Papers Containing Keywords(s): 'establishment'
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 81 through 86 of 86
-
Working PaperGender Segregation Small Firms
October 1992
Working Paper Number:
CES-92-13
This paper studies interfirm gender segregation in a unique sample of small employers. We focus on small firms because previous research on interfirm segregation has studied only large firms and because it is easier to link the demographic characteristics of employers and employees in small firms. This latter feature permits an assessment of the role of employer discrimination in creating gender segregation. Our first finding is that interfirm segregation is prevalent among small employers. Indeed men and women rarely work in fully integrated firms. Our second finding is that the education and gender of the business owner strongly influence the gender composition of a firm's workforce. This suggests that employer discrimination may be an important cause of workplace gender segregation. Finally, we estimate that interfirm segregation can account for up to 50% of the gender gap in annual earnings.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperPublished Versus Sample Statistics From The ASM: Implications For The LRD
January 1991
Working Paper Number:
CES-91-01
In principle, the Longitudinal Research Database ( LRD ) which links the establishments in the Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM) is ideal for examining the dynamics of firm and aggregate behavior. However, the published ASM aggregates are not simply the appropriately weighted sums of establishment data in the LRD . Instead, the published data equal the sum of LRD-based sample estimates and nonsample estimates. The latter reflect adjustments related to sampling error and the imputation of small-establishment data. Differences between the LRD and the ASM raise questions for users of both data sets. For ASM users, time-series variation in the difference indicates potential problems in consistently and reliably estimating the nonsample portion of the ASM. For LRD users, potential sample selection problems arise due to the systematic exclusion of data from small establishments. Microeconomic studies based on the LRD can yield misleading inferences to the extent that small establishments behave differently. Similarly, new economic aggregates constructed from the LRD can yield incorrect estimates of levels and growth rates. This paper documents cross-sectional and time-series differences between ASM and LRD estimates of levels and growth rates of total employment, and compares them with employment estimates provided by Bureau of Labor Statistics and County Business Patterns data. In addition, this paper explores potential adjustments to economic aggregates constructed from the LRD. In particular, the paper reports the results of adjusting LRD-based estimates of gross job creation and destruction to be consistent with net job changes implied by the published ASM figures.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperReturns to Scale in Small and Large U.S. Manufacturing Establishments
September 1990
Working Paper Number:
CES-90-11
The objective of this study is to assess the possibility of differences in the production technologies between large and small establishments in five selected 4-digit SIC manufacturing industries. We particularly focus on estimating returns to scale and then make interferences regarding the efficiency of small businesses relative to large businesses. Using cross-section data for two census years, 1977 and 1982, we estimate a transcendental logarithmic (translog) production model that provides direct estimates of economies of scale parameters for both small and large establishments. Our primary findings are: (i) there are significant differences in the production technologies between small and large establishments; and (ii) based on the scale parameter estimates, small establishments appear to be as efficient as large establishments under normal economic conditions, suggesting that large size is not a necessary condition for efficient production. However, small establishments seem to be unable to maintain constant returns to scale production during economic recession such as that in 1982.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperSelf-Employment Trends Among Mexican Americans
August 1990
Working Paper Number:
CES-90-09
Minority businesses are commonly aggregated into groups of 1) black, 2) Hispanic, and 3) Asian-owned firms. These analytical groupings may, in fact, be useful if blacks, Hispanics and Asians exhibit intra-group similarities and intergroup differences in terms of business development patterns. The applicable similarities and differences do appear to typify the Asian and black groups of self-employed, but they do not typify Hispanic-owned small businesses. In other words, "Hispanic" does not appear to be a useful category for analysis. The Hispanic subset, Mexican American-owned firms, is judged to be suitable for analysis. Most minority-owned firms have traditionally been started with minimal financial capital inputs by owners who have not attended college. The resultant small scale firms have frequently oriented their operations toward serving a low income minority clientele. In this study, I investigate two closely interrelated broad hypotheses on minority business dynamics, utilizing a sample of Mexican American business establishments drawn from the Characteristics of Business Owners data base: Traditional firms - these firms tend to a) be small scale, b) have high failure rates, c) and generate few jobs because of their minimal owner inputs of financial and human capital. Emerging firms, in contrast, are most commonly started by better educated owners--many of whom have attended four or more years of college--and financial capital inputs are high relative to those observed in traditional lines of business. It is because of these larger financial and human capital inputs that emerging firms tend to be a) larger scale, b) have lower failure rates, and c) generate more jobs, relative to their traditional cohorts. Sociologists have used the term "protected market" to describe the culturally-based tastes of ethnic minorities that can only be served by co-ethnic businesses. Particularly in the early years of settlement, immigrants are assumed to patronize co-ethnic enterprises, and this pattern of patronage seems to typify Hispanic enclaves in areas such as Southern California. Whether or not the resultant protected market is an asset to Mexican American firms-- particularly those in traditional fields such as small-scale retailing--is investigated econometrically. The evidence indicates that the protected market provided by immigrants patronizing co-ethnic enterprises is an absolute hindrance to Mexican American business viability. The very low incomes of most recent immigrants constrain the attractiveness of this protected market. The state of the barrio business community reflects the economic circumstances of its clientele.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperThe Extent and Nature of Establishment Level Diversification in Sixteen U.S. Manufacturing Industries
August 1990
Working Paper Number:
CES-90-08
This paper examines the heterogeneity of establishments in sixteen manufacturing industries. Basic statistical measures are used to decompose product diversification at the establishment level into industry, firm, and establishment effects. The industry effect is the weakest; nearly all the observed heterogeneity is establishment specific. Product diversification at the establishment level is idiosyncratic to the firm. Establishments within a firm exhibit a significant degree of homogeneity, although the grouping of products differ across firms. With few exceptions, economies of scope and scale in production appear to play a minor role in the establishment's mix of outputs.View Full Paper PDF
-
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
