-
Housing 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
-
Who Gains from Creative Destruction? Evidence from High-Quality Entrepreneurship in the United States
October 2019
Working Paper Number:
CES-19-29
The question of who gains from high-quality entrepreneurship is crucial to understanding whether investments in incubating potentially innovative start-up firms will produce socially beneficial outcomes. We attempt to bring new evidence to this question by combining new aggregate measures of local area income inequality and income mobility with measures of entrepreneurship from Guzman and Stern (2017). Our new aggregate measures are generated by linking American Community Survey data with the universe of IRS 1040 tax returns. In both fixed effects and IV models using a Bartik-style instrument, we find that entrepreneurship increases income inequality. Further, we find that this increase in income inequality arises due to the fact that almost all of the individual gains associated with increased entrepreneurship accrue to the top 10 percent of the income distribution. While we find mixed evidence for small positive effects of entrepreneurship lower on the income distribution, we find little if any evidence that entrepreneurship increases income mobility.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
The Reallocation Myth
April 2018
Working Paper Number:
CES-18-19
There is a widely held view that much of growth in the U.S. can be attributed to reallocation from low to high productivity firms, including from exiting firms to entrants. Declining dynamism ' falling rates of reallocation and entry/exit in the U.S. ' have therefore been tied to the lackluster growth since 2005. We challenge this view. Gaps in the return to resources do not appear to have narrowed, suggesting that allocative efficiency has not improved in the U.S. in recent decades. Reallocation can also matter if it is a byproduct of innovation. However, we present evidence that most
innovation comes from existing firms improving their own products rather than from entrants or fast-growing firms displacing incumbent firms. Length: 26 pages
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Small and Large Firms Over the Business Cycle
February 2018
Working Paper Number:
CES-18-09
Drawing on a new, con dential Census Bureau dataset of financial statements of a representative sample of 80000 manufacturing firms from 1977 to 2014, we provide new evidence on the link between size, cyclicality, and financial frictions. First, we only find evidence of lower cyclicality among the very largest firms (the top 1% by size). Second, due to high and rising concentration of sales and investment, the lower sensitivity of the top 1% firms dominates the behavior of aggregate fluctuations. Third, we show that this differential sensitivity does not appear to be driven by financial frictions. The higher sensitivity of the bottom 99% does not disappear after controlling for measures of financial strength, is not statistically significant after
identified monetary policy shocks, and does not appear in debt financing flows. Evidence from 3-digit industries suggests a non-financial explanation: the largest 1% of firms are less sensitive due to a more diversified customer base.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Innovation, Productivity Dispersion, and Productivity Growth
February 2018
Working Paper Number:
CES-18-08
We examine whether underlying industry innovation dynamics are an important driver of the large dispersion in productivity across firms within narrowly defined sectors. Our hypothesis is that periods of rapid innovation are accompanied by high rates of entry, significant experimentation and, in turn, a high degree of productivity dispersion. Following this experimentation phase, successful innovators and adopters grow while unsuccessful innovators contract and exit yielding productivity growth. We examine the dynamic relationship between entry, productivity dispersion, and productivity growth using a new comprehensive firm-level dataset for the U.S. We find a surge of entry within an industry yields an immediate increase in productivity dispersion and a lagged increase in productivity growth. These patterns are more pronounced for the High Tech sector where we expect there to be more innovative activities. These patterns change over time suggesting other forces are at work during the post-2000 slowdown in aggregate productivity.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Estimating the Local Productivity Spillovers from Science
January 2017
Working Paper Number:
CES-17-56
We estimate the local productivity spillovers from science by relating wages and real estate
prices across metros to measures of scienti c activity in those metros. We address three fundamental challenges: (1) factor input adjustments using wages and real estate prices, along with Shepards Lemma, to estimate changes metros' productivity, which must equal changes in unit production cost; (2) unobserved differences in metros/causality using a share shift index that exploits historic variation in the mix of research in metros interacted with trends in federal funding for specific fields as an instrument; (3) unobserved differences in workers using data on the states in which people are born. Our estimates show a strong positive relationship between wages and scientifc research and a weak positive relationship for real estate prices. Overall, we estimate high rate of return to research.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Macro and Micro Dynamics of Productivity: From Devilish Details to Insights
January 2017
Working Paper Number:
CES-17-41R
Researchers use a variety of methods to estimate total factor productivity (TFP) at the firm level and, while these may seem broadly equivalent, how the resulting measures relate to the TFP concept in theoretical models depends on the assumptions about the environment in which firms operate. Interpreting these measures and drawing insights based upon their characteristics thus must take into account these conceptual differences. Absent data on prices and quantities, most methods yield 'revenue productivity' measures. We focus on two broad classes of revenue productivity measures in our examination of the relationship between measured and conceptual TFP (TFPQ). The first measure has been increasingly used as a measure of idiosyncratic distortions and to assess the degree of misallocation. The second measure is, under standard assumptions, a function of funda-
mentals (e.g., TFPQ). Using plant-level U.S. manufacturing data, we find these alternative
measures are (i) highly correlated; (ii) exhibit similar dispersion; and (iii) have similar relationships with growth and survival. These findings raise questions about interpreting the first measure as a measure of idiosyncratic distortions. We also explore the sensitivity of estimates of the contribution of reallocation to aggregate productivity growth to these alternative approaches. We use recently developed structural decompositions of aggregate productivity growth that depend critically on estimates of output versus revenue elasticities. We find alternative approaches all yield a significant contribution of reallocation to
productivity growth (although the quantitative contribution varies across approaches).
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Do Firms Mitigate or Magnify Capital Misallocation? Evidence from Plant-Level Data
January 2017
Working Paper Number:
CES-17-14
Almost two thirds of the cross-plant dispersion in marginal revenue products of capital occurs
across plants within the same firm rather than between firms. Even though firms allocate investment very differently across their plants, they do not equalize marginal revenue products across their plants. We reconcile these findings in a model of multi-plant firms, physical adjustment costs and credit constraints. Credit constrained multi-plant firms can utilize internal capital markets by concentrating internal funds on investment projects in only a few of their plants in a given period and rotating funds to another set of plants in the future. The resulting increase in within-firm dispersion of marginal revenue products of capital is hence not a symptom of misallocation within the firm, but rather actions taken by the firm to mitigate external credit constraints and adjustment costs of capital. Economies with multi-plant firms produce more aggregate output despite higher dispersion in marginal revenue products of capital compared to economies with single-plant firms. Because emerging economies are predominantly populated by single-plant firms, the gains from reducing their distortions to the level of developed are
larger than previously thought.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
R&D, Attrition and Multiple Imputation in BRDIS
January 2017
Working Paper Number:
CES-17-13
Multiple imputation in business establishment surveys like BRDIS, an annual business survey in which some companies are sampled every year or multiple years, may enhance the estimates of total R&D in addition to helping researchers estimate models with subpopulations of small sample size. Considering a panel of BRDIS companies throughout the years 2008 to 2013 linked to LBD data, this paper uses the conclusions obtained with missing data visualization and other explorations to come up with a strategy to conduct multiple imputation appropriate to address the item nonresponse in R&D expenditures. Because survey design characteristics are behind much of the item and unit nonresponse, multiple imputation of missing data in BRDIS changes the estimates of total R&D significantly and alters the conclusions reached by models of the determinants of R&D investment obtained with complete case analysis.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Industrial Investments in Energy Efficiency: A Good Idea?
January 2017
Working Paper Number:
CES-17-05
Yes, from an energy-saving perspective. No, once we factor in the negative output and productivity adoption effects. These are the main conclusions we reach by conducting the first large-scale study on cogeneration technology adoption ' a prominent form of energy-saving investments ' in the U.S. manufacturing sector, using a sample that runs from 1982 to 2010 and drawing on multiple data sources from the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Energy Information Administration. We first show through a series of event studies that no differential trends exist in energy consumption nor production activities between adopters and never-adopters prior to the adoption event. We then compute a distribution of realized returns to energy savings, using accounting methods and regression methods, based on our difference-in-difference estimator. We find that (1) significant heterogeneity exists in returns; (2) unlike previous studies in the residential sector, the realized and projected returns to energy savings are roughly consistent in the industrial sector, for both private and social returns; (3) however, cogeneration adoption decreases manufacturing output and productivity persistently for at least the next 7-10 years, relative to the control group. Our IV strategies also show sizable decline in TFP post adoption.
View Full
Paper PDF
