Papers written by Author(s): 'Chen Yeh'
The following papers contain search terms that you selected. From the papers listed below, you can navigate to the PDF, the profile page for that working paper, or see all the working papers written by an author. You can also explore tags, keywords, and authors that occur frequently within these papers.
See Working Papers by Tag(s), Keywords(s), Author(s), or Search Text
Click here to search again
Frequently Occurring Concepts within this Search
Authors
No authors occur more than twice in this search.
Viewing papers 1 through 4 of 4
-
Working PaperOutsourcing Dynamism
December 2023
Working Paper Number:
CES-23-64
This paper investigates the increasing importance of domestic outsourcing in U.S. manufacturing. Under domestic outsourcing, the agency is the employer of record for temporary workers, though they perform their tasks at the client business' premises. On a yearly basis, one in two manufacturing plants hires at least some of its workers through a temporary help agency. Furthermore, domestic outsourcing is becoming increasingly more important: the average share of revenue spent on such arrangements has gone up by 85 percent since 2006. We develop a methodology to transform reported expenses on temporary and leased workers into plant-level outsourced employment counts, using administrative data on the U.S. manufacturing sector. We find that domestic outsourcing is an important margin of adjustment that plants use to modify their workforce in response to productivity shocks. Plant-level outsourced employment adjusts more quickly and is twice as responsive as payroll employment. These micro implications have significant aggregate consequences. Without taking reallocations in outsourced employment into account, the measured pace at which jobs reallocate across workplaces is underestimated. On average, we omit the equivalent of 15 percent of payroll employment reallocations in each year. However, outsourced employment churns at a much higher rate compared to its payroll counterpart. Therefore, the omission of outsourced reallocations can rationalize 37 percent of the secular decline in the aggregate job reallocation rate. Lastly, the extent of mismeasurement varies with the business cycle; falling in downturns and increasing in upturns implying that the speed of economic recovery is underestimated.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperDecomposing Aggregate Productivity
July 2022
Working Paper Number:
CES-22-25
In this note, we evaluate the sensitivity of commonly-used decompositions for aggregate productivity. Our analysis spans the universe of U.S. manufacturers from 1977 to 2012 and we find that, even holding the data and form of the production function fixed, results on aggregate productivity are extremely sensitive to how productivity at the firm level is measured. Even qualitative statements about the levels of aggregate productivity and the sign of the covariance between productivity and size are highly dependent on how production function parameters are estimated. Despite these difficulties, we uncover some consistent facts about productivity growth: (1) labor productivity is consistently higher and less error-prone than measures of multi-factor productivity; (2) most productivity growth comes from growth within firms, rather than from reallocation across firms; (3) what growth does come from reallocation appears to be driven by net entry, primarily from the exit of relatively less-productive firms.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperAre 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
-
Working PaperAre 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
1
Total Results: 4
