Grouped Variation in Factor Shares: An Application to Misallocation
August 2022
Working Paper Number:
CES-22-33
Abstract
A striking feature of micro-level plant data is the presence of significant variation in factor cost shares across plants within an industry. We develop a methodology to decompose cost shares into idiosyncratic and group-specific components. In particular, we carry out a cluster analysis to recover the number and membership of groups using breaks in the dispersion of factor cost shares across plants. We apply our methodology to Chilean plant-level data and find that group-specific variation accounts for approximately one-third of the variation in factor shares across firms. We also study the implications ofthese groups in cost shares on the gains from eliminating misallocation. We place bounds on their importance and find that ignoring them can overstate the gains from eliminating misallocation by up to one-third.
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.
:
production,
manufacturing,
cost,
manufacturer,
sector,
cluster,
factory,
depreciation,
profit,
share
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.
:
Standard Statistical Establishment List,
Center for Economic Studies,
Total Factor Productivity,
Cobb-Douglas,
International Standard Industrial Classification
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 'Grouped Variation in Factor Shares: An Application to Misallocation' are listed below in order of similarity.
-
Working PaperMisallocation or Mismeasurement?
February 2020
Working Paper Number:
CES-20-07
The ratio of revenue to inputs differs greatly across plants within countries such as the U.S. and India. Such gaps may reflect misallocation which hinders aggregate productivity. But differences in measured average products need not reflect differences in true marginal products. We propose a way to estimate the gaps in true marginal products in the presence of measurement error. Our method exploits how revenue growth is less sensitive to input growth when a plant's average products are overstated by measurement error. For Indian manufacturing from 1985'2013, our correction lowers potential gains from reallocation by 20%. For the U.S. the effect is even more dramatic, reducing potential gains by 60% and eliminating 2/3 of a severe downward trend in allocative efficiency over 1978'2013.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperMicro Data and the Macro Elasticity of Substitution
March 2012
Working Paper Number:
CES-12-05
We estimate the aggregate elasticity of substitution between capital and labor in the US manufacturing sector. We show that the aggregate elasticity of substitution can be expressed as a simple function of plant level structural parameters and sufficient statistics of the distribution of plant input cost shares. We then use plant level data from the Census of Manufactures to construct a local elasticity of substitution at various levels of aggregation. Our approach does not assume the existence of a stable aggregate production function, as we build up our estimate from the cross section of plants at a point in time. Accounting for substitution within and across plants, we find that the aggregate elasticity is substantially below unity at approximately 0.7. Lastly we assess the sources of the bias of aggregate technical change from 1987 to 1997. We find that the labor augmenting character of aggregate technical change is due almost exclusively to labor augmenting productivity growth at the plant level rather than relative growth in capital intensive plants.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperPollution Abatement Expenditures and Plant-Level Productivity: A Production Function Approach
August 2003
Working Paper Number:
CES-03-16
In this paper, we investigate the impact of environmental regulation on productivity using a Cobb-Douglas production function framework. Estimating the effects of regulation on productivity can be done with a top-down approach using data for broad sectors of the economy, or a more disaggregated bottom-up approach. Our study follows a bottom-up approach using data from the U.S. paper, steel, and oil industries. We measure environmental regulation using plant-level information on pollution abatement expenditures, which allows us to distinguish between productive and abatement expenditures on each input. We use annual Census Bureau information (1979-1990) on output, labor, capital, and material inputs, and pollution abatement operating costs and capital expenditures for 68 pulp and paper mills, 55 oil refineries, and 27 steel mills. We find that pollution abatement inputs generally contribute little or nothing to output, especially when compared to their '''productive''' equivalents. Adding an aggregate pollution abatement cost measure to a Cobb-Douglas production function, we find that a $1 increase in pollution abatement costs leads to an estimated productivity decline of $3.11, $1.80, and $5.98 in the paper, oil, and steel industries respectively. These findings imply substantial differences across industries in their sensitivity to pollution abatement costs, arguing for a bottom-up approach that can capture these differences. Further differentiating plants by their production technology, we find substantial differences in the impact of pollution abatement costs even within industries, with higher marginal costs at plants with more polluting technologies. Finally, in all three industries, plants concentrating on change-in-production-process abatement techniques have higher productivity than plants doing predominantly end-of-line abatement, but also seem to be more affected by pollution abatement operating costs. Overall, our results point to the importance using detailed, disaggregated analyses, even below the industry level, when trying to model the costs of forcing plants to reduce their emissions.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperThe Classification of Manufacturing Industries: an Input-Based Clustering of Activity
August 1990
Working Paper Number:
CES-90-07
The classification and aggregation of manufacturing data is vital for the analysis and reporting of economic activity. Most organizations and researchers use the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system for this purpose. This is, however, not the only option. Our paper examines an alternative classification based on clustering activity using production technologies. While this approach yields results which are similar to the SIC, there are important differences between the two classifications in terms of the specific industrial categories and the amount of information lost through aggregation.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperMisallocation and Manufacturing TFP in China and India
February 2009
Working Paper Number:
CES-09-04
Resource misallocation can lower aggregate total factor productivity (TFP). We use micro data on manufacturing establishments to quantify the potential extent of misallocation in China and India compared to the U.S. Compared to the U.S., we measure sizable gaps in marginal products of labor and capital across plants within narrowly-defined industries in China and India. When capital and labor are hypothetically reallocated to equalize marginal products to the extent observed in the U.S., we calculate manufacturing TFP gains of 30-50% in China and 40-60% in India.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperRegulating Mismeasured Pollution: Implications of Firm Heterogeneity for Environmental Policy
August 2018
Working Paper Number:
CES-18-03R
This paper provides the first estimates of within-industry heterogeneity in energy and CO2 productivity for the entire U.S. manufacturing sector. We measure energy and CO2 productivity as output per dollar energy input or per ton CO2 emitted. Three findings emerge. First, within narrowly defined industries, heterogeneity in energy and CO2 productivity across plants is enormous. Second, heterogeneity in energy and CO2 productivity exceeds heterogeneity in most other productivity measures, like labor or total factor productivity. Third, heterogeneity in energy and CO2 productivity has important implications for environmental policies targeting industries rather than plants, including technology standards and carbon border adjustments.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperDo Firms Mitigate or Magnify Capital Misallocation? Evidence from Plant-Level Data
January 2017
Working Paper Number:
CES-17-14
Almost two thirds of the cross-plant dispersion in marginal revenue products of capital occurs across plants within the same firm rather than between firms. Even though firms allocate investment very differently across their plants, they do not equalize marginal revenue products across their plants. We reconcile these findings in a model of multi-plant firms, physical adjustment costs and credit constraints. Credit constrained multi-plant firms can utilize internal capital markets by concentrating internal funds on investment projects in only a few of their plants in a given period and rotating funds to another set of plants in the future. The resulting increase in within-firm dispersion of marginal revenue products of capital is hence not a symptom of misallocation within the firm, but rather actions taken by the firm to mitigate external credit constraints and adjustment costs of capital. Economies with multi-plant firms produce more aggregate output despite higher dispersion in marginal revenue products of capital compared to economies with single-plant firms. Because emerging economies are predominantly populated by single-plant firms, the gains from reducing their distortions to the level of developed are larger than previously thought.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperAre Some Firms Better at IT? Differing Relationships between Productivity and IT Spending
October 1999
Working Paper Number:
CES-99-13
Although recent studies have found a positive relationship between spending on information technology and firm productivity, the magnitude of this relationship has not been as dramatic as one would expect given the anecdotal evidence. Data collected by the Bureau of the Census is analyzed to investigate the relationship between plant-level productivity and spending on IT. This relationship is investigated by separating the manufacturing plants in the sample along two dimensions, total factor productivity and IT spending. Analysis along these dimensions reveals that there are significant differences between the highest and lowest productivity plants. The highest productivity plants tend to spend less on IT while the lowest productivity plants tend to spend more on IT. Although there is support for the idea that lower productivity plants are spending more on IT to compensate for their productivity shortcomings, the results indicate that this is not the only difference. The robustness of this finding is strengthened by investigating changes in productivity and IT spending over time. High productivity plants with the lowest amounts of IT spending tend to remain high productivity plants with low IT spending while low productivity plants with high IT spending tend to remain low productivity plants with high IT spending. The results show that management skill, as measured by the overall productivity level of a firm, is an additional factor that must be taken into consideration when investigating the IT "productivity paradox."View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperProductivity Growth Patterns in U.S. Food Manufacturing: Case of Dairy Products Industry
May 2004
Working Paper Number:
CES-04-08
A panel constructed from the Census Bureau's Longitudinal Research Database is used to measure total factor productivity growth at the plant-level and analyzes the multifactor bias of technical change at three-digit product group level containing five different four-digit sub-group categories for the U.S. dairy products industry from 1972 through 1995. In the TFP growth decomposition, analyzing the growth and its components according to the quartile ranks show that scale effect is the most significant element of TFP growth except the plants in the third quartile rank where technical change dominates throughout the time periods. The exogenous input bias results show that throughout the time periods, technical change is 1) capital-using; 2) labor-using after 1980; 3) material-saving except 1981-1985 period; and, 4) energy-using except 1981-1985 and 1991-1995 periods. Plant productivity analysis indicate that less than 50% of the plants in the dairy products industry stay in the same category, indicating considerable movement between productivity rank categories. Investment analysis results indicate that plant-level investments are quite lumpy since a relatively small percent of observations account for a disproportionate share of overall investment. Productivity growth is found to be positively correlated with recent investment spikes for plants with TFP ranking in the middle two quartiles and uncorrelated with plants in the smallest and largest quartiles. Similarly, past TFP growth rates present no significant correlation with future investment spikes for plants in any quartile.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperAre We Undercounting Reallocation's Contribution to Growth?
January 2013
Working Paper Number:
CES-13-55R
There has been a strong surge in aggregate productivity growth in India since 1990, following significant economic reforms. Three recent studies have used two distinct methodologies to decompose the sources of growth, and all conclude that it has been driven by within-plant increases in technical efficiency and not between-plant reallocation of inputs. Given the nature of the reforms, where many barriers to input reallocation were removed, this finding has surprised researchers and been dubbed 'India's Mysterious Manufacturing Miracle.' In this paper, we show that the methodologies used may artificially understate the extent of reallocation. One approach, using growth in value added, counts all reallocation growth arising from the movement of intermediate inputs as technical efficiency growth. The second approach, using the Olley-Pakes decomposition, uses estimates of plant-level total factor productivity (TFP) as a proxy for the marginal product of inputs. However, in equilibrium, TFP and the marginal product of inputs are unrelated. Using microdata on manufacturing from five countries ' India, the U.S., Chile, Colombia, and Slovenia ' we show that both approaches significantly understate the true role of reallocation in economic growth. In particular, reallocation of materials is responsible for over half of aggregate Indian manufacturing productivity growth since 2000, substantially larger than either the contribution of primary inputs or the change in the covariance of productivity and size.View Full Paper PDF
