How Exporters View Credit Risk and FCIA Insurance. The Georgia Experience
通过对佐治亚州出口商的调查，研究出口商对FCIA保险的认知和使用情况，分析政府政策如何影响出口商对信用风险保险的态度。
In an earlier paper in this Journal on the Foreign Credit Insurance Association's (FCIA) role in expanding U.S. trade abroad, Huszagh and Greene demonstrated the less-than-complete success that this form of insurance has enjoyed in achieving its objectives [1]. The FCIA's inability to reach full market potential is disappointing for several reasons: (1) export expansion is very important in view of the continuing U. S. merchandise trade deficit which reached $32 billion in 1982 and $17 billion in the first six months of 1983 [2]; (2) FCIA insurance could be a significant force to expand exports if some of its limitations were removed; and (3) research has shown that a substantial percentage of exporters is not aware of FCIA insurance, even experienced exporters who would normally be expected to know about it. Huszagh and Greene's study also revealed that exporters nationwide view the FCIA and other trade-facilitating agencies as being essentially in conflict with government programs affecting exports and export costs. In other words, the government with one hand attempts to encourage exports, but with the other hand appears to limit them with policies mandated by human rights regulations, antiboycott certification requirements, questionable payments regulations, and environmental protection rules, which frequently require interagency review [3]. The potential advantages of utilizing the FCIA are thus offset or eliminated in the minds of exporters [4]. The purpose of the present paper is to extend the earlier analysis by probing more deeply into exporters' experience with and perceptions about the FCIA. An in-depth mail survey of both users and nonusers of FCIA insurance was conducted in the State of Georgia, and attitudes were compared. This comparison led to some additional insights into the problem of how the FCIA can fulfill its stated mission to facilitate the expansion of U.S. trade abroad. The purpose of our research is to extend the essentially descriptive analyses found in the literature [5], to learn why FCIA insurance has failed to be more widely