Comparative federalism and decentralization: On meaning and measurement. Comparative Politics36(4): 481500.
50.
Rodríguez-PoseAGillN (2005) On the ‘economic dividend’ of devolution. Regional Studies39(4): 405420.
51.
RondinelliDMcCulloughJJohnsonR (1989) Analyzing decentralization policies in developing countries: A political-economy framework. Development and Change20(1): 5787.
52.
RoseAK (2007) The foreign service and foreign trade: Embassies as export promotion. World Economy30(1): 2238.
53.
RowlandAM (2001) Population as a determinant of local outcomes under decentralization: Illustrations from small municipalities in Bolivia and Mexico. World Development29(8): 13731389.
54.
SerraFPointonJAbdouH (2012) Factors influencing the propensity to export: A study of UK and Portuguese textile firms. International Business Review21(2): 210224.
55.
ShamsuddohaAKAliMYNdubisiNO (2009) Impact of government export assistance on internationalization of SMEs from developing nations. Journal of Enterprise Information Management22(4): 408422.
56.
SorensJ (2009) The partisan logic of decentralization in Europe. Regional and Federal Studies19(2): 255272.
57.
StaggL (1990) Is Minnesota’s export portfolio a good mix? In: CavusgilSTCzinkotaMR (eds) International Perspectives on Trade Promotion and Assistance., New York: Quorum Books, pp. 324.
58.
TaylorMZ (2007) Political decentralization and technological innovation: Testing the innovative advantages of decentralized states. Review of Policy Research24(3): 231257.
59.
Teixeira AAC and Barros MJ (2014) Decentralization of public policies for the promotion of SMEs’ internationalization. A theoretical account. Revista Portuguesa de Estudos Regionais 35(1): 16–27.
60.
TeixeiraAACSilvaC (2012) A new perspective on local political entrepreneurship: Evidence from Portugal. Local Economy27(4): 332354.
61.
TieboutCM (1956) A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy64(5): 416424.
62.
Volpe MartincusCCarballoJ (2010) Export promotion: Bundled services work better. World Economy33(12): 17181756.
63.
WallisJJOatesWE (1988) Decentralization in the public sector: An empirical study of the state and local government. In: RosenHS (eds) Fiscal Federalism: Quantitative Studies, National Bureau of Economic Research, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 532.
64.
WilkinsonTJBrouthersLE (2006) Trade promotion and SME export performance. International Business Review15(3): 233252.
