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.
-
Price 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
-
Re-engineering Key National Economic Indicators
July 2019
Working Paper Number:
CES-19-22
Traditional methods of collecting data from businesses and households face increasing challenges. These include declining response rates to surveys, increasing costs to traditional modes of data collection, and the difficulty of keeping pace with rapid changes in the economy. The digitization of virtually all market transactions offers the potential for re-engineering key national economic indicators. The challenge for the statistical system is how to operate in this data-rich environment. This paper focuses on the opportunities for collecting item-level data at the source and constructing key indicators using measurement methods consistent with such a data infrastructure. Ubiquitous digitization of transactions allows price and quantity be collected or aggregated simultaneously at the source. This new architecture for economic statistics creates challenges arising from the rapid change in items sold. The paper explores some recently proposed techniques for estimating price and quantity indices in large scale item-level data. Although those methods display tremendous promise, substantially more research is necessary before they will be ready to serve as the basis for the official economic statistics. Finally, the paper addresses implications for building national statistics from transactions for data collection and for the capabilities and organization of the statistical agencies in the 21st century.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Punctuated Entrepreneurship (Among Women)
May 2018
Working Paper Number:
CES-18-26
The gender gap in entrepreneurship may be explained in part by employee non-compete agreements. Exploiting exogenous state-level variation in non-compete policy, I find that women more strictly subject to non-competes are 11-17% more likely to start companies after their employers dissolve. This result is not explained by the incidence of non-competes or lawsuits; however, women face higher relative costs in defending against potential litigation and in returning to paid employment after abandoning their ventures. Thus entrepreneurship among women may be 'punctuated' in that would-be female founders are throttled by non-competes, their potential unleashed only by the failure of their employers.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Primary Versus Secondary Production Techniques in U.S. Manufacturing
October 1994
Working Paper Number:
CES-94-12
In this paper we discuss and analyze a classical economic puzzle: whether differences in factor intensities reflect patterns of specialization or the co-existence of alternative techniques to produce output. We use observations on a large cross-section of U.S. manufacturing plants from the Census of Manufactures, including those that make goods primary to other industries, to study differences in production techniques. We find that in most cases material requirements do not depend on whether goods are made as primary products or as secondary products, which suggests that differences in factor intensities usually reflect patterns of specialization. A few cases where secondary production techniques do differ notably are discussed in more detail. However, overall the regression results support the neoclassical assumption that a single, best-practice technique is chosen for making each product.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Technology Locks, Creative Destruction And Non-Convergence In Productivity Levels
April 1995
Working Paper Number:
CES-95-06
This paper presents a simple solution to a new model that seeks to explain the distribution of plants across productivity levels within an industry, and empirically confirms some key predictions using the U.S. textile industry. In the model, plants are locked into a given productivity level, until they exit or retool. Convex costs of adjustment captures the fact that more productive plants expand faster. Provided there is technical change, productivity levels do not converge; the model achieves persistent dispersion in productivity levels within the context of a distortion free competitive equilibrium. The equilibrium, however, is rather turbulent; plants continually come on line with the cutting edge technology, gradually expand and finally exit or retool when they cease to recover their variable costs. The more productive plants create jobs, while the less productive destroy them. The model establishes a close link between productivity growth and dispersion in productivity levels; more rapid productivity growth leads to more widespread dispersion. This prediction is empirically confirmed. Additionally, the model provides an explanation for S-shaped diffusion.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Dispersion in Dispersion: Measuring Establishment-Level Differences in Productivity
April 2018
Working Paper Number:
CES-18-25RR
We describe new experimental productivity statistics, Dispersion Statistics on Productivity (DiSP), jointly developed and published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Census Bureau. Productivity measures are critical for understanding economic performance. Official BLS productivity statistics, which are available for major sectors and detailed industries, provide information on the sources of aggregate productivity growth. A large body of research shows that within-industry variation in productivity provides important insights into productivity dynamics. This research reveals large and persistent productivity differences across businesses even within narrowly defined industries. These differences vary across industries and over time and are related to productivity-enhancing reallocation. Dispersion in productivity across businesses can provide information about the nature of competition and frictions within sectors, and about the sources of rising wage inequality across businesses. Because there were no official statistics providing this level of detail, BLS and the Census Bureau partnered to create measures of within-industry productivity dispersion. These measures complement official BLS aggregate and industry-level productivity growth statistics and thereby improve our understanding of the rich productivity dynamics in the U.S. economy. The underlying microdata for these measures are available for use by qualified researchers on approved projects in the Federal Statistical Research Data Center (FSRDC) network. These new statistics confirm the presence of large productivity differences and we hope that these new data products will encourage further research into understanding these differences.
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
-
Productivity Dispersion and Structural Change in Retail Trade
December 2023
Working Paper Number:
CES-23-60R
The retail sector has changed from a sector full of small firms to one dominated by large, national firms. We study how this transformation has impacted productivity levels, growth, and dispersion between 1987 and 2017. We describe this transformation using three overlapping phases: expansion (1980s and 1990s), consolidation (2000s), and stagnation (2010s). We document five findings that help us understand these phases. First, productivity growth was high during the consolidation phase but has fallen more recently. Second, entering establishments drove productivity growth during the expansion phase, but continuing establishments have increased in importance more recently. Third, national chains have more productive establishments than single-unit firms on average, but some single-unit establishments are highly productive. Fourth, productivity dispersion is significant and increasing over time. Finally, more productive firms pay higher wages and grow more quickly. Together, these results suggest that the increasing importance of large national retail firms has been an important driver of productivity and wage growth in the retail sector.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Whittling 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
-
Long-Run Expectations And Capacity
April 1988
Working Paper Number:
CES-88-01
In this paper, we argue at a general level, that recent economic models of capacity and of its utilization are deficient because they do not adequately take into account firms' long-run expectations about conditions which are pertinent to their investment decisions, i.e., their decisions about altering productive capacity. We argue that the problem with these models is that they rely on the two conventional definitions of capacity which ignore these long-run expectations. Accordingly, we propose a third definition of capacity which incorporates these expectations and, thereby, corrects the problem. Furthermore, we argue that a correct, empirical analysis with the proposed definition -- indeed, any credible analysis of capacity or its utilization -- must take into account the demand for the output produced by the firms being studied. Finally, we apply the definition to clarify the meaning of surveys of capacity and, thus, show how it can be used to improve future surveys of capacity.
View Full
Paper PDF