Using confidential Census data on U.S. manufacturing plants, we document that most of the dispersion in investment rates across plants occurs within  rms instead of across  firms. Between- firm dispersion is almost acyclical, but within- rm dispersion is strongly procyclical. To investigate the role of  rms in the allocation of capital in the economy, we build a multi-plant model of the firm with frictions at both levels of aggregation. We show that external  nancing constraints at the level of the  rm can have important implications for plant-level investment dynamics. Finally, we present empirical evidence supporting the predictions of the model.
    
    - 
        
        Do 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
        
        
     
    
    - 
        
        Good Dispersion, Bad Dispersion
        
        March 2024
        
        
            
                Working Paper Number:
            CES-24-13
        
        
            
            We document that most dispersion in marginal revenue products of inputs occurs across plants within firms rather than between firms. This is commonly thought to reflect misallocation: dispersion is 'bad.' However, we show that eliminating frictions hampering internal capital markets in a multi-plant firm model may in fact increase productivity dispersion and raise output: dispersion can be 'good.' This arises as firms optimally stagger investment activity across their plants over time to avoid raising costly external finance, instead relying on reallocating internal funds. The staggering in turn generates dispersion in marginal revenue products. We use U.S. Census data on multi-plant manufacturing firms to provide empirical evidence for the model mechanism and show a quantitatively important role for good dispersion. Since there is less scope for good dispersion in emerging economies, the difference in the degree of misallocation between emerging and developed economies looks more pronounced than previously thought.
        
        View Full
            Paper PDF
        
        
     
    
    - 
        
        Slow to Hire, Quick to Fire: Employment Dynamics with Asymmetric Responses to News
        
        January 2017
        
        
            
                Working Paper Number:
            CES-17-15
        
        
            
            Concave hiring rules imply that firms respond more to bad shocks than to good shocks. They provide a united explanation for several seemingly unrelated facts about employment growth in macro and micro data. In particular, they generate countercyclical movement in both aggregate conditional 'macro' volatility and cross-sectional 'micro' volatility as well as negative skewness in the cross section and in the time series at different level of aggregation. Concave establishment level responses of employment growth to TFP shocks estimated from Census data induce significant skewness, movements in volatility and amplification of bad aggregate shocks.
        
        View Full
            Paper PDF
        
        
     
    
    - 
        
        Slow to Hire, Quick to Fire: Employment Dynamics with Asymmetric Responses to News
        
        January 2015
        
        
            
                Working Paper Number:
            CES-15-02
        
        
            
            We study the distribution of employment growth when hiring responds more to bad shocks than to good shocks. Such a concave hiring rule endogenously generates higher moments observed in establishment-level Census data for both the cross section and the time series. In particular, both aggregate conditional volatility ("macro-volatility") and the cross-sectional dispersion of employment growth ("micro-volatility") are countercyclical. Moreover, employment growth is negatively skewed in the cross section and time series, while TFP is not. The estimated response of employment growth to TFP innovations is su ciently concave to induce signi cant skewness as well as movements in volatility of employment growth.
        
        View Full
            Paper PDF
        
        
     
    
    - 
        
        Small and Large Firms Over the Business Cycle
        
        February 2018
        
        
            
                Working Paper Number:
            CES-18-09
        
        
            
            Drawing on a new, con dential Census Bureau dataset of financial statements of a representative sample of 80000 manufacturing firms from 1977 to 2014, we provide new evidence on the link between size, cyclicality, and financial frictions. First, we only find evidence of lower cyclicality among the very largest firms (the top 1% by size). Second, due to high and rising concentration of sales and investment, the lower   sensitivity of the top 1% firms dominates the behavior of aggregate fluctuations. Third, we show that this differential sensitivity does not appear to be driven by financial frictions. The higher sensitivity of the bottom 99% does not disappear after controlling for measures of financial strength, is not statistically significant after
 identified monetary policy shocks, and does not appear in debt financing flows. Evidence from 3-digit  industries suggests a non-financial explanation: the largest 1% of firms are less sensitive due to a more diversified customer base.
        
        View Full
            Paper PDF
        
        
     
    
    - 
        
        REALLY UNCERTAIN BUSINESS CYCLES
        
        March 2014
        
        
            
                Working Paper Number:
            CES-14-18
        
        
            
            We propose uncertainty shocks as a new shock that drives business cycles. First, we demonstrate that microeconomic uncertainty is robustly countercyclical, rising sharply during recessions, particularly during the Great Recession of 2007-2009. Second, we quantify the impact of time-varying uncertainty on the economy in a dynamic stochastic general equilibrium model with heterogeneous firms. We find that reasonably calibrated uncertainty shocks can explain drops and rebounds in GDP of around 3%. Moreover, we show that increased uncertainty alters the relative impact of government policies, making them initially less effective and then subsequently more effective.
        
        View Full
            Paper PDF
        
        
     
    
    - 
        
        CAPITAL AND LABOR REALLOCATION INSIDE FIRMS
        
        April 2013
        
        
            
                Working Paper Number:
            CES-13-22
        
        
            
            We  document  how  a  plant-specific  shock  to  investment  opportunities  at  one plant of a firm ("treated plant") spills over to other plants of the same firm-but only if the firm is financially constrained. While the shock triggers an increase in investment and employment at the treated plant, this increase is offset by a decrease at other plants of the same magnitude, consistent with headquarters channeling scarce resources away from other plants and toward the treated plant. As a result of the resource reallocation, aggregate firm-wide productivity increases, suggesting that the reallocation is beneficial for the firm as a whole. We also show that-in order to provide the treated plant with scarce resources-headquarters does not uniformly "tax" all of the firm's other plants in the same way: It is more likely to take away resources from plants that are less productive, are not part of the firm's core industries, and are located far away from headquarters. We do not find any evidence of investment or employment spillovers at financially unconstrained firms.
        
        View Full
            Paper PDF
        
        
     
    
    - 
        
        Declining Dynamism, Allocative Efficiency, and the Productivity Slowdown
        
        January 2017
        
        
            
                Working Paper Number:
            CES-17-17
        
        
            
            A large literature documents declining measures of business dynamism including high-growth young firm activity and job reallocation. A distinct literature describes a slowdown in the pace of aggregate labor productivity growth. We relate these patterns by studying changes in productivity growth from the late 1990s to the mid 2000s using firm-level data. We find that diminished allocative efficiency gains can account for the productivity slowdown in a manner that interacts with the within firm productivity growth distribution. The evidence suggests that the decline in dynamism is reason for concern and sheds light on debates about the causes of slowing productivity growth.
        
        View Full
            Paper PDF
        
        
     
    
    - 
        
        Macro and Micro Dynamics of Productivity: From Devilish Details to Insights
        
        January 2017
        
        
            
                Working Paper Number:
            CES-17-41R
        
        
            
            Researchers use a variety of methods to estimate total factor productivity (TFP) at the firm level and, while these may seem broadly equivalent, how the resulting measures relate to the TFP concept in theoretical models depends on the assumptions about the environment in which firms operate. Interpreting these measures and drawing insights based upon their characteristics thus must take into account these conceptual differences. Absent data on prices and quantities, most methods yield 'revenue productivity' measures. We focus on two broad classes of revenue productivity measures in our examination of the relationship between measured and conceptual TFP (TFPQ). The first measure has been increasingly used as a measure of idiosyncratic distortions and to assess the degree of misallocation. The second measure is, under standard assumptions, a function of funda-
 mentals (e.g., TFPQ). Using plant-level U.S. manufacturing data, we find these alternative
 measures are (i) highly correlated; (ii) exhibit similar dispersion; and (iii) have similar relationships with growth and survival. These findings raise questions about interpreting the first measure as a measure of idiosyncratic distortions. We also explore the sensitivity of estimates of the contribution of reallocation to aggregate productivity growth to these alternative approaches. We use recently developed structural decompositions of aggregate productivity growth that depend critically on estimates of output versus revenue elasticities. We find alternative approaches all yield a significant contribution of reallocation to
 productivity growth (although the quantitative contribution varies across approaches).
        
        View Full
            Paper PDF
        
        
     
    
    - 
        
        Do Short-Term Incentives Affect Long-Term Productivity?
        
        March 2020
        
        
            
                Working Paper Number:
            CES-20-10
        
        
            
            Previous research shows that stock repurchases that are caused by earnings management lead to reductions in firm-level investment and employment. It is natural to expect firms to cut less productive investment and employment first, which could lead to a positive effect on firm-level productivity. However, using Census data, we find that firms make cuts across the board irrespective of plant productivity. This pattern seems to be associated with frictions in the labor market. Specifically, we find evidence that unionization of the labor force may prevent firms from doing efficient downsizing, forcing them to engage in easy or expedient downsizing instead. As a result of this inefficient downsizing, EPS-driven repurchases lead to a reduction in long-term productivity.
        
        View Full
            Paper PDF