Whittling Away At Productivity Dispersion Futher Notes: Persistent Dispersion or Measurement Error?
November 1996
Working Paper Number:
CES-96-11
Abstract
This note considers several hypotheses regarding measurement error as a source of observed cross-sectional dispersion in plant-level productivity in the US textile industry. The hypotheses that reporting error and/or price rigidity in either materials and/or output account for a substantial portion of the observed dispersion in productivity are consistent with the data. Similarly, the hypothesis that transitory product niches or fashion effects lead to differential markups and consequently dispersion in observed productivity is consistent with the data. The hypothesis that transfer pricing problems lead to persistent differences in plant-level productivity, in contrast, does not appear to be consistent with the data. Finally, the hypothesis that some plants have permanent product niches that lead to dispersion in observed productivity does not appear to be consistent with data. In order to avoid imposing a strong functional form on the data, this note follows a non-parametric methodology developed in the early paper.
Document Tags and Keywords
Keywords
Keywords are automatically generated using KeyBERT, a powerful and innovative
keyword extraction tool that utilizes BERT embeddings to ensure high-quality and contextually relevant
keywords.
By analyzing the content of working papers, KeyBERT identifies terms and phrases that capture the essence of the
text, highlighting the most significant topics and trends. This approach not only enhances searchability but
provides connections that go beyond potentially domain-specific author-defined keywords.
:
quantity,
market,
production,
sale,
product,
produce,
productivity measures,
factor productivity,
empirical,
shipment,
rates productivity,
observed productivity,
dispersion productivity,
pricing,
revenue,
measure,
elasticity,
plant productivity,
productivity plants,
productivity dispersion,
percentile,
textile,
level productivity
Tags
Tags are automatically generated using a pretrained language model from spaCy, which excels at
several tasks, including entity tagging.
The model is able to label words and phrases by part-of-speech,
including "organizations." By filtering for frequent words and phrases labeled as "organizations", papers are
identified to contain references to specific institutions, datasets, and other organizations.
:
Longitudinal Research Database,
Total Factor Productivity,
Cobb-Douglas
Similar Working Papers
Similarity between working papers are determined by an unsupervised neural
network model
know as Doc2Vec.
Doc2Vec is a model that represents entire documents as fixed-length vectors, allowing for the
capture of semantic meaning in a way that relates to the context of words within the document. The model learns to
associate a unique vector with each document while simultaneously learning word vectors, enabling tasks such as
document classification, clustering, and similarity detection by preserving the order and structure of words. The
document vectors are compared using cosine similarity/distance to determine the most similar working papers.
Papers identified with 🔥 are in the top 20% of similarity.
The 10 most similar working papers to the working paper 'Whittling Away At Productivity Dispersion Futher Notes: Persistent Dispersion or Measurement Error?' are listed below in order of similarity.
-
Working PaperWhittling Away At Productivity Dispersion🔥
March 1995
Working Paper Number:
CES-95-05
In any time period, in any industry, plant productivity levels differ widely and this dispersion is persistent. This paper explores the sources of this dispersion and their relative magnitudes in the textile industry. Plants that are measured as being more productive but pay higher wages are not necessarily more profitable; wage dispersion can account for approximately 15 percent of productivity dispersion. A plant that is highly productive today may not be as productive tomorrow. I develop a new method for measuring ex-ante dispersion and the percentage of dispersion "explained" by mean reversion. Mean reversion accounts for as much as one half the observed productivity dispersion. A portion of the dispersion, however, appears to reflect real quality differences between plants; plants that are measured as being more productive expand faster and are less likely to exit.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperARE FIXED EFFECTS FIXED? Persistence in Plant Level Productivity
May 1996
Working Paper Number:
CES-96-03
Estimates of production functions suffer from an omitted variable problem; plant quality is an omitted variable that is likely to be correlated with variable inputs. One approach is to capture differences in plant qualities through plant specific intercepts, i.e., to estimate a fixed effects model. For this technique to work, it is necessary that differences in plant quality are more or less fixed; if the "fixed effects" erode over time, such a procedure becomes problematic, especially when working with long panels. In this paper, a standard fixed effects model, extended to allow for serial correlation in the error term, is applied to a 16-year panel of textile plants. This parametric approach strongly accepts the hypothesis of fixed effects. They account for about one-third of the variation in productivity. A simple non-parametric approach, however, concludes that differences in plant qualities erode over time, that is plant qualities f-mix. Monte Carlo results demonstrate that this discrepancy comes from the parametric approach imposing an overly restrictive functional form on the data; if there were fixed effects of the magnitude measured, one would reject the hypothesis of f-mixing. For textiles, at least, the functional form of a fixed effects model appears to generate misleading conclusions. A more flexible functional form is estimated. The "fixed" effects actually have a half life of approximately 10 to 20 years, and they account for about one-half the variation in productivity.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperProductivity Races I: Are Some Productivuty Measures Better Than Others?
January 1997
Working Paper Number:
CES-97-02
In this study we construct twelve different measures of productivity at the plant level and test which measures of productivity are most closely associated with direct measures of economic performance. We first examine how closely correlated these measures are with various measures of profits. We then evaluate the extent to which each productivity measure is associated with lower rates of plant closure and faster plant growth (growth in employment, output, and capital). All measures of productivity considered are credible in the sense that highly productive plants, regardless of measure, are clearly more profitable, less likely to close, and grow faster. Nevertheless, labor productivity and measures of total factor productivity that are based on regression estimates of production functions are better predictors of plant growth and survival than factor share-based measures of total factor productivity (TFP). Measures of productivity that are based on several years of data appear to outperform measures of productivity that are based solely on data from the most recent year.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperPrice Dispersion in U.S. Manufacturing
October 1989
Working Paper Number:
CES-89-07
This paper addresses the question of whether products in the U.S. Manufacturing sector sell at a single (common) price, or whether prices vary across producers. The question of price dispersion is important for two reasons. First, if prices vary across producers, the standard method of using industry price deflators leads to errors in measuring real output at the firm or establishment level. These errors in turn lead to biased estimates of the production function and productivity growth equation as shown in Abbott (1988). Second, if prices vary across producers, it suggests that producers do not take prices as given but use price as a competitive variable. This has several implications for how economists model competitive behavior.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperProductivity Races II: The Issue of Capital Measurement
January 1997
Working Paper Number:
CES-97-03
This paper explores the role of capital measurement in determining the productivity of individual textile plants. In addition to gross book value of capital, we experiment with a perpetual inventory measure of capital and implicit (estimated) deflator associated with the age of the plant. Following the methodology of the earlier paper (Productivity Races I), we find that measures of productivity constructed from different measures of capital are highly correlated. Further, their association with alternative measures of economic performance is approximately the same. Nevertheless, the perpetual inventory measure of capital -- the most desirable measure from a theoretical perspective -- does consistently outperform the other two measures.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperMaterials Prices and Productivity
June 2012
Working Paper Number:
CES-12-11
There is substantial within-industry variation, even within industries that use and produce homogeneous inputs and outputs, in the prices that plants pay for their material inputs. I explore, using plant-level data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the consequences and sources of this variation in materials prices. For a sample of industries with relatively homogeneous products, the standard deviation of plant-level productivities would be 7% lower if all plants faced the same materials prices. Moreover, plant-level materials prices are both persistent across time and predictive of exit. The contribution of net entry to aggregate productivity growth is smaller for productivity measures that strip out di'erences in materials prices. After documenting these patterns, I discuss three potential sources of materials price variation: geography, di'erences in suppliers. marginal costs, and suppliers. price discriminatory behavior. Together, these variables account for 13% of the dispersion of materials prices. Finally, I demonstrate that plants.marginal costs are correlated with the marginal costs of their intermediate input suppliers.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperOutput Market Segmentation and Productivity
June 2001
Working Paper Number:
CES-01-07
Recent empirical investigations have shown enormous plant-level productivity heterogeneity, even within narrowly defined industries. Most of the theoretical explanations for this have focused on factors that influence the production process, such as idiosyncratic technology shocks or input price differences. I claim that characteristics of the output demand markets can also have predictable influences on the plant-level productivity distribution within an industry. Specifically, an industry's degree of output market segmentation (i.e., the substitutability of one plant's output for another's in that industry) should impact the dispersion and central tendency of the industry's plant-level productivity distribution. I test this notion empirically by seeing if measurable cross-sectional variation in market segmentation affects moments of industry's plant-level productivity distribution moments. I find significant and robust evidence consistent with this notion.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperPrice Dispersion In U.S. Manufacturing: Implications For The Aggregation Of Products And Firms
March 1992
Working Paper Number:
CES-92-03
This paper addresses the question of whether products in the U.S. Manufacturing sector sell at a single (common) price, or whether prices vary across producers. Price dispersion is interesting for at least two reasons. First, if output prices vary across producers, standard methods of using industry price deflators lead to errors in measuring real output at the industry, firm, and establishment level which may bias estimates of the production function and productivity growth. Second, price dispersion suggests product heterogeneity which, if consumers do not have identical preferences, could lead to market segmentation and price in excess of marginal cost, thus making the current (competitive) characterization of the Manufacturing sector inappropriate and invalidating many empirical studies. In the course of examining these issues, the paper develops a robust measure of price dispersion as well as new quantitative methods for testing whether observed price differences are the result of differences in product quality. Our results indicate that price dispersion is widespread throughout manufacturing and that for at least one industry, Hydraulic Cement, it is not the result of differences in product quality.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperThe Structure Of Production Technology Productivity And Aggregation Effects
August 1991
Working Paper Number:
CES-91-05
This is a sequel to an earlier paper by the author, Dhrymes (1990). Using the LRD sample, that paper examined the adequacy of the functional form specifications commonly employed in the literature of US Manufacturing production relations. The "universe" of the investigation was the three digit product group; the basic unit of observation was the plant; the sample consisted of all "large" plants, defined by the criterion that they employ 250 or more workers. The study encompassed three digit product groups in industries 35, 36 and 38, over the period 1972-1986, and reached one major conclusion: if one were to judge the adequacy of a given specification by the parametric compatibility of the estimates of the same parameters, as derived from the various implications of each specification, then the three most popular (production function) specifications, Cobb-Douglas, CES and Translog all fell very wide of the mark. The current paper focuses the investigation on two digit industries (but retains the plant as the basic unit of observation), i.e., our sample consists of all "large" manufacturing plants, in each of Industry 35, 36 and 38, over the period 1972-1986. It first replicates the approach of the earlier paper; the results are basically of the same genre, and for that reason are not reported herein. Second, it examines the extent to which increasing returns to scale characterize production at the two digit level; it is established that returns to scale at the mean, in the case of the translog production function are almost identical to those obtained with the Cobb-Douglas function.1 Finally, it examines the robustness and characteristics of measures of productivity, obtained in the context of an econometric formulation and those obtained by the method of what may be thought of as the "Solow Residual" and generally designated as Total Factor Productivity (TFP). The major finding here is that while there are some differences in productivity behavior as established by these two procedures, by far more important is the aggregation sensitivity of productivity measures. Thus, in the context of a pooled sample, introduction of time effects (generally thought to refer to productivity shifts) are of very marginal consequence. On the other hand, the introduction of four digit industry effects is of appreciable consequence, and this phenomenon is universal, i.e., it is present in industry 35, 36 as well as 38. The suggestion that aggregate productivity behavior may be largely, or partly, an aggregation phenomenon is certainly not a part of the established literature. Another persistent phenomenon uncovered is the extent to which productivity measures for individual plants are volatile, while two digit aggregate measures appear to be stable. These findings clearly calls for further investigation.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperEvidence on IO Technology Assumptions From the Longitudinal Research Database
May 1993
Working Paper Number:
CES-93-08
This paper investigates whether a popular IO technology assumption, the commodity technology model, is appropriate for specific United States manufacturing industries, using data on product composition and use of intermediates by individual plants from the Census Longitudinal Research Database. Extant empirical research has suggested the rejection of this model, owing to the implication of aggregate data that negative inputs are required to make particular goods. The plant-level data explored here suggest that much of the rejection of the commodity technology model from aggregative data was spurious; problematic entries in industry-level IO tables generally have a very low Census content. However, among the other industries for which Census data on specified materials use is available, there is a sound statistical basis for rejecting the commodity technology model in about one-third of the cases: a novel econometric test demonstrates a fundamental heterogeneity of materials use among plants that only produce the primary products of the industry.View Full Paper PDF
