This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-310T 
entitled 'International Trade: Observations on U.S. and Foreign 
Countries' Export Promotion Activities' which was released on December 
9, 2009. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Testimony: 

Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global 
Competitiveness, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

For Release on Delivery: 
Expected at 2:30 p.m. EDT:
Wednesday, December 9, 2009: 

International Trade: 

Observations on U.S. and Foreign Countries' Export Promotion 
Activities: 

Statement of Loren Yager, Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 

GAO-10-310T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO10-310T, a testimony to the Subcommittee on 
International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness, Committee on 
Finance, U.S. Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

As Congress considers policies to bolster the recovery of the U.S. 
economy, it must consider the full range of tools available to 
stimulate growth and create new jobs, including promoting exports. 
According to the Department of Commerce, U.S. exports of manufactured 
goods totaled $1.8 trillion in 2008—accounting for approximately 13 
percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. GAO’s testimony addresses 
the benefits of exports and provides updated information on U.S. export 
promotion efforts. It also includes initial observations about foreign 
export promotion activities. The observations about U.S. export 
promotion efforts are based on a variety of reports and testimonies GAO 
has issued on international trade over the past 4 years. Observations 
about foreign export promotion practices are based on a preliminary 
review of several key expert studies. 

What GAO Found: 

Exports, and trade more broadly, contribute to the U.S. economy in a 
variety of ways. Trade enables the United States to achieve a higher 
standard of living through producing and exporting goods and services 
that are produced here relatively efficiently, and importing goods and 
services that are produced here relatively inefficiently. 

Rationales for export promotion programs include macroeconomic 
considerations such as job creation and economic growth. Others are 
based on microeconomic considerations such as “market failures,” for 
example where imperfect information prevents markets from generating 
the most efficient outcome. Rationales also exist for export programs 
based on achieving broader trade policy objectives, such as helping 
U.S. exporters overcome foreign trade barriers that make it difficult 
for U.S. products to penetrate foreign markets. However, measuring the 
effectiveness of export promotion activities is difficult. For example, 
quantifying the growth in exports is complicated by the fact that other 
factors, such as government policies and firm-specific conditions, also 
determine growth. 

Export promotion efforts in the United States are guided by the 
National Export Strategy. According to the strategy, 20 agencies are 
part of the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC), of which 9 
of the agencies have budgets for programs or activities related to 
export promotion, with the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, and 
State actively engaged in export promotion overseas. Agency export 
promotion activities include providing basic export counseling; 
assisting with collecting and providing data on foreign markets; and 
advising firms on how to best market their products overseas. 

While GAO has not recently performed an in-depth comparison of U.S. and 
foreign export promotion activities, the findings and recommendations 
in our past reviews of U.S. agencies are consistent with expert studies 
looking at export promotion practices in other countries. Specifically, 
GAO has identified elements of U.S. export promotion activities that 
warrant attention: (1) coordination; (2) targeted services for small 
and medium enterprises and other priorities; (3) performance 
monitoring; and (4) partnerships and methodologies for setting user 
fees. The expert studies GAO reviewed echo the importance of each of 
these elements with regard to the activities of foreign export 
promotion agencies and may be informative for policy discussions about 
U.S. export promotion activities. 

What GAO Recommends: 

Based on reports from 2006 to 2009, GAO has made a number of 
recommendations to improve various U.S. export promotion activities. 

View GAO-10-310T or key components. For more information, contact Loren 
Yager at (202) 512-4347 or yagerl@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today before the Subcommittee 
on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness to provide 
our perspective on the role of U.S. export promotion. As Congress 
considers policies to bolster the recovery of the U.S. economy, it must 
consider the full range of tools available to stimulate growth and 
create new jobs, including promoting exports. My statement today will 
provide an overview of (1) the benefits of exporting, rationale for 
export promotion activities and extent of U.S. activities; and (2) 
observations about U.S. and foreign export promotion, focusing on the 
importance of coordination, targeting services, performance monitoring, 
and collaborative partnerships. GAO has reviewed export promotion 
activities in agencies including the Department of Commerce and the 
Export-Import Bank over the years and recommended changes to improve 
the data and information regarding their export promotion activities, 
and the agencies have responded to our recommendations. For example, 
Commerce agreed with recommendations we made earlier this year to 
improve their procedures for determining costs and setting user fees 
and their information about customers and demand for the export 
promotion services they offer. Similarly, Ex-Im has taken several steps 
to respond to recommendations we made regarding determining the number 
of transactions that directly benefit small business, and improving the 
system for estimating the value of direct small business support for 
those transactions where the exporter is not known at the time Ex-Im 
authorizes the transaction. 

My remarks about U.S. export promotion efforts are based on a variety 
of reports and testimonies we have issued on international trade over 
the past 4 years, and include some additional observations about 
foreign export promotion practices based on a preliminary review of 
several key expert studies. We conducted our work from November to 
December, 2009 in accordance with all sections of GAO's Quality 
Assurance Framework that are relevant to our objectives. The framework 
requires that we plan and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient 
and appropriate evidence to meet our stated objectives and to discuss 
any limitations in our work. We believe that the information and data 
obtained, and the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for 
any findings and conclusions. 

The Benefits of Exporting and U.S. Efforts to Promote Exports: 

Exports Provide Economic Benefits: 

Trade, and exports more specifically, contributes to the U.S. economy 
in a variety of ways. Trade generally enables the United States to 
achieve a higher standard of living through exporting goods and 
services that are produced domestically relatively efficiently, and 
importing goods and services that are produced domestically relatively 
inefficiently. An indication of this is that firms engaged in the 
international marketplace tend to exhibit higher rates of productivity 
growth and pay higher wages and benefits to their workers than 
domestically oriented firms of the same size. 

In addition, the benefits of exports accrue to many U.S. states. For 
example, in 2008, according to Commerce, Oregon's exports totaled $19.4 
billion, with computers, electronics and agricultural products 
accounting for more than half of that amount. According to the Idaho 
Department of Commerce, in 2008, Idaho exported $5.01 billion worth of 
goods, with exports of high-tech products including semiconductors, 
computers, and capital equipment accounting for 63 percent, or $3.2 
billion, of the total. Agricultural and food exports from Idaho totaled 
approximately $676 million, about 14 percent of its total exports. 

Exports can also serve as a countercyclical force for the U.S. economy, 
stimulating the U.S. economy when demand from abroad is greater than 
domestic demand. For several years, the United States increasingly 
imported more than it exported and served as an engine of growth for 
other nations. In contrast, when the U.S. economy slowed in 2007 
through the first two quarters of 2009, the economic downturn was 
somewhat mitigated by an improving trade balance. For example, with 
continued global demand for U.S. goods and services, increases in net 
exports accounted for over half of U.S. economic growth in 2007 and 
2008. 

Export Promotion Is Based on Several Rationales: 

Several rationales exist for the use of government export promotion 
programs to support exporting firms and sectors.[Footnote 1] In 
addition to macroeconomic considerations of job creation and economic 
growth, microeconomic considerations exist for government programs to 
address "market failures" - where conditions such as imperfect 
information and entry barriers prevent markets from generating the most 
efficient outcome. Rationales may also exist for export programs based 
on achieving broader trade policy objectives, such as helping U.S. 
exporters overcome foreign trade barriers that make it difficult for 
U.S. products to penetrate foreign markets. Examples of export 
promotion addressing market failures and achieving broader trade policy 
objectives include: 

* Foreign market information: Some firms may not export because they 
lack information about export markets, but U.S. officials abroad may 
have access to commercially valuable information about foreign markets 
that the private sector may not otherwise be able to access. 

* Advocacy: Government representation on behalf of a firm competing for 
a potential export sale may influence procurement decisions, 
particularly in helping establish a firm's credibility in foreign 
markets. 

* Export finance assistance: Government finance can fill gaps created 
when the private sector is reluctant to finance certain exports, 
particularly for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). 

Not withstanding these rationales, measuring the effectiveness of 
export promotion activities is inherently difficult. For example, 
quantifying the growth in exports is complicated by the fact that other 
factors, such as government policies and firm-specific conditions, also 
determine growth. Nevertheless, according to the World Bank, the number 
of national export promotion agencies worldwide has tripled over the 
past two decades. 

U.S. Export Promotion Is Supported by a Wide Variety of Agencies and 
Activities: 

Export promotion efforts in the United States are guided by the 
National Export Strategy and are pursued by a wide variety of agencies 
and through a wide range of activities. According to the strategy, 20 
export promotion agencies are part of the Trade Promotion Coordinating 
Committee (TPCC), of which 9 of the agencies have budgets for programs 
or activities related to export promotion, with Commerce, the 
Department of Agriculture (Agriculture), and the Department of State 
(State) actively engaged in export promotion overseas.[Footnote 2] To 
support U.S. businesses in-country, as well as gather data and 
information about local markets, Agriculture has 101 offices in 81 
countries and Commerce has 126 offices in more than 80 countries. State 
personnel provide in-country services at approximately 100 embassies 
overseas where either Commerce or Agriculture lacks a presence. In both 
2007 and 2008, the budget for U.S. trade promotion activities was about 
$1.3 billion. In 2009, TPCC agencies requested $1.2 billion in funding, 
with Agriculture, Commerce and State accounting for 91 percent of the 
total trade promotion budget authority[Footnote 3]. 

The wide range of activities that are considered export promotion 
include: 

* providing basic export counseling; 

* assisting with collecting and providing data on foreign markets; 

* advising firms on how to best market their products overseas; 

* providing loans, insurance, and guarantee programs; 

* advocating on behalf of domestic firms; and: 

* monitoring trade agreements. 

Observations Regarding U.S. and Foreign Export Promotion Efforts: 

While GAO has not recently performed an in-depth comparison of U.S. and 
foreign export promotion activities, the findings and recommendations 
in our past reviews of U.S. agencies are consistent with several expert 
studies looking at export promotion practices in other countries. 
Specifically, GAO has identified elements of U.S. export promotion 
activities that warrant attention: (1) coordination; (2) targeted 
services for small and medium enterprises and other priorities; (3) 
performance monitoring; and (4) partnerships and methodologies for 
setting user fees. The expert studies we reviewed echo the importance 
of each of these activities for foreign export promotion. (See appendix 
I for a listing of these studies.) Although we do not endorse any 
specific changes to U.S. export promotion programs implied by the 
studies, we provide this information to assist in Congressional 
oversight of U.S. export promotion programs and for a policy discussion 
about U.S. export promotion activities. GAO has begun a new body of 
work in this area based on renewed congressional interest. 

Coordination of U.S. Export Promotion Activities: 

U.S. export promotion activities are coordinated by the TPCC. To 
address a longstanding congressional concern over a lack of effective 
coordination, GAO has reviewed the TPCC several times since its 
inception. In 2006, we testified that the TPCC had made progress over 
time in improving coordination, including interagency training and 
joint outreach.[Footnote 4] However, in both 2006 and 2009, we found 
the TPCC continued to face challenges in other areas of its 
coordination responsibilities.[Footnote 5] For example, in March 2009, 
we testified that the National Export Strategy continues to lack an 
overall review of agencies' allocation of resources relative to 
government-wide export promotion priorities. Similarly, we testified in 
2006 that, despite its mandate to propose a unified federal trade 
promotion budget, the TPCC continued to have little influence over 
agencies' allocation of resources for trade promotion. 

Our observations about the importance of clearly coordinated 
responsibilities among export promotion agencies are consistent with 
findings in several expert studies that examined foreign export 
promotion practices. For example, the International Trade Center 
reported that most successful exporting countries have established a 
central or national export promotion agency that coordinates 
implementation of the national export strategy, leads in creation of a 
support network, and acts as a first stop for the business community. 
In a review of 104 countries, the World Bank study found that a single 
and strong export promotion agency is preferred to the sometimes 
observed proliferation of agencies within countries. Well-coordinated 
activities among a larger partnership of support agencies are 
emphasized in studies by the Australian Trade Authority (Austrade) and 
the Boston Consulting Group. Austrade, for example, stated that 
effectively coordinating export service providers is important for 
potential and new-to-export firms, since some - especially small and 
medium-sized enterprises - have encountered difficulties in identifying 
or accessing appropriate services for their needs. Examples of notable 
foreign coordination efforts that the reports cited include: 

* Canada's National Sector Teams and Regional Trade Networks that were 
created to enhance coordination and improve access to services for the 
business community; and: 

* The Philippine Export Act that gave an apex body, the Export 
Development Council, overall responsibility for formulating and 
coordinating the national export development effort. The council was 
chaired by the Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry and 
had cabinet-level members from the eight ministries concerned with 
economic development. 

Targeting Services for SMEs and Other Priorities: 

Providing services targeted to small businesses has been a high 
priority for U.S. export promotion activities. Commerce seeks to 
broaden and deepen the exporter base with the majority of exports 
supported by its Commercial Service deriving from SMEs while for the 
U.S. Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im), Congress requires that a certain 
percentage of financing be for small business. GAO has found 
limitations in both programs. In 2009, we recommended that Commerce 
take steps to improve its databases and procedures because they lacked 
reliable information about the size, location, and type of its 
customers. In 2006, we recommended, among other things, that Ex-Im more 
accurately determine the number of transactions that directly benefit 
small business and improve the system for estimating the value of 
direct small business support for those transactions where the exporter 
is not known at the time Ex-Im authorizes the transaction. As we 
testified in 2008, Ex-Im has taken several steps in response to those 
recommendations.[Footnote 6] Beyond SMEs, U.S. export promotion 
priorities are more broadly outlined in the National Export Strategy. 
However, as we testified in 2006, the focus of the national export 
strategies continues to change from year to year with little evaluation 
of previous efforts' effectiveness. For example, the 2003 strategy 
prioritized on capacity building, Russia, and transportation security; 
the 2004 strategy highlighted China, free trade agreements, and 
coordination in crisis regions; and the 2005 strategy covered free 
trade agreements, China, and six "growth markets" (Japan, South Korea, 
India, Brazil, Russia, and the European Union). At the time of our 2006 
testimony, some member agency officials commented on the ad hoc nature 
of the national export strategies. 

Our observations about the importance of targeting services, for 
example, to SMEs and other assistance priorities are reflected in 
expert studies on foreign export promotion. For example, most of the 
studies we reviewed recognized that SMEs have unique needs and that 
services should be tailored to account for common financing and 
informational constraints faced by smaller firms. Several studies also 
emphasized the importance of prioritizing assistance to certain sectors 
or firms based on the exporting goals of each country. According to the 
Boston Consulting Group, fragmentation of efforts from having too many 
targets tends to undermine an agency's chance of success. As a result, 
it suggested screening for export ready firms and transitioning firms 
across different states of exporting, focusing on services for smaller 
firms that are "threshold" or "mature" exporters. Conversely, the World 
Bank emphasized prioritizing assistance to large firms that are not yet 
exporters, and both the World Bank and the Asia Pacific Economic 
Cooperation studies discussed a focus on non-traditional export 
sectors. To select priorities, Nathan Associates explained that 
sectors, markets, or firms should be selected on the basis of market 
research combined with stakeholder consultation.[Footnote 7] Examples 
of targeted or tailored foreign promotion efforts that the studies 
cited include: 

* The United Kingdom's Export Explorer and Passport to Export Success 
programs that were targeted to new exporters. Export Explorer, for 
instance, combined coaching at home with support from the overseas 
network, giving new exporters the experience of exporting to 
geographically close markets and enabling them to gain confidence. 

* The Indian Ministry of Industry's cluster-development program and 
Malaysian efforts to connect SMEs with other exporters. Malaysia's 
Small and Medium Industries Development Corporation, for instance, 
linked SMEs into the supply chain of larger multinational corporations 
that have the systems and knowledge needed for SMEs to become globally 
competitive. 

Performance Monitoring: 

While recognizing the challenge of measuring the effectiveness of 
export promotion activities, GAO has found in several reviews of U.S. 
programs that performance monitoring could be improved. For a number of 
years we have noted that TPCC agencies do not identify or measure 
agencies' progress toward mutual goals as part of the National Export 
Strategy. More recently, in March 2009, we reported that better 
evaluation by Commerce of its Commercial Service fee-based programs and 
customers, including states, could improve program continuity, help 
managers target their resources more efficiently and effectively, 
assess costs and benefits, and help the Congress make more informed 
funding decisions. In 2008, we reported that Ex-Im had developed 
performance standards for its small business financing in most, 
although not all, of the areas specified by Congress, that some 
measures for monitoring progress against the standards lacked targets 
and timeframes, and that Ex-Im was just beginning to compile and use 
the small business information it was collecting to improve operations. 
[Footnote 8] We recommended that Ex-Im establish performance standards 
for functions not currently addressed, revise several current measures 
to include measurable targets and time frames, and take steps to 
establish a measure for financing for small businesses owned by 
socially and economically disadvantaged individuals and women. 

Using meaningful performance monitoring as a learning tool is also 
discussed in the expert studies on foreign export promotion. The 
International Trade Center's Executive Forum noted that, although 
performance evaluation is inherently challenging, without widely 
accepted performance measures, export promotion agencies have 
difficulty forming and implementing export strategies. The center 
outlined measurements that focus on the impact of export promotion 
agency services rather than export quantities. Similarly, the Boston 
Consulting Group stated that evaluation is needed to justify and 
account for the use of public monies and to obtain feedback for the 
allocation of resources and the design of programs. To achieve these 
goals, export promotion agencies may use a collection of quantitative 
and qualitative measures combined with independent feedback from 
clients. Nathan Associates also emphasized the role that assessing 
client satisfaction plays in program design, but suggested that client 
satisfaction be assessed through in-depth interviews rather than 
surveys that may be biased. Examples of foreign efforts to improve 
performance monitoring that the studies cited include: 

* Australia's use of a Customer Relationship Management System in order 
to track export results, assess client satisfaction, and obtain lessons 
learned. Australia collected this information as part of its fee-based 
services system and each of its three trade-related outcomes -awareness 
raising, export services, and export finance assistance--was assigned a 
target against which results were measured. 

* New Zealand's performance evaluation system that emphasized client 
input by compiling monthly feedback gathered by account managers, 
verifying every six months by independent survey, and concentrating on 
achieving a high deliver-in-full-and-on-time rating for specific 
services. 

Partnerships to Improve Export Promotion Efforts: 

Recognizing the value of partnerships, U.S. export promotion agencies 
have developed collaborative relationships with the private sector, 
cities, and states. For example, Commerce initiated its Corporate 
Partnership Program, leveraging the private sector's sales and 
marketing expertise in 2004. Likewise, Agriculture has programs that 
work in partnership with the private sector including the Market Access 
Program and the Foreign Market Development Program. GAO has evaluated 
federal-state partnerships, but has not evaluated private sector 
partnerships. For example, we reported in 2009 that state offices often 
partner with Commerce on trade missions and other activities, and most 
states responding to a GAO survey reported that Commerce's services 
were important to their export promotion capabilities. A third of the 
states also said they provide grants or payments to defray firms' costs 
and to facilitate access to Commerce programs. More generally, in 2006, 
we testified that based on our long record of oversight, the TPCC could 
continue to make improvements in outreach efforts to the private sector 
and that sustained high-level administration involvement would be 
necessary for the TPCC to achieve its fundamental objectives.[Footnote 
9] To ensure costs charged for export promotion services are 
appropriate, GAO has also recently done work related to cost recovery 
for some Commerce programs. In 2009, we reviewed Commerce's methodology 
for establishing fees for export promotion services.[Footnote 10] While 
Commerce collects about $10 million annually through fees, we found 
that it lacked good information on the true costs of providing 
services. Similarly, Commerce lacked reliable information about how its 
fees (or lack thereof) affected their customers' access to the program, 
or how they compared to state or private sector fees. As a result, it 
was unclear whether the fees Commerce established reflect their policy 
objectives or whether they optimize the efficient and effective 
management of these programs. We recommended that Commerce improve its 
procedures for setting user fees and collect and process more reliable 
information about its customers. 

More broadly, the importance of both public and private sector 
involvement - as well as appropriately set user fees--is another key 
observation discussed in the expert studies. Regarding the role of 
contributions from the private sector, several studies discussed the 
importance of including private sector methodologies and input to 
ensure firm needs do not outgrow the expertise of the export assistance 
offered. These studies also addressed the importance of independence, 
to guarantee continuity as governments change and the autonomy needed 
to operate by commercial principles. For example, the World Bank study 
found that export promotion agencies with a large share of the 
executive board in the hands of the private sector, but with a large 
share of public sector funding, are most effective. Studies by Nathan 
Associates and the International Trade Center also emphasized the 
importance of a predictable and long-term level of public sector 
funding, with fees charged for some services.[Footnote 11] Specific 
examples of how foreign export agencies charge fees or incorporate 
public and private sector involvement that the reports cited include: 

* The Danish Trade Council and Enterprise Ireland, whose executive 
boards were comprised mostly of successful business people representing 
key sectors in the economy; 

* Costa Rica's semi-private trade promotion agency that was run by a 
mostly private board of directors but was supported by a statutorily 
independent source of income from taxes in the free trade zones; and: 

* Australia's system of providing free services to help "intenders" and 
"new exporters" build export readiness, select target markets, and 
obtain initial market information while customized services that helped 
companies understand and enter new export markets were billed on a full 
cost-recovery basis. 

Concluding Remarks: 

Mr. Chairman, this is an opportune time for Congress to review the role 
that exports can play in the U.S. recovery, as well as the role of U.S. 
agencies' export promotion programs. We have performed a number of 
studies for the Congress on the range of U.S. export promotion 
programs, and we stand ready to assist Congressional oversight of these 
important matters. We appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the 
Subcommittee's first hearing on this subject and look forward to future 
opportunities to assist the Subcommittee on this and other issues 
related to your portfolio of international trade issues. 

Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Crapo, this concludes my remarks, and 
I would be happy to answer any questions you or other members of the 
Subcommittee may have. 

Contact and Acknowledgements: 

For further information about this testimony, please contact me at 
(202) 512-4347 or by e-mail at YagerL@gao.gov. Adam Cowles (Assistant 
Director), Beth Bowditch, Karen Deans, Kendall Helm, Julie Hirshen, 
Richard Krashevski, and Yesook Merrill made contributions to this 
testimony. 

[End of section] 

Appendix I. Listing of Key Studies on Foreign Export Promotion 
Practices: 

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. Alliance in Practice: Building the 
Core of Trade Promotion. APEC Working Group on Trade Promotion, March 
2007. [Examines export promotion in the People's Republic of China, 
Chinese Taipei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, and the 
Philippines.] 

Australian Trade Commission. Knowing and Growing the Exporter 
Community. Sydney, Australia, 2002. [Examines export promotion in 
Canada, France, Ireland, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the 
United States.] 

The Boston Consulting Group. Export Development and Promotion: Lessons 
from Four Benchmark Countries. Study commissioned for New Zealand, May 
2004. [Examines export promotion in Chile, Denmark, Malaysia, and the 
United Kingdom.] 

International Trade Center. Redefining Export Promotion: The Need for a 
Strategic Response. United Nations and World Trade Organization, 2002. 

International Trade Center Executive Forum. Export Strategy and the 
Role of the National Trade Promotion Organization. ITC Position Paper 
for the Consultative Cycle 2006 Innovations in Export Strategy, Mexico 
City, Mexico, April 2006. 

Lederman, Daniel, Marcelo Olarreaga, and Lucy Payton. Export Promotion 
Agencies: What Works and What Doesn't. World Bank Policy Research 
Working Paper No. 4044, November 2006. [Examines export promotion in 
104 countries.] 

Nathan Associates, Inc. Best Practices in Export Promotion. Technical 
report submitted to USAID in El Salvador under Contract No. PCE-I-00- 
98-00016, April 2004. [Examines export promotion in Australia, Canada, 
Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, and El Salvador.] 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, Export Promotion: Rationales for and Against Government 
Programs and Expenditures, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-GGD-95-169] (Washington, D.C., May 
23, 1995). 

[2] The other U.S. agencies with export promotion budget that serve on 
the TPCC include the Departments of the Treasury, the Export-Import 
Bank of the United States, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 
the Small Business Administration, the U.S. Trade and Development 
Agency, and the Office of the United States Trade Representative. 

[3] Agriculture received about 46 percent of these funds for its 
activities. Agriculture has nine programs it considers trade promotion 
related and Commerce has three units within the International Trade 
Administration that support export promotion. State supports Commerce 
efforts overseas. 

[4] GAO, Export Promotion: Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee's 
Role Remains Limited, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-660T] (Washington, D.C., April 26, 
2006). 

[5] GAO, International Trade: Effective Export Programs Can Help in 
Achieving U.S. Economic Goals, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-480T] (Washington, D.C., March 17, 
2009). 

[6] Most notably, Ex-Im replaced its previous data systems with "Ex-Im 
Online," an interactive, web-based process that allows exporters, 
brokers, and financial institutions to transact with Ex-Im 
electronically. According to Ex-Im, this has resulted in more timely 
and accurate information on Ex-Im's financing. GAO, Export Promotion: 
Export-Import Bank Has Met Target for Small Business Financing Share, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-419T] (Washington, D.C., 
January 17, 2008. 

[7] As the one study that contradicts these findings, the International 
Trade Center's Executive Forum paper warns against selecting priority 
sectors or markets because it entails non-market forces choosing 
winners and losers. Rather than focusing on sectors and markets, this 
paper suggests that export promotion agencies concentrate on the 
provision of strategic services to any qualified client. 

[8] GAO, Export-Import Bank: Performance Standards for Small Business 
Assistance Are in Place but Ex-Im Is in the Early Stages of Measuring 
their Effectiveness, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-915] (Washington, D.C., July 17, 
2008). 

[9] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-660T]. 

[10] GAO, Export Promotion: Commerce Needs Better Information to 
Evaluate Its Fee-Based Programs and Customers, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-144] (Washington, D.C., March 4, 
2009). 

[11] The International Trade Center's Executive Forum study noted that 
a fee-for-service approach will result in companies that can pay the 
most getting the best service, which undermines the public policy 
considerations that led to the creation of the export promotion agency 
in the first place. One option is to introduce an annual membership 
fee, as opposed to charging fees for specific services. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: