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 PaperAllocating Misallocation: Decomposing Measures of Aggregate Allocative Efficiency
April 2026
Working Paper Number:
CES-26-26
We explore sources of measured misallocation using establishment data from U.S. manufacturing industries. We decompose standard revenue productivity dispersion statistics into contributions by dispersion in revenue margins over costs and dispersion in input cost shares across plants. We establish a formal link between these components and measured allocative efficiency. The results indicate the components contribute similarly to apparent rising misallocation in US manufacturing. We use the mapping between distortions that influence these distinct components to explore the relationship between inferred distortions and mechanisms that influence one or both sources of revenue productivity dispersion. Finally, we show rising misallocation in the US manufacturing sector in the last several decades is pervasive, and yet a few industries account for over half of the aggregate decline.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 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
-
Working PaperMeasuring Cross-Country Differences in Misallocation
January 2016
Working Paper Number:
CES-16-50R
We describe differences between the commonly used version of the U.S. Census of Manufactures available at the RDCs and what establishments themselves report. The originally reported data has substantially more dispersion in measured establishment productivity. Measured allocative efficiency is substantially higher in the cleaned data than the raw data: 4x higher in 2002, 20x in 2007, and 80x in 2012. Many of the important editing strategies at the Census, including industry analysts' manual edits and edits using tax records, are infeasible in non-U.S. datasets. We describe a new Bayesian approach for editing and imputation that can be used across contexts.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 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 PaperExploring New Ways to Classify Industries for Energy Analysis and Modeling
November 2022
Working Paper Number:
CES-22-49
Combustion, other emitting processes and fossil energy use outside the power sector have become urgent concerns given the United States' commitment to achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Industry is an important end user of energy and relies on fossil fuels used directly for process heating and as feedstocks for a diverse range of applications. Fuel and energy use by industry is heterogeneous, meaning even a single product group can vary broadly in its production routes and associated energy use. In the United States, the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) serves as the standard for statistical data collection and reporting. In turn, data based on NAICS are the foundation of most United States energy modeling. Thus, the effectiveness of NAICS at representing energy use is a limiting condition for current expansive planning to improve energy efficiency and alternatives to fossil fuels in industry. Facility-level data could be used to build more detail into heterogeneous sectors and thus supplement data from Bureau of the Census and U.S Energy Information Administration reporting at NAICS code levels but are scarce. This work explores alternative classification schemes for industry based on energy use characteristics and validates an approach to estimate facility-level energy use from publicly available greenhouse gas emissions data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The approaches in this study can facilitate understanding of current, as well as possible future, energy demand. First, current approaches to the construction of industrial taxonomies are summarized along with their usefulness for industrial energy modeling. Unsupervised machine learning techniques are then used to detect clusters in data reported from the U.S. Department of Energy's Industrial Assessment Center program. Clusters of Industrial Assessment Center data show similar levels of correlation between energy use and explanatory variables as three-digit NAICS codes. Interestingly, the clusters each include a large cross section of NAICS codes, which lends additional support to the idea that NAICS may not be particularly suited for correlation between energy use and the variables studied. Fewer clusters are needed for the same level of correlation as shown in NAICS codes. Initial assessment shows a reasonable level of separation using support vector machines with higher than 80% accuracy, so machine learning approaches may be promising for further analysis. The IAC data is focused on smaller and medium-sized facilities and is biased toward higher energy users for a given facility type. Cladistics, an approach for classification developed in biology, is adapted to energy and process characteristics of industries. Cladistics applied to industrial systems seeks to understand the progression of organizations and technology as a type of evolution, wherein traits are inherited from previous systems but evolve due to the emergence of inventions and variations and a selection process driven by adaptation to pressures and favorable outcomes. A cladogram is presented for evolutionary directions in the iron and steel sector. Cladograms are a promising tool for constructing scenarios and summarizing directions of sectoral innovation. The cladogram of iron and steel is based on the drivers of energy use in the sector. Phylogenetic inference is similar to machine learning approaches as it is based on a machine-led search of the solution space, therefore avoiding some of the subjectivity of other classification systems. Our prototype approach for constructing an industry cladogram is based on process characteristics according to the innovation framework derived from Schumpeter to capture evolution in a given sector. The resulting cladogram represents a snapshot in time based on detailed study of process characteristics. This work could be an important tool for the design of scenarios for more detailed modeling. Cladograms reveal groupings of emerging or dominant processes and their implications in a way that may be helpful for policymakers and entrepreneurs, allowing them to see the larger picture, other good ideas, or competitors. Constructing a cladogram could be a good first step to analysis of many industries (e.g. nitrogenous fertilizer production, ethyl alcohol manufacturing), to understand their heterogeneity, emerging trends, and coherent groupings of related innovations. Finally, validation is performed for facility-level energy estimates from the EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. Facility-level data availability continues to be a major challenge for industrial modeling. The method outlined by (McMillan et al. 2016; McMillan and Ruth 2019) allows estimating of facility level energy use based on mandatory greenhouse gas reporting. The validation provided here is an important step for further use of this data for industrial energy modeling.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperEnvironmental Regulation, Abatement, and Productivity: A Frontier Analysis
September 2013
Working Paper Number:
CES-13-51
This research studies the link between environmental regulation and plant level productivity in two U.S. manufacturing industries: pulp and paper mills and oil refineries using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) models. Data on abatement spending, emissions and abated emissions are used in different DEA models to study plant productivity outcomes when accounting for abatement spending or emissions regulations. Results indicate that pulp and paper mills and oil refineries in the U.S. suffered decreases in productivity due to pollution abatement activities from 1974 to 2000. These losses in productivity are substantial but have been slowly trending downwards even when the regulations have tended to become more stringent and emission of pollutants has declined suggesting that the best practice has shifted over time. Results also show that the reported abatement expenditures are not able to explain all the losses arising out of regulation suggesting that these abatement expenditures are consistently under-reported.View Full Paper PDF
