Papers Containing Keywords(s): 'employ'
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
Viewing papers 251 through 253 of 253
-
Working PaperGross Job Creation, Gross Job Destruction and Employment Reallocation
June 1990
Working Paper Number:
CES-90-04
This paper measures the heterogeneity of establishment-level employment changes in the U.S. manufacturing sector over the 1972 to 1986 period. Our empirical work exploits a rich data set with approximately 860,000 annual observations on 160,000 manufacturing establishments to calculate rates of gross job creation, gross job destruction, and their sum, gross job reallocation. The central empirical findings are as follows: (1) Based on March-to-March establishment-level employment changes, gross job reallocation averages more than 20% of employment per year. (2) For the manufacturing sector as a whole, March-to-March gross job reallocation varies over time from 17% to 23% of employment per year. (3) Time variation in gross job reallocation is countercyclic-gross job reallocation rates covary negatively with own-sector and manufacturing net employment growth rates. (4) Virtually all of the time variation in gross job reallocation is accounted for by idiosyncratic effects on the establishment growth rate density. Changes in the shape and location of the growth rate density due to aggregate-year effects and sector-year effects cannot explain the observed variation in gross job reallocation. (5) The part of gross job reallocation attributable to idiosyncratic effects fluctuates countercyclically. Combining (3) ' (5), we conclude that the intensity of shifts in the pattern of employment opportunities across establishments exhibits significant countercyclic variation. In preparing the data for this study, we have greatly benefited from the assistance of Robert Bechtold, Timothy Dunne, Cyr Linonis, James Monahan, Al Nucci and other Census Bureau employees at the Center for Economic Studies. We have also benefited from helpful comments by Katherine Abraham, Martin Baily, Fischer Black, Timothy Dunne, David Lilien, Robert McGuckin, Kevin M. Murphy, Larrty Katz, John Wallis, workshop participants at the University of Maryland, the Resource Mobility Session of the Econometric society (Winter 1988 meetings), an NBER conference on Alternative Explanations of Employment Fluctuations, and the NBER's Economic Fluctuations Program Meeting (Summer 1989). Scott Schuh provided excellent research assistance. We gratefully acknowledge the financial assistance of the National Science Foundation (SES-8721031 and SES-8720931), the Hoover Institution, and the Office of Graduate Studies and Research at the University of Maryland. Davis also thanks the National Science Foundation for it's support through a grant to the National Fellows Program at the Hoover Institution. Most of the research for this paper was conducted while Davis was a National Fellow at the Hoover Institution.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperMultifactor Productivity And Sources of Growth In Chinese Industry: 1980-85
October 1989
Working Paper Number:
CES-89-08
This paper examines the economic performance of the Chinese industrial sector in the post-reform period 1980-1985. A multifactor productivity model is used to isolate the contributions of labor, capital, and technical efficiency to growth in industrial output. Using information from the National Industrial Census of China (1988) for large and medium-size enterprises, we find that growth in industrial labor productivity in the post-reform period is attributable to increases in capital intensity not technical efficiency. Moreover, collective and other nonstate enterprises show higher partial labor and multifactor productivity gains than do state enterprises. We also find that multifactor productivity gains are closely tied to increases in retained profits and the proportion of total employees that are technical workers. Surprisingly, labor bonuses have a near zero or negative effect on multifactor productivity growth although this result is not very robust.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperThe Effect Of Takeovers On The Employment And Wages Of Central-Office And Other Personnel
June 1989
Working Paper Number:
CES-89-03
Recent high rates of takeover activity have stimulated considerable interest and concern among policymakers and the public about changes in corporate ownership, but relatively little evidence about the "read" (as opposed to financial) effects of takeovers has been available. This paper presents evidence concerning the effects of ownership change on the employment and wages of central-office workers -- according to some views, those likely to be most affected by takeovers -- and contracts them with the effects on manufacturing plant employees. The evidence is based on a large, longitudinal, plant-level data set derived from Census Bureau surveys of both administrative and production establishments. The major findings of the analysis are as follows. Central offices that changed owners between 1977 and 1982 had substantially lower -- about 16 percent lower -- employment growth during that period than central offices not changing owners. (There was, however, no significant difference in the growth of R&D employment.) They also had slower growth in wages -- about 9 percent lower. Changing owners had a much more negative effect on employment growth in central offices than it did in manufacturing plants: 16 percent compared to 5 percent. This implies that the ratio of central-office to plant employees declines about 11 percent in firms changing owners: about 7.2 administrators per 10-00 plant employees are eliminated. These findings are consistent with the view that reduction of administrative overhead is an important motive for changes in ownership. Failure to account for reductions in central-office employment results in a substantial (about 40 percent) underestimate of the productivity gains associated with ownership change. We also provide evidence concerning the relationship between firm size and administrative-intensity.View Full Paper PDF
