Papers Containing Keywords(s): 'expenditure'
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
Randy Becker - 11
Alice Zawacki - 11
Ronald J Shadbegian - 10
John Haltiwanger - 10
Wayne B Gray - 9
Viewing papers 21 through 30 of 170
-
Working PaperThe U.S. Manufacturing Sector's Response to Higher Electricity Prices: Evidence from State-Level Renewable Portfolio Standards
October 2022
Working Paper Number:
CES-22-47
While several papers examine the effects of renewable portfolio standards (RPS) on electricity prices, they mainly rely on state-level data and there has been little research on how RPS policies affect manufacturing activity via their effect on electricity prices. Using plant-level data for the entire U.S. manufacturing sector and all electric utilities from 1992 ' 2015, we jointly estimate the effect of RPS adoption and stringency on plant-level electricity prices and production decisions. To ensure that our results are not sensitive to possible pre-existing differences across manufacturing plants in RPS and non-RPS states, we implement coarsened exact covariate matching. Our results suggest that electricity prices for plants in RPS states averaged about 2% higher than in non-RPS states, notably lower than prior estimates based on state-level data. In response to these higher electricity prices, we estimate that plant electricity usage declined by 1.2% for all plants and 1.8% for energy-intensive plants, broadly consistent with published estimates of the elasticity of electricity demand for industrial users. We find smaller declines in output, employment, and hours worked (relative to the decline in electricity use). Finally, several key RPS policy design features that vary substantially from state-to-state produce heterogeneous effects on plant-level electricity prices.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperRising Markups or Changing Technology?
September 2022
Working Paper Number:
CES-22-38R
Recent evidence suggests the U.S. business environment is changing, with rising market concentration and markups. The most prominent and extensive evidence backs out firm-level markups from the first-order conditions for variable factors. The markup is identified as the ratio of the variable factor's output elasticity to its cost share of revenue. Our analysis starts from this indirect approach, but we exploit a long panel of manufacturing establishments to permit output elasticities to vary to a much greater extent - relative to the existing literature - across establishments within the same industry over time. With our more detailed estimates of output elasticities, the measured increase in markups is substantially dampened, if not eliminated, for U.S. manufacturing. As supporting evidence, we relate differences in the markups' patterns to observable changes in technology (e.g., computer investment per worker, capital intensity, diversification to non-manufacturing) and find patterns in support of changing technology as the driver of those differences.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperCapital Investment and Labor Demand
February 2022
Working Paper Number:
CES-22-04
We study how bonus depreciation, a policy designed to lower the cost of capital, impacted investment and labor demand in the US manufacturing sector. Difference-in-differences estimates using restricted-use US Census Data on manufacturing establishments show that this policy increased both investment and employment, but did not lead to wage or productivity gains. Using a structural model, we show that the primary effect of the policy was to increase the use of all inputs by lowering overall costs of production. The policy further stimulated production employment due to the complementarity of production labor and capital. Supporting this conclusion, we nd that investment is greater in plants with lower labor costs. Our results show that recent policies that incentivize capital investment do not lead manufacturing plants to replace workers with machines.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperWho Values Human Capitalists' Human Capital? Healthcare Spending and Physician Earnings
July 2020
Working Paper Number:
CES-20-23
Is government guiding the invisible hand at the top of the labor market? We study this question among physicians, the most common occupation among the top one percent of income earners, and whose billings comprise one-fifth of healthcare spending. We use a novel linkage of population-wide tax records with the administrative registry of all physicians in the U.S. to study the characteristics of these high earnings, and the influence of government payments in particular. We find a major role for government on the margin, with half of direct changes to government reimbursement rates flowing directly into physicians' incomes. These policies move physicians' relative and absolute incomes more than any reasonable changes to marginal tax rates. At the same time, the overall level of physician earnings can largely be explained by labor market fundamentals of long work and training hours. Competing occupations also pay well and provide a natural lower bound for physician earnings. We conclude that government plays a major role in determining the value of physicians' human capital, but it is unrealistic to use this power to reduce healthcare spending substantially.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperHow Does State-Level Carbon Pricing in the United States Affect Industrial Competitiveness?
June 2020
Working Paper Number:
CES-20-21
Pricing carbon emissions from an individual jurisdiction may harm the competitiveness of local firms, causing the leakage of emissions and economic activity to other regions. Past research concentrates on national carbon prices, but the impacts of subnational carbon prices could be more severe due to the openness of regional economies. We specify a flexible model to capture competition between a plant in a state with electric sector carbon pricing and plants in other states or countries without such pricing. Treating energy prices as a proxy for carbon prices, we estimate model parameters using confidential plant-level Census data, 1982'2011. We simulate the effects on manufacturing output and employment of carbon prices covering the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. A carbon price of $10 per metric ton on electricity output reduces employment in the regulated region by 2.7 percent, and raises employment in nearby states by 0.8 percent, although these estimates do not account for revenue recycling in the RGGI region that could mitigate these employment changes. The effects on output are broadly similar. National employment falls just 0.1 percent, suggesting that domestic plants in other states as opposed to foreign facilities are the principal winners from state or regional carbon pricing.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperThe Energy Efficiency Gap and Energy Price Responsiveness in Food Processing
June 2020
Working Paper Number:
CES-20-18
This paper estimates stochastic frontier energy demand functions with non-public, plant-level data from the U.S. Census Bureau to measure the energy efficiency gap and energy price elasticities in the food processing industry. The estimates are for electricity and fuel use in 4 food processing sectors, based on the disaggregation of this industry used by the National Energy Modeling System Industrial Demand Module. The estimated demand functions control for plant inputs and output, energy prices, and other observables including 6-digit NAICS industry designations. Own price elasticities range from 0.6 to -0.9 with little evidence of fuel/electricity substitution. The magnitude of the efficiency estimates is sensitive to the assumptions but consistently reveal that few plants achieve 100% efficiency. Defining a 'practical level of energy efficiency' as the 95th percentile of the efficiency distributions and averaging across all the models result in a ~20% efficiency gap. However, most of the potential reductions in energy use from closing this efficiency gap are from plants that are 'low hanging fruit'; 13% of the 20% potential reduction in the efficiency gap can be obtained by bringing the lower half of the efficiency distribution up to just the median level of observed performance. New plants do exhibit higher energy efficiency than existing plants which is statistically significant, but the difference is small for most of the industry; ranging from a low of 0.4% to a high of 5.7%.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperHousing Booms and the U.S. Productivity Puzzle
January 2020
Working Paper Number:
CES-20-04
The United States has been experiencing a slowdown in productivity growth for more than a decade. I exploit geographic variation across U.S. Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) to investigate the link between the 2006-2012 decline in house prices (the housing bust) and the productivity slowdown. Instrumental variable estimates support a causal relationship between the housing bust and the productivity slowdown. The results imply that one standard deviation decline in house prices translates into an increment of the productivity gap -- i.e. how much an MSA would have to grow to catch up with the trend -- by 6.9p.p., where the average gap is 14.51%. Using a newly-constructed capital expenditures measure at the MSA level, I find that the long investment slump that came out of the Great Recession explains an important part of this effect. Next, I document that the housing bust led to the investment slump and, ultimately, the productivity slowdown, mostly through the collapse in consumption expenditures that followed the bust. Lastly, I construct a quantitative general equilibrium model that rationalizes these empirical findings, and find that the housing bust is behind roughly 50 percent of the productivity slowdown.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperAddressing Data Gaps: Four New Lines of Inquiry in the 2017 Economic Census
September 2019
Working Paper Number:
CES-19-28
We describe four new lines of inquiry added to the 2017 Economic Census regarding (i) retail health clinics, (ii) management practices in health care services, (iii) self-service in retail and service industries, and (iv) water use in manufacturing and mining industries. These were proposed by economists from the U.S. Census Bureau's Center for Economic Studies in order to fill data gaps in current Census Bureau products concerning the U.S. economy. The new content addresses such issues as the rise in importance of health care and its complexity, the adoption of automation technologies, and the importance of measuring water, a critical input to many manufacturing and mining industries.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperThe Antipoverty Impact of the EITC: New Estimates from Survey and Administrative Tax Records
April 2019
Working Paper Number:
CES-19-14R
We reassess the antipoverty effects of the EITC using unique data linking the CPS Annual Social and Economic Supplement to IRS data for the same individuals spanning years 2005-2016. We compare EITC benefits from standard simulators to administrative EITC payments and find that significantly more actual EITC payments flow to childless tax units than predicted, and to those whose family income places them above official poverty thresholds. However, actual EITC payments appear to be target efficient at the tax unit level. In 2016, about 3.1 million persons were lifted out of poverty by the EITC, substantially less than prior estimates.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperWhy are employer-sponsored health insurance premiums higher in the public sector than in the private sector?
February 2019
Working Paper Number:
CES-19-03
In this article, we examine the factors explaining differences in public and private sector health insurance premiums for enrollees with single coverage. We use data from the 2000 and 2014 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey-Insurance Component, along with decomposition methods, to explore the relative explanatory importance of plan features and benefit generosity, such as deductibles and other forms of cost sharing, basic employee characteristics (e.g., age, gender, and education), and unionization. While there was little difference in public and private sector premiums in 2000, by 2014, public premiums had exceeded private premiums by 14 to 19 percent. We find that differences in plan characteristics played a substantial role in explaining premium differences in 2014, but they were not the only, or even the most important, factor. Differences in worker age, gender, marital status, and educational attainment were also important factors, as was workforce unionization.View Full Paper PDF
