Papers Containing Tag(s): 'County Business Patterns'
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 91 through 94 of 94
-
Working PaperMergers and Acquisitions in the United States: 1990-1994
September 1998
Working Paper Number:
CES-98-15
Business merger and acquisition activity has been brisk in the United States in the recent past. Yet very little information has been available to help researchers understand the effects of this activity on jobs, businesses, and the American economy. This paper takes a first look at examining merger and acquisition activity using the newly available Longitudinal Establishment and Enterprise Microdata (LEEM) file. The analysis focuses on industries, establishments, and employment by employment size of firm. A first-time comparison of establishments that were acquired and survived over the 1990-1994 period with those that survived but were not acquired finds that the acquired establishments experienced more job change and, in the end, more net job loss than the nonacquired establishments. Establishments in small firms that were acquired by new or large firms experienced especially rapid job growth; however; job losses in establishments acquired from large firms more than offset these job gains.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperLongitudinal Establishment And Enterprise Microdata (LEEM) Documentation
May 1998
Working Paper Number:
CES-98-09
This paper introduces and documents the new Longitudinal Enterprise and Establishment Microdata (LEEM) database, which has been constructed by Census' Economic Planning and Coordination Division under contract to the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration. The LEEM links three years (1990, 1994, and 1995) of basic data for each private sector establishment with payroll in any of those years, along with data on the firm to which the establishment belongs each year. The LEEM data will facilitate both broader and more detailed analysis of patterns of job creation and destruction in the U.S., as well as research on the structure and dynamics of U.S. businesses. This paper provides documentation of the construction of LEEM data, summary data on most variables in the database, comparisons of the annual data with that of the nearly identical County Business Patterns, and distributions of establishments and their employment by the size of their firms. This is followed by a simple analysis of changes over time in the attributes of surviving establishments, and a brief discussion of turnover (business births and deaths) in the population and gross changes in employment associated with both establishment turnover and with surviving establishments. It concludes with a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the LEEM.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 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
