American industries have grown more concentrated over the last forty years. In the absence of productivity innovation, this should lead to price hikes and output reductions, decreasing consumer welfare. Using public data from 1972-2012, I use price data to disentangle revenue from output. Difference-in-difference estimates show that industry concentration increases are positively correlated to productivity and real output growth, uncorrelated with price changes and overall payroll, and negatively correlated with labor's revenue share. I rationalize these results in a simple model of competition. Productive industries (with growing oligopolists) expand real output and hold down prices, raising consumer welfare, while maintaining or reducing their workforces, lowering labor's share of output.
-
The Modern Wholesaler: Global Sourcing, Domestic Distribution, and Scale Economies
December 2018
Working Paper Number:
CES-18-49
Nearly half of all transactions in the $6 trillion market for manufactured goods in the United
States were intermediated by wholesalers in 2012, up from 32 percent in 1992. Seventy percent of this increase is due to the growth of 'superstar' firms - the largest one percent of wholesalers. Structural estimates based on detailed administrative data show that the rise of the largest wholesalers was driven by an intuitive linkage between their sourcing of goods from abroad and an expansion of their domestic distribution network to reach more buyers. Both elements require scale economies and lead to increased wholesaler market shares and markups. Counterfactual analysis shows that despite increases in wholesaler market power, intermediated international trade has two benefits for buyers: directly through buyers' valuation of globally sourced products, and indirectly through the passed-through benefits of wholesaler economies of scale and increased quality.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
U.S. Market Concentration and Import Competition
August 2022
Working Paper Number:
CES-22-34
Many studies have documented that market concentration has risen among U.S. firms in recent decades. In this paper, we show that this rise in concentration was accompanied by tougher product market competition due to the entry of foreign competitors. Using confidential census data covering the universe of all firm sales in the U.S. manufacturing sector, we find that rising import competition increased concentration among U.S. firms by reallocating sales from smaller to larger U.S. firms and by causing firm exit. However, this increase in concentration was counteracted by the expansion of foreign firms, which reduced domestic firms' share of the U.S. market inclusive of foreign firms' sales. We find that once the sales of foreign exporters are taken into account, U.S. marketconcentration in manufacturing was stable between 1992 and 2012.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Estimating market power Evidence from the US Brewing Industry
January 2017
Working Paper Number:
CES-17-06R
While inferring markups from demand data is common practice, estimation relies on difficult-to-test assumptions, including a specific model of how firms compete. Alternatively, markups can be inferred from production data, again relying on a set of difficult-to-test assumptions, but a wholly different set, including the assumption that firms minimize costs using a variable input. Relying on data from the US brewing industry, we directly compare markup estimates from the two approaches. After implementing each approach for a broad set of assumptions and specifications, we find that both approaches provide similar and plausible markup estimates in most cases. The results illustrate how using the two strategies together can allow researchers to evaluate structural models and identify problematic assumptions.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Are firm-level idiosyncratic shocks important for U.S. aggregate volatility?
January 2017
Working Paper Number:
CES-17-23
This paper quantitatively assesses whether firm-specific shocks can drive the U.S. business cycle. Firm-specific shocks to the largest firms can directly contribute to aggregate fluctuations whenever the firm size distribution is fat-tailed giving rise to the granular hypothesis. I use a novel, comprehensive data set compiled from administrative sources that contains the universe of firms and trade transactions, and find that the granular hypothesis accounts at most for 16 percent of the variation in aggregate sales growth. This is about half of that found by previous studies that imposed Gibrat's law where all firms are equally volatile regardless of their size. Using the full distribution of growth rates among U.S. firms, I find robust evidence of a negative relationship between firm-level volatility and size, i.e. the size-variance relationship. The largest firms (whose shocks drive granularity) are the least volatile under the size-variance relationship, thus their influence on aggregates is mitigated. I show that by taking this relationship into account the effect of firm-specific shocks on observed macroeconomic volatility is substantially reduced. I then investigate several plausible mechanisms that could explain the negative sizevariance relationship. After empirically ruling out some of them, I suggest a 'market power' channel in which large firms face smaller price elasticities and therefore respond less to a givensized productivity shock than small firms do. I provide direct evidence for this mechanism by estimating demand elasticities among U.S. manufactures. Lastly, I construct an analytically tractable framework that is consistent with several empirical regularities related to firm size.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Climate Change, The Food Problem, and the Challenge of Adaptation through Sectoral Reallocation
September 2021
Working Paper Number:
CES-21-29
This paper combines local temperature treatment effects with a quantitative macroeconomic model to assess the potential for global reallocation between agricultural and non-agricultural production to reduce the costs of climate change. First, I use firm-level panel data from a wide range of countries to show that extreme heat reduces productivity less in manufacturing and services than in agriculture, implying that hot countries could achieve large potential gains through adapting to global warming by shifting labor toward manufacturing and increasing imports of food. To investigate the likelihood that such gains will be realized, I embed the estimated productivity effects in a model of sectoral specialization and trade covering 158 countries. Simulations suggest that climate change does little to alter the geography of agricultural production, however, as high trade barriers in developing countries temper the influence of shifting comparative advantage. Instead, climate change accentuates the existing pattern, known as 'the food problem,' in which poor countries specialize heavily in relatively low productivity agricultural sectors to meet subsistence consumer needs. The productivity effects of climate change reduce welfare by 6-10% for the poorest quartile of the world with trade barriers held at current levels, but by nearly 70% less in an alternative policy counterfactual that moves low-income countries to OECD levels of trade openness.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Output Market Power and Spatial Misallocation
November 2023
Working Paper Number:
CES-23-57
Most product industries are local. In the U.S., firms selling goods and services to local consumers account for half of total sales and generate more than sixty percent of the nation's jobs. Competition in these industries occurs in local product markets: cities. I propose a theory of such competition in which firms have output market power. Spatial differences in local competition arise endogenously due to the spatial sorting of heterogeneous firms. The ability to charge higher markups induces more productive firms to overvalue locating in larger cities, leading to a misallocation of firms across space. The optimal policy incen tivizes productive firms to relocate to smaller cities, providing a rationale for commonly used place-based policies. I use U.S. Census establishment-level data to estimate markups and to structurally estimate the model. I document a significant heterogeneity in markups for local industries across U.S. cities. Cities in the top decile of the city-size distribution have a fifty percent lower markup than cities in the bottom decile. I use the estimated model to quantify the general equilibrium effects of place-based policies. Policies that remove markups and relocate firms to smaller cities yield sizable aggregate welfare gains.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Labor Market Concentration, Earnings Inequality, and Earnings Mobility
September 2018
Working Paper Number:
carra-2018-10
Using data from the Longitudinal Business Database and Form W-2, I document trends in local industrial concentration from 1976 through 2015 and estimate the effects of that concentration on earnings outcomes within and across demographic groups. Local industrial concentration has generally been declining throughout its distribution over that period, unlike national industrial concentration, which declined sharply in the early 1980s before increasing steadily to nearly its original level beginning around 1990. Estimates indicate that increased local concentration reduces earnings and increases inequality, but observed changes in concentration have been in the opposite direction, and the magnitude of these effects has been modest relative to broader trends; back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that the 90/10 earnings ratio was about six percent lower and earnings were about one percent higher in 2015 than they would have been if local concentration were at its 1976 level. Within demographic subgroups, most experience mean earnings reductions and all experience increases in inequality. Estimates of the effects of concentration on earnings mobility are sensitive to specification.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Are firm-level idiosyncratic shocks important for U.S. aggregate volatility?
January 2016
Working Paper Number:
CES-16-47
This paper assesses the quantitative impact of firm-level idiosyncratic shocks on aggregate volatility in the U.S. economy and provides a microfoundation for the negative relationship between firm-level volatility and size. I argue that the role of firm-specific shocks through the granular channel plays a fairly limited role in the U.S. economy. Using a novel, comprehensive data set compiled from several sources of the U.S. Census Bureau, I find that the granular com-ponent accounts at most for 15.5% of the variation in aggregate sales growth which is about half found by previous studies. To bridge the gap between previous findings and mine, I show that my quantitative results require deviations from Gibrat's law in which firm-level volatility and size are negatively related. I find that firm-level volatility declines at a substantially higher rate in size than previously found. Hence, the largest firms in the economy cannot be driving a sub-stantial fraction of macroeconomic volatility. I show that the explanatory power of granularity gets cut by at least half whenever the size-variance relationship, as estimated in the micro-level data, is taken into account. To uncover the economic mechanism behind this phenomenon, I construct an analytically tractable framework featuring random growth and a Kimball aggrega-tor. Under this setup, larger firms respond less to productivity shocks as the elasticity of demand is decreasing in size. Additionally, the model predicts a positive (negative) relationship between firm-level mark-ups (growth) and size. I confirm the predictions of the model by estimating size-varying price elasticities on unique product-level data from the Census of Manufactures (CM) and structurally estimating mark-ups using plant-level information from the Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM).
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Firm Dynamics and Assortative Matching
May 2014
Working Paper Number:
CES-14-25
I study the relationship between firm growth and the characteristics of newly hired workers. Using Census microdata I obtain a novel empirical result: when a given firm grows faster it hires workers with higher past wages. These results suggest that productive, fast-growing firms tend to hire more productive workers, a form of positive assortative matching. This contrasts with prior research that has found negligible or negative sorting between workers and firms. I present evidence that this difference arises because previous studies have focused on cross-sectional comparisons across firms and industries, while my results condition on firm characteristics (e.g. size, industry, or firm fixed effects). Motivated by the empirical findings I develop a search model with heterogeneous workers and firms. The model is the first to study worker-firm sorting in an environment with worker heterogeneity, firm productivity shocks, multi-worker firms, and search frictions. Despite this richness the model is tractable, allowing me to characterize assortative matching, compositional dynamics and other properties analytically. I show that the model reproduces the positive firm growth-quality of hires correlation when worker and firm types are strong complements in production (i.e. the production function is strictly log-supermodular).
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Immigration and Local Business Dynamics:
Evidence from U.S. Firms
August 2021
Working Paper Number:
CES-21-18
This paper finds that establishment entry and exit'particularly the prevention of establishment exit'drive immigrant absorption and immigrant-induced productivity increases in U.S. local industries. Using a comprehensive collection of confidential survey and administrative
data from the Census Bureau, it shows that inflows of immigrantworkers lead to more establishment entry and less establishment exit in local industries. These relationships are responsible for nearly all of long-run immigrant-induced job creation, with 78 percent accounted for by exit prevention alone, leaving a minimal role for continuing establishment expansion. Furthermore, exit prevention is not uniform: immigrant inflows increase the probability of exit by establishments from low productivity firms and decrease the probability of exit by establishments from high productivity firms. As a result, the increase in establishment count is concentrated at the top of the productivity distribution. A general equilibrium model proposes a mechanism that ties immigrantworkers to high productivity firms and shows how accounting for changes to the firm productivity distribution can yield substantially larger estimates of immigrant-generated economic surplus than canonical models of labor demand.
View Full
Paper PDF