Productivity Races I: Are Some Productivuty Measures Better Than Others?
January 1997
Working Paper Number:
CES-97-02
Abstract
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.
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.
:
econometrically,
profitability,
production,
productive,
economist,
estimating,
manufacturing,
statistical,
productivity growth,
growth,
productivity impacts,
produce,
productivity measures,
measures productivity,
competitiveness,
producing,
rates productivity,
revenue,
measure,
plant productivity,
productivity plants,
plant,
performance,
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,
Census Bureau Longitudinal Business Database
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 'Productivity Races I: Are Some Productivuty Measures Better Than Others?' are listed below in order of similarity.
-
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 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 PaperWhittling Away At Productivity Dispersion Futher Notes: Persistent Dispersion or Measurement Error?
November 1996
Working Paper Number:
CES-96-11
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.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 PaperPlant-Level Productivity and the Market Value of a Firm
June 2001
Working Paper Number:
CES-01-03
Some plants are more productive than others ' at least in terms of how productivity is conventionally measured. Do these differences represent an intangible asset? Does the stock market place a higher value on firms with highly productive plants? This paper tests this hypothesis with a new data set. We merge plant-level fundamental variables with firm-level financial variables. We find that firms with highly productive plants have higher market valuations as measured by Tobin's q ' productivity does indeed have a price.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperPlant-Level Productivity and Imputation of Missing Data in the Census of Manufactures
January 2011
Working Paper Number:
CES-11-02
In the U.S. Census of Manufactures, the Census Bureau imputes missing values using a combination of mean imputation, ratio imputation, and conditional mean imputation. It is wellknown that imputations based on these methods can result in underestimation of variability and potential bias in multivariate inferences. We show that this appears to be the case for the existing imputations in the Census of Manufactures. We then present an alternative strategy for handling the missing data based on multiple imputation. Specifically, we impute missing values via sequences of classification and regression trees, which offer a computationally straightforward and flexible approach for semi-automatic, large-scale multiple imputation. We also present an approach to evaluating these imputations based on posterior predictive checks. We use the multiple imputations, and the imputations currently employed by the Census Bureau, to estimate production function parameters and productivity dispersions. The results suggest that the two approaches provide quite different answers about productivity.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperMergers and Acquisitions and Productivity in the U.S. Meat Products Industries: Evidence from the Micro Data
March 2002
Working Paper Number:
CES-02-07
This paper investigates the motives for mergers and acquisitions in the U.S. meat products industry from1977-92. Results show that acquired meat and poultry plants were highly productive before mergers, and that meat plants significantly improved productivity growth in the post-merger periods, but poultry plants did not.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperLinking Investment Spikes and Productivity Growth: U.S. Food Manufacturing Industry
October 2008
Working Paper Number:
CES-08-36
We investigate the relationship between productivity growth and investment spikes using Census Bureau's plant-level data set for the U.S. food manufacturing industry. We find that productivity growth increases after investment spikes suggesting an efficiency gain or plants' learning effect. However, efficiency and the learning period associated with investment spikes differ among plants' productivity quartile ranks implying the differences in the plants' investment types such as expansionary, replacement or retooling. We find evidence of both convex and non-convex types of adjustment costs where lumpy plant-level investments suggest the possibility of non-convex adjustment costs and hazard estimation results suggest the possibility of convex adjustment costs. The downward sloping hazard can be due to the unobserved heterogeneity across plants such as plants' idiosyncratic obsolescence caused by different R&D capabilities and implies the existence of convex adjustment costs. Food plants frequently invest during their first few years of operation and high productivity plants postpone investing due to high fixed costs.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperDecomposing Aggregate Productivity
July 2022
Working Paper Number:
CES-22-25
In this note, we evaluate the sensitivity of commonly-used decompositions for aggregate productivity. Our analysis spans the universe of U.S. manufacturers from 1977 to 2012 and we find that, even holding the data and form of the production function fixed, results on aggregate productivity are extremely sensitive to how productivity at the firm level is measured. Even qualitative statements about the levels of aggregate productivity and the sign of the covariance between productivity and size are highly dependent on how production function parameters are estimated. Despite these difficulties, we uncover some consistent facts about productivity growth: (1) labor productivity is consistently higher and less error-prone than measures of multi-factor productivity; (2) most productivity growth comes from growth within firms, rather than from reallocation across firms; (3) what growth does come from reallocation appears to be driven by net entry, primarily from the exit of relatively less-productive firms.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperEstimating market power Evidence from the US Brewing Industry
January 2017
Working Paper Number:
CES-17-06R
While inferring markups from demand data is common practice, estimation relies on difficult-to-test assumptions, including a specific model of how firms compete. Alternatively, markups can be inferred from production data, again relying on a set of difficult-to-test assumptions, but a wholly different set, including the assumption that firms minimize costs using a variable input. Relying on data from the US brewing industry, we directly compare markup estimates from the two approaches. After implementing each approach for a broad set of assumptions and specifications, we find that both approaches provide similar and plausible markup estimates in most cases. The results illustrate how using the two strategies together can allow researchers to evaluate structural models and identify problematic assumptions.View Full Paper PDF
