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.
-
Market Structure and Productivity: A Concrete Example
June 2001
Working Paper Number:
CES-01-06
This paper shows that imperfect output substitutability explains part of the observed persistent plant-level productivity dispersion. Specifically, as substitutability in a market increases, the market's productivity distribution exhibits falling dispersion and higher central tendency. The proposed mechanism behind this result is truncation of the distribution from below as increased substitutability shifts demand to lower-cost plants and drives inefficient plants out of business. In a case study of the ready-mixed concrete industry, I examine the impact of one manifestation of this effect, driven by geographic market segmentation resulting from transport costs. A theoretical foundation is presented characterizing how differences in the density of local demand impact the number of producers and the ability of customers to choose between suppliers, and through this, the equilibrium productivity and output levels across regions. I also introduce a new method of obtaining plant-level productivity estimates that is well suited to this application and avoids potential shortfalls of commonly used procedures. I use these estimates to empirically test the presented theory, and the results support the predictions of the model. Local demand density has a significant influence on the shape of plant-level productivity distributions, and accounts for part of the observed intra-industry variation in productivity, both between and within given market areas.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Prices, Spatial Competition, and Heterogeneous Producers: An Empirical Test
August 2004
Working Paper Number:
CES-04-16
In markets where spatial competition is important, many models predict that average prices are lower in denser markets (i.e., those with more producers per unit area). Homogeneous-producer models attribute this effect solely to lower optimal markups. However, when producers instead differ in their production costs, a second mechanism also acts to lower equilibrium prices: competition-driven selection on costs. Consumers' greater substitution possibilities in denser markets make it more difficult for high-cost firms to profitably operate, truncating the equilibrium cost (and price) distributions from above. This selection process can be empirically distinguished from the homogenous-producer case because it implies that not only do average prices fall as density rises, but that upper-bound prices and price dispersion should also decline as well. I find empirical support for this process using a rich set of price data from U.S. ready-mixed concrete plants. Features of the industry offer an arguably exogenous source of producer density variation with which to identify these effects. I also show that the findings do not simply result from lower factor prices in dense markets, but rather because dense-market producers are low-cost because they are more efficient.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Reallocation, Firm Turnover, and Efficiency: Selection on Productivity or Profitability?
September 2005
Working Paper Number:
CES-05-11
There is considerable evidence that producer-level churning contributes substantially to aggregate (industry) productivity growth, as more productive businesses displace less productive ones. However, this research has been limited by the fact that producer-level prices are typically unobserved; thus within-industry price differences are embodied in productivity measures. If prices reflect idiosyncratic demand or market power shifts, high 'productivity' businesses may not be particularly efficient, and the literature's findings might be better interpreted as evidence of entering businesses displacing less profitable, but not necessarily less productive, exiting businesses. In this paper, we investigate the nature of selection and productivity growth using data from industries where we observe producer-level quantities and prices separately. We show there are important differences between revenue and physical productivity. A key dissimilarity is that physical productivity is inversely correlated with plant-level prices while revenue productivity is positively correlated with prices. This implies that previous work linking (revenue-based) productivity to survival has confounded the separate and opposing effects of technical efficiency and demand on survival, understating the true impacts of both. We further show that young producers charge lower prices than incumbents, and as such the literature understates the productivity advantage of new producers and the contribution of entry to aggregate productivity growth.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Product Quality and Firm Heterogeneity in International Trade
March 2013
Working Paper Number:
CES-13-08
I develop and implement a methodology for obtaining plant-level estimates of product quality from revenue and physical output data. Intuitively, firms that sell large quantities of output conditional on price are classified as high quality producers. I use this method to decompose cross-plant variation in price and export status into a quality and an efficiency margin. The empirical results show that prices are increasing in quality and decreasing in efficiency. However, selection into exporting is driven mainly by quality. The finding that changes in quality and efficiency have different impact on the firm's export decision is shown to be inconsistent with the traditional iceberg trade cost formulation and points to the importance of per unit transport costs.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Cementing Relationships: Vertical Integration, Foreclosure, Productivity, and Prices
July 2006
Working Paper Number:
CES-06-21
This paper looks at the reasons for and results of vertical integration, with specific regard to its possible effects on market power as proposed in the theoretical literature on foreclosure. It uses a rich data set on producers in the cement and ready-mixed concrete industries over a 34- year period to perform a detailed case study. There is little evidence that foreclosure effects are quantitatively important in these industries. Instead, prices fall, quantities rise, and entry rates remain unchanged when markets become more integrated. We suggest an alternative mechanism that is consistent with these patterns and provide additional evidence in support of it: namely, that higher productivity producers are more likely to vertically integrate, and as has been documented elsewhere, are also larger, more likely to grow and survive, and charge lower prices. We explore possible sources of vertically integrated producers' productivity advantage and find that the advantage is tied to firm size, possibly in part through improved logistics coordination, but not to several other possible explanations.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Cementing Relationships: Vertical Integration, Foreclosure, Productivity, and Prices
December 2008
Working Paper Number:
CES-08-41
This paper empirically investigates the possible market power effects of vertical integration proposed in the theoretical literature on vertical foreclosure. It uses a rich data set of cement and ready-mixed concrete plants that spans several decades to perform a detailed case study. There is little evidence that foreclosure is quantitatively important in these industries. Instead, prices fall, quantities rise, and entry rates remain unchanged when markets become more integrated. These patterns are consistent, however, with an alternative efficiency-based mechanism. Namely, higher productivity producers are more likely to vertically integrate and are also larger, more likely to survive, and charge lower prices. We find evidence that integrated producers' productivity advantage is tied to improved logistics coordination afforded by large local concrete operations. Interestingly, this benefit is not due to firms' vertical structures per se: non-vertical firms with large local concrete operations have similarly high productivity levels.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Why Do Firms Own Production Chains?
September 2009
Working Paper Number:
CES-09-31
Many firms own links of production chains--i.e., they own both upstream and downstream plants in vertically linked industries. We use broad-based yet detailed data from the economy's goods-producing sectors to investigate the reasons for such vertical ownership. It does not appear that vertical ownership is usually used to facilitate transfers of goods along the production chain, as is often presumed. Shipments from firms' upstream units to their downstream units are surprisingly low, relative to both the firms' total upstream production and their downstream needs. Roughly one-third of upstream plants report no shipments to their firms' downstream units. Half ship less than three percent of their output internally. We do find that manufacturing plants in vertical ownership structures have high measures of 'type' (productivity, size, and capital intensity). These patterns primarily reflect selective sorting of high plant types into large firms; once we account for firm size, vertical structure per se matters much less. We propose an alternative explanation for vertical ownership that is consistent with these results. Namely, that rather than moderating goods transfers down production chains, it instead allows more efficient transfers of intangible inputs (e.g., managerial oversight) within the firm. We document some suggestive evidence of this mechanism.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Productivity Dispersion and Input Prices: The Case of Electricity
September 2008
Working Paper Number:
CES-08-33
We exploit a rich new database on Prices and Quantities of Electricity in Manufacturing (PQEM) to study electricity productivity in the U.S. manufacturing sector. The database contains nearly 2 million customer-level observations (i.e., manufacturing plants) from 1963 to 2000. It allows us to construct plant-level measures of price paid per kWh, output per kWh, output per dollar spent on electric power and labor productivity. Using this database, we first document tremendous dispersion among U.S. manufacturing plants in electricity productivity measures and a strong negative relationship between price per kWh and output per kWh hour within narrowly defined industries. Using an IV strategy to isolate exogenous price variation, we estimate that the average elasticity of output per kWh with respect to the price of electricity is about 0.6 during the period from 1985 to 2000. We also develop evidence that this price-physical efficiency tradeoff is stronger for industries with bigger electricity cost shares. Finally, we develop evidence that stronger competitive pressures in the output market lead to less dispersion among manufacturing plants in price per kWh and in electricity productivity measures. The strength of competition effects on dispersion is similar for electricity productivity and labor productivity.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Whittling 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
-
Does Higher Productivity Dispersion Imply Greater Misallocation?A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis
January 2016
Working Paper Number:
CES-16-42
Recent research maintains that the observed variation in productivity within industries reflects resource misallocation and concludes that large GDP gains may be obtained from market-liberalizing polices. Our theoretical analysis examines the impact on productivity dispersion of reallocation frictions in the form of costs of entry, operation, and restructuring, and shows that reforms reducing these frictions may raise dispersion of productivity across firms. The model does not imply a negative relationship between aggregate productivity and productivity dispersion. Our empirical analysis focuses on episodes of liberalizing policy reforms in the U.S. and six East European transition economies. Deregulation of U.S. telecommunications equipment manufacturing is associated with increased, not reduced, productivity dispersion, and every transition economy in our sample shows a sharp rise in dispersion after liberalization. Productivity dispersion under central planning is similar to that in the U.S., and it rises faster in countries adopting faster paces of liberalization. Lagged productivity dispersion predicts higher future productivity growth. The analysis suggests there is no simple relationship between the policy environment and productivity dispersion.
View Full
Paper PDF