-
The China Shock Revisited: Job Reallocation and Industry Switching in U.S. Labor Markets
October 2024
Working Paper Number:
CES-24-65
Using confidential administrative data from the U.S. Census Bureau we revisit how the rise in Chinese import penetration has reshaped U.S. local labor markets. Local labor markets more exposed to the China shock experienced larger reallocation from manufacturing to services jobs. Most of this reallocation occurred within firms that simultaneously contracted manufacturing operations while expanding employment in services. Notably, about 40% of the manufacturing job loss effect is due to continuing establishments switching their primary activity from manufacturing to trade-related services such as research, management, and wholesale. The effects of Chinese import penetration vary by local labor market characteristics. In areas with high human capital, including much of the West Coast and large cities, job reallocation from manufacturing to services has been substantial. In areas with low human capital and a high initial manufacturing share, including much of the Midwest and the South, we find limited job reallocation. We estimate this differential response to the China shock accounts for half of the 1997-2007 job growth gap between these regions.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Multinational Production and Innovation in Tandem
October 2024
Working Paper Number:
CES-24-64
Multinational firms colocate production and innovation by offshoring them to the same host country or region. In this paper, I examine the determinants of multinational firms' production and innovation locations. Exploiting plausibly exogenous variations in tariffs, I find complementarities between production and innovation within host countries and regions. To evaluate manufacturing reshoring policies, I develop a quantitative multicountry offshoring location choice model. I allow for rich colocation benefits and cross-country interdependencies and prove supermodularity of the model to solve this otherwise NP-hard problem. I find the effects of manufacturing reshoring policies are nonlinear, contingent upon firm heterogeneity, and they accumulate dynamically.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Supply Chain Adjustments to Tariff Shocks: Evidence from Firm Trade Linkages in the 2018-2019 U.S. Trade War
August 2024
Working Paper Number:
CES-24-43
We use the 2018-2019 U.S. trade war to examine how supply chains adjustments to a tariff cost shock affect imports and exports. Using confidential firm-trade linked data, we show that the decline in imports of tariffed goods was driven by discontinuations of U.S. buyer'foreign supplier relationships, reduced formation of new relationships, and exits by U.S. firms from import markets altogether. However, tariffed products where imports were concentrated in fewer suppliers had a smaller decline in import growth. We then construct measures of export exposure to import tariffs by linking tariffs paid by importing firms to their exported products. We find that the most exposed products had lower exports in 2018-2019, with most of the impact occurring in 2019.
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
-
Firm Finances and Responses to Trade Liberalization: Evidence from U.S. Tariffs on China
November 2021
Working Paper Number:
CES-21-37
This paper examines the relationship between a firm's finances and its response to trade liberalization. Using a landmark change in U.S. tariff policy vis-'-vis Chinese imports and micro level data from the U.S. Census Bureau, I find larger manufacturing job losses in better capitalized firms - those with less leverage and more cash on hand. The effects concentrate in industries where weaker balance sheets are likely to lead to collateral and other borrowing constraints, helping rule out alternative explanations. Finally, domestic manufacturing job losses are not accompanied by greater reductions in sales or aggregate employment, but better capitalized firms do exhibit reduced input costs and increased productivity. These findings point to offshoring as the predominant firm response to trade liberalization and suggest a role for financial capacity in facilitating offshoring investments.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Heavy Tailed, but not Zipf: Firm and Establishment Size in the U.S.
July 2021
Working Paper Number:
CES-21-15
Heavy tails play an important role in modern macroeconomics and international economics.
Previous work often assumes a Pareto distribution for firm size, typically with a shape parameter approaching Zipf's law. This convenient approximation has dramatic consequences for the importance of large firms in the economy. But we show that a lognormal distribution, or better yet, a convolution of a lognormal and a non-Zipf Pareto distribution, provides a better description of the U.S. economy, using confidential Census Bureau data. These findings hold even far in the upper tail and suggest heterogeneous firm models should more systematically explore deviations from Zipf's law.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Are Customs Records Consistent Across Countries? Evidence from the U.S. and Colombia
March 2020
Working Paper Number:
CES-20-11
In many countries, official customs records include identifying information on the exporting and importing firms involved in each shipment. This information allows researchers to study international business networks, offshoring patterns, and the micro-foundations of aggregate trade flows. It also provides the government with a basis for tariff assessments at the border. However, there are no mechanisms in place to ensure that the shipment-level information recorded by the exporting country is consistent with the shipment-level information recorded by the importing country. And to the extent that there are discrepancies, it is not clear how prevalent they are or what form they take. In this paper we explore these issues, both to enhance our understanding of the limitations of customs records, and to inform future discussions of possible revisions in the way they are collected.
Specifically, we match U.S.-bound export shipments that appear in Colombian Customs records (DIAN) with their counterparts in the US Customs records (LFTTD): U.S. import shipments from Colombia. Several patterns emerge. First, differences in the coverage of the two countries customs records lead to significant discrepancies in the official bilateral trade flow statistics of these two countries: the DIAN database records 8 percent fewer transactions than the LFTTD database over the sample period, and the average export shipment size in the DIAN is roughly 4 percent smaller than the corresponding import shipment size in the LFTTD. These discrepancies are not due to difference in minimum shipment sizes and they are not particular to a few sectors, though they are more common among small shipments and they evolve over time.
Second, if we rely exclusively on firms' names and addresses, ignoring other shipment characteristics (value, product code, etc.), we are able to match 85 percent of the value of U.S. imports from Colombia in our LFTTD sample with particular Colombian suppliers in the DIAN. Further, fully 97 percent of the value of Colombian exports to the U.S. can be mapped onto particular importers in the U.S. LFTTD.
Third, however, match rates at the shipment level within buyer-seller pairs are low. That is, while buyers and sellers can be paired up fairly accurately, only 25-30 percent of the individual transactions in the customs records of the two countries can be matched using fuzzy algorithms at reasonable tolerance levels.
Fourth, the manufacturer ID (MANUF_ID) that appears in the LFTTD implies there are roughly twice as many Colombian exporters as actually appear in the DIAN. And similar comments apply to an analogous MANUF_ID variable constructed from importer name and address information in the DIAN. Hence studies that treat each MANUF_ID value as a distinct firm are almost surely overstating the number of foreign firms that engage in trade with the U.S. by a substantial amount.
Finally, we conclude that if countries were to require that exporters report standardized shipment identifiers'either invoice numbers or bill of lading/air waybill numbers'it would be far easier to track individual transactions and to identify international discrepancies in reporting.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Rising Import Tariffs, Falling Export Growth: When Modern Supply Chains Meet Old-Style Protectionism
January 2020
Working Paper Number:
CES-20-01
We examine the impacts of the 2018-2019 U.S. import tariff increases on U.S. export growth through the lens of supply chain linkages. Using 2016 confidential firm-trade linked data, we document the implied incidence and scope of new import tariffs. Firms that eventually faced tariff increases on their imports accounted for 84% of all exports and represented 65% of manufacturing employment. For all affected firms, the implied cost is $900 per worker in new duties. To estimate the effect on U.S. export growth, we construct product-level measures of import tariff exposure of U.S. exports from the underlying firm micro data. More exposed products experienced 2 percentage point lower growth relative to products with no exposure. The decline in exports is equivalent to an ad valorem tariff on U.S. exports of almost 2% for the typical product and almost 4% for products with higher than average exposure.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Do Institutions Determine Economic Geography?
Evidence from the Concentration of Foreign Suppliers
February 2019
Working Paper Number:
CES-19-05
Do institutions shape the geographic concentration of industrial activity? We explore this question in an international trade setting by examining the relationship between country-level institutions and patterns of spatial concentration of global sourcing. A priori, weak institutions could be associated with either dispersed or concentrated sourcing. We exploit location and transaction data on imports by U.S. firms and adapt the Ellison and Glaeser (1997) index to construct a product-country-specific measure of supplier concentration for U.S. importers. Results show that U.S. importers source in a more spatially concentrated manner from countries with weaker contract enforcement. We find support for the idea that, where formal contract enforcement is weak, local supplier networks compensate by sharing information to facilitate matching and transactions.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Firm Reorganization, Chinese Imports, and US Manufacturing Employment
January 2017
Working Paper Number:
CES-17-58
What is the impact of Chinese imports on employment of US manufacturing firms? Previous papers have found a negative effect of Chinese imports on employment in US manufacturing establishments, industries, and regions. However, I show theoretically and empirically that the impact of offshoring on firms, which can be thought of as collections of establishments ' differs from the impact on individual establishments - because offshoring reduces costs at the firm level. These cost reductions can result in firms expanding their total manufacturing employment in industries in which the US has a comparative advantage relative to China, even as specific establishments within the firm shrink. Using novel data on firms from the US Census Bureau, I show that the data support this view: US firms expanded manufacturing employment as reorganization toward less exposed industries in response to increased Chinese imports in US output and input markets allowed them to reduce the cost of production. More exposed firms expanded employment by 2 percent more per year as they hired more (i) production workers in manufacturing, whom they paid higher wages, and (ii) in services complementary to high-skilled and high-tech manufacturing, such as R&D, design, engineering, and headquarters services. In other words, although Chinese imports may have reduced employment within some establishments, these losses were more than offset by gains in employment within the same firms. Contrary to conventional wisdom, firms exposed to greater Chinese imports created more manufacturing and nonmanufacturing jobs than non-exposed firms.
View Full
Paper PDF
