Papers Containing Tag(s): 'National Bureau of Economic Research'
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 221 through 230 of 231
-
Working PaperThe Diffusion of Modern Manufacturing Practices: Evidence from Retail-Apparel Sectors
February 1997
Working Paper Number:
CES-97-11
As in many industries, firms in the apparel industry exhibit substantial heterogeneity in the adoption of "modern manufacturing" practices. Based on detailed business-unit level data, we show that this heterogeneity can be explained firm inputs. We show that the interaction between these explanatory factors means that complementarities between inputs may emerge over time rather than all at once as is often assumed in other studies of complementarities.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperEfficiency of Bankrupt Firms and Industry Conditions: Theory and Evidence
October 1996
Working Paper Number:
CES-96-12
We show that the incentives to reorganize inefficient firms and redeploy their assets depend on the change in industry output and industry characteristics. We use plant-level data to investigate the productivity of Chapter 11 bankrupt firms and asset-sale and closure decisions. We find no evidence of bankruptcy costs in industries with declining output growth, where most bankruptcies occur. In declining industries, bankrupt firms' plants are not less productive than industry averages and do not decline in productivity while in Chapter 11. In these industries, Chapter 11 appears to be a mechanism for fostering exit of capacity. In high-growth industries, there is some limited evidence of productivity declines while in Chapter 11 for a subsample of firms that remain in Chapter 11 for four or more years. Examining asset sales and closures by bankrupt firms and their competitors, we find that Chapter 11 status is of limited importance in predicting these decisions once industry and plant characteristics are taken into account. More generally, the findings imply that Chapter 11 may involve few real economic costs, and that industry effects and sample selection issues are very important in evaluating the performance of bankrupt firms.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperMeasuring the Impact of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
September 1996
Working Paper Number:
CES-96-08
In this paper, I measure the impact of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) on productivity and sales growth at manufacturing plants. To do this, I match MEP client data to the Census Bureau's Longitudinal Research Database (LRD). The LRD contains data for all manufacturing establishments in the U.S. and provides a number of measures of plant performance and characteristics that are measured consistently across plants and time. This facilitates valid comparisons between both client and non-client plants and among clients served by different MEP centers. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) administers the MEP as part of their effort to improve the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing. The program provides business and technical assistance to small and medium sized manufacturers much as agricultural extension does for farmers. The goal of the paper is to see if measures of plant performance (e.g., productivity and sales growth) are systematically related to participation in the MEP, while controlling for other factors that are known or thought to influence performance. Selection bias is often a problem in evaluation studies so I specify an econometric model that controls for selection. I estimate the model with data from 8 manufacturing extension centers in 2 states. The control group includes all plants from each state in the LRD. Preliminary results indicate that MEP participation is systematically related to productivity growth but not to sales growth.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperThe Effect Of Technology Use On Productivity Growth
April 1996
Working Paper Number:
CES-96-02
This paper examines the relationship between the use of advanced technologies and productivity and productivity growth rates. We use data from the 1993 and 1988 Survey of Manufacturing Technology (SMT) to examine the use of advanced (computer based) technologies at two different points in time. We are also able to combine the survey data with the Longitudinal Research Database (LRD) to examine the relationships between plant performance, plant characteristics, and the use of advanced technologies. In addition, a subset of these plants were surveyed in both years, enabling us to directly associate changes in technology use with changes in plant productivity performance. The main findings of the study are as follows. First, diffusion is not the same across the surveyed technologies. Second, the adoption process is not smooth: plants added and dropped technologies over the six-year interval 1988-93. In fact, the average plant showed a gross change of roughly four technologies in achieving an average net increase of less than one new technology. In this regard, technology appears to be an experience good: plants experiment with particular technologies before deciding to add additional units or drop the technology entirely. We find that establishments that use advanced technologies exhibit higher productivity. This relationship is observed in both 1988 and 1993 even after accounting for other important factors associated with productivity: size, age, capital intensity, labor skill mix, and other controls for plant characteristics such as industry and region. In addition, the relationship between productivity and advanced technology use is observed both in the extent of technologies used and the intensity of their use. Finally, while there is some evidence that the use of advanced technologies is positively related to improved productivity performance, the data suggest that the dominant explanation for the observed cross-section relationship is that good performers are more likely to use advanced technologies than poorly performing operations.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperExploring The Role Of Acquisition In The Performance Of Firms: Is The "Firm" The Right Unit Of Analysis?
November 1995
Working Paper Number:
CES-95-13
In this article, we examine the effect of acquisitions on productivity performance of acquiring firms using the conventional regression analysis and a method of productivity decomposition. Our empirical work uses both plant- and firm-level data taken from the Longitudinal Research Database (LRD) on the entire population of U.S. food manufacturing firms that operated continuously during 1977-87. We find that (1) acquisitions had a significant, positive effect on acquiring firms' productivity growth, but this effect becomes insignificant when only firm-level data on multi-unit firms are included in the regressions; and (2) the decomposition results show that while the productivity contribution of the external component (acquired plants) is positive, the contribution of the internal component (existing plants) is negative; the two components offset each other leaving productivity of multi-unit acquiring firms virtually unchanged after acquisitions. These results suggest that assessing the impact of acquisitions on the structure and performance of firms requires a careful look at the individual components (i.e., plants) of the firms, particularly for large multi-unit firms.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperPollution Abatement Costs, Regulation And Plant-Level Productivity
December 1994
Working Paper Number:
CES-94-14
We analyze the connection between productivity, pollution abatement expenditures, and other measures of environmental regulation for plants in three industries (paper, oil, and steel). We examine data from 1979 to 1990, considering both total factor productivity levels and growth rates. Plants with higher abatement cost levels have significantly lower productivity levels. The magnitude of the impact is somewhat larger than expected: $1 greater abatement costs appears to be associated with the equivalent of $1.74 in lower productivity for paper mills, $1.35 for oil refineries, and $3.28 for steel mills. However, these results apply only to variation across plants in productivity levels. Estimates looking at productivity variation within plants over time, or estimates using productivity growth rates show a smaller (and insignificant) relationship between abatement costs and productivity. Other measures of environmental regulation faced by the plants (compliance status, enforcement activity, and emissions) are not significantly related to productivity.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperThe Span of the Effect of R&D in the Firm and Industry
May 1994
Working Paper Number:
CES-94-07
Previous studies have found that the firm's own research and spillovers of research by related firms increase firm productivity. In contrast, in this paper we explore the impact of firm R&D on the productivity of its individual plants. We carry out this investigation of within firm R&D effects using a unique set of Census data. The data, which are from the chemicals industry, are a match of plant level productivity and other characteristics with firm level data on R&D of the parent company, cross-classified by location and applied product field. We explore three aspects of the span of effect of the firm's R&D: (i), the degree to which its R&D is "public" across plants; (ii), the extent of its localization in geographic space, and (iii), the breadth of its relevance outside the applied product area in which it is classified. We find that (i), firm R&D acts more like a private input which is strongly amortized by the number of plants in the firm; (ii), firm R&D is geographically localized, and exerts greater influence on productivity when it is conducted nearer to the plant; and (iii), firm R&D in a given applied product area is of limited relevance to plants producing outside that product area. Moreover, we find that while geographic localization remains significant, it diminishes over time. This trend is consistent with the effect of improved telecommunications on increased information flows within organizations. Finally, we consider spillovers of R&D from the rest of industry, finding that the marginal product of industry R&D on plant productivity, though positive and significant, is far smaller than the marginal product of parent firm's R&D.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperThe Determinants of U.S. Intra-Industry Trade
December 1990
Working Paper Number:
CES-90-13
Responses from the Yale University survey of 650 research and development executives were linked to U.S. trade statistics at the four-digit SIC level for the years 1965-85 to test several hypotheses concerning intra-industry trade. A new index of intra-industry trade was developed to capture both the level and balance dimensions of import and export flows. Intra-industry trade is found to be more extensive, the higher industry R&D/sales ratios were, the more important economies of learning-by-doing were, and greater the relevance of academic engineering research was, and the more niche-filling strategies were emphasized in new product development. When firms oriented their R&D efforts toward meeting the specialized demands of individual customers, intra-industry trade was lower. The highest levels of intra-industry trade were found in loosely oligopolistic industries.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
-
Working PaperThe Effects Of Leveraged Buyouts On Productivity And Related Aspects Of Firm Behavior
July 1989
Working Paper Number:
CES-89-05
We investigate the economic effects of leveraged buyouts (LBOs) using large longitudinal establishment and firm-level Census Bureau data sets linked to a list of LBOs compiled from public data sources. About 5 percent, or 1100, of the manufacturing plants in the sample were involved in LBOs during 1981-1986. We find that plants involved in LBOs had significantly higher rates of total-factor productivity (TFP) growth than other plants in the same industry. The productivity impact of LBOs is much larger than our previous estimates of the productivity impact of ownership changes in general. Management buyouts appear to have a particularly strong positive effect on TFP. Labor and capital employed tend to decline (relative to the industry average) after the buyout, but at a slower rate than they did before the buyout. The ratio of nonproduction to production labor cost declines sharply, and production worker wage rates increase, following LBOs. LBOs are production-labor-using, nonproduction-labor-saving, organizational innovations. Plants involved in management buyouts (but not in other LBOs) are less likely to subsequently close than other plants. The average R&D- intensity of firms involved in LBOs increased at least as much from 1978 to 1986 as did the average R&D-intensity of all firms responding to the NSF/Census survey of industrial R&D.View Full Paper PDF
