Why Do Firms Own Production Chains?
September 2009
Working Paper Number:
CES-09-31
Abstract
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.
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,
export,
organizational,
ownership,
merger,
acquisition,
produce,
proprietor,
factory,
conglomerate,
multinational,
inventory,
revenue,
wholesale,
buyer,
sourcing
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.
:
Census of Manufactures,
Internal Revenue Service,
Standard Industrial Classification,
Bureau of Labor Statistics,
National Science Foundation,
Total Factor Productivity,
Administrative Records,
Labor Productivity,
Bureau of Economic Analysis,
University of Chicago,
Longitudinal Business Database,
Department of Economics,
Chicago Census Research Data Center,
Economic Census,
UC Berkeley,
Special Sworn Status,
Chicago RDC,
Commodity Flow Survey
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 'Why Do Firms Own Production Chains?' are listed below in order of similarity.
-
Working PaperCementing 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
-
Working PaperCementing 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
-
Working PaperThe Effects of Environmental Regulation on the Competiveness of U.S. Manufacturing
January 2011
Working Paper Number:
CES-11-03
Whether and to what extent environmental regulations influence the competitiveness of firms remains a hotly debated issue. Using detailed production data from tens of thousands of U.S. manufacturing plants drawn from Annual Survey of Manufactures, we estimate the effects of environmental regulations'captured by the Clean Air Act Amendments' division of counties into pollutant-specific nonattainment and attainment categories'on manufacturing plants' total factor productivity (TFP) levels. We find that among surviving polluting plants, a nonattainment designation is associated with a roughly 2.6 percent decline in TFP. The regulations governing ozone have particularly discernable effects on productivity, though effects are also seen among particulates and sulfur dioxide emitters. Carbon monoxide nonattainment, on the other hand, appears to increase measured TFP, though this appears to be concentrated among refineries. When we apply corrections for two likely sources of positive bias in these estimates (price mismeasurement and sample selection on survival), we estimate that the total TFP loss for polluting plants in nonattaining counties is 4.8 percent. This corresponds to an annual lost output in the manufacturing sector of roughly $14.7 billion in 1987 dollars ($24.4 billion in 2009 dollars). These costs have important implications for both the intensity and location of firm expansions.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperPrices, 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
-
Working PaperOutput Market Segmentation and Productivity
June 2001
Working Paper Number:
CES-01-07
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.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperReallocation, 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
-
Working PaperMarket 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
-
Working PaperThe Slow Growth of New Plants: Learning about Demand?
March 2012
Working Paper Number:
CES-12-06
It is well known that new businesses are typically much smaller than their established industry competitors, and that this size gap closes slowly. We show that even in commodity-like product markets, these patterns do not reflect productivity gaps, but rather differences in demand-side fundamentals. We document and explore patterns in plants' idiosyncratic demand levels by estimating a dynamic model of plant expansion in the presence of a demand accumulation process (e.g., building a customer base). We find active accumulation driven by plants' past production decisions quantitatively dominates passive demand accumulation, and that within-firm spillovers affect demand levels but not growth.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperTHE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG ACQUIRING AND ACQUIRED FIRMS' PRODUCT LINES
September 1990
Working Paper Number:
CES-90-12
This study develops detailed information on the relationships among the activities of acquiring and acquired firms at and near the time of merger for a sample of 94 takeovers undertaken between 1977-1982. We focus on takeovers for two reasons. First, takeovers are an important and controversial phenomenon. Second, takeovers allow us to look at marginal changes, admittedly large ones, in the firm's boundaries. Thus, they provide a useful way of examining relationships among activities of the firm without having to go into great detail regarding the historical decisions that generated the firm's current structure. While the individual establishment is our basic data unit, in this study we aggregate the activities of the firm to the line of business (LOB) level. Each LOB of an acquired firm is classified as to its relationship horizontal, vertical (upstream or downstream), and conglomerate to the LOBs of the acquiring firm. Using these categorizations we aggregate the LOB-level information to the firm level to investigate the degree to which our sample of mergers is specialized to particular types of relationships. While we find a significant group of unspecialized takeovers, most appear to fit a specific category. We also look at the pattern of closed operations immediately following the takeover. Closings are generally concentrated in operations involving horizontal relationships. Finally, we consider the pattern of relationships between hostile and friendly takeovers and whether takeover premiums vary by type of merger. Merger premiums are not related to the type of relationship between the acquiring and acquired firm, but they are tied to whether the takeover is friendly or hostile.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperMicro and Macro Data Integration: The Case of Capital
May 2005
Working Paper Number:
CES-05-02
Micro and macro data integration should be an objective of economic measurement as it is clearly advantageous to have internally consistent measurement at all levels of aggregation ' firm, industry and aggregate. In spite of the apparently compelling arguments, there are few measures of business activity that achieve anything close to micro/macro data internal consistency. The measures of business activity that are arguably the worst on this dimension are capital stocks and flows. In this paper, we document, quantify and analyze the widely different approaches to the measurement of capital from the aggregate (top down) and micro (bottom up) perspectives. We find that recent developments in data collection permit improved integration of the top down and bottom up approaches. We develop a prototype hybrid method that exploits these data to improve micro/macro data internal consistency in a manner that could potentially lead to substantially improved measures of capital stocks and flows at the industry level. We also explore the properties of the micro distribution of investment. In spite of substantial data and associated measurement limitations, we show that the micro distributions of investment exhibit properties that are of interest to both micro and macro analysts of investment behavior. These findings help highlight some of the potential benefits of micro/macro data integration.View Full Paper PDF
