Papers Containing Tag(s): 'Annual Survey of Manufactures'
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 1 through 10 of 238
-
Working PaperThe Rising Returns to R&D: Ideas Are Not Getting Harder to Find
May 2025
Working Paper Number:
CES-25-29
R&D investment has grown robustly, yet aggregate productivity growth has stagnated. Is this because 'ideas are getting harder to find'? This paper uses micro-data from the US Census Bureau to explore the relationship between R&D and productivity in the manufacturing sector from 1976 to 2018. We find that both the elasticity of output (TFP) with respect to R&D and the marginal returns to R&D have risen sharply. Exploring factors affecting returns, we conclude that R&D obsolescence rates must have risen. Using a novel estimation approach, we find consistent evidence of sharply rising technological rivalry. These findings suggest that R&D has become more effective at finding productivity-enhancing ideas but these ideas may also render rivals' technologies obsolete, making innovations more transient.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperThe Rise of Industrial AI in America: Microfoundations of the Productivity J-curve(s)
April 2025
Working Paper Number:
CES-25-27
We examine the prevalence and productivity dynamics of artificial intelligence (AI) in American manufacturing. Working with the Census Bureau to collect detailed large-scale data for 2017 and 2021, we focus on AI-related technologies with industrial applications. We find causal evidence of J-curve-shaped returns, where short-term performance losses precede longer-term gains. Consistent with costly adjustment taking place within core production processes, industrial AI use increases work-in-progress inventory, investment in industrial robots, and labor shedding, while harming productivity and profitability in the short run. These losses are unevenly distributed, concentrating among older businesses while being mitigated by growth-oriented business strategies and within-firm spillovers. Dynamics, however, matter: earlier (pre-2017) adopters exhibit stronger growth over time, conditional on survival. Notably, among older establishments, abandonment of structured production-management practices accounts for roughly one-third of these losses, revealing a specific channel through which intangible factors shape AI's impact. Taken together, these results provide novel evidence on the microfoundations of technology J-curves, identifying mechanisms and illuminating how and why they differ across firm types. These findings extend our understanding of modern General Purpose Technologies, explaining why their economic impact'exemplified here by AI'may initially disappoint, particularly in contexts dominated by older, established firms.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperThe Intangible Divide: Why Do So Few Firms Invest in Innovation?
February 2025
Working Paper Number:
CES-25-15
Investments in software, R&D, and advertising have surged, nearing half of U.S. private nonresidential investment. Yet just a few hundred firms dominate this growth. Most firms, including large ones, regularly invest little in capitalized software and R&D, widening this 'intangible divide' despite falling intangible prices. Using comprehensive US Census microdata, we document these patterns and explore factors associated with intangible investment. We find that firms invest significantly less in innovation-related intangibles when their rivals invest more. One firm's investment can obsolesce rivals' investments, reducing returns. This negative pecuniary externality worsens the intangible divide, potentially leading to significant misallocation.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperThe Effect of Oil News Shocks on Job Creation and Destruction
January 2025
Working Paper Number:
CES-25-06
Using data from the Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM) and the Census of Manufacturing (CMF), we construct quarterly measures of job creation and destruction by 3-digit NAICS industries spanning from 1980Q3-2016Q4. These long series allow us to address three questions regarding the effect of oil news shocks. What is the average effect of oil news shocks on sectoral labor reallocation? What characteristics explain the observed heterogeneity in the average responses across industries? Has the response of US manufacturing changed over time? We find evidence that oil news shocks exert only a moderate effect on total manufacturing net employment growth but lead to a significant increase in job reallocation. However, we find a high degree of heterogeneity in responses across industries. We then show that the cross-industry variation in the sensitivity of net employment growth and excess job reallocation to oil news shocks is related to differences in energy costs, the rate of energy to capital expenditures, and the share of mature firms in the industry. Finally, we illustrate how the dynamic response of sectoral job creation and destruction to oil news shocks has declined since the mid-2000s.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperMultinational Production and Innovation in Tandem
October 2024
Working Paper Number:
CES-24-64
Multinational firms colocate production and innovation by offshoring them to the same host country or region. In this paper, I examine the determinants of multinational firms' production and innovation locations. Exploiting plausibly exogenous variations in tariffs, I find complementarities between production and innovation within host countries and regions. To evaluate manufacturing reshoring policies, I develop a quantitative multicountry offshoring location choice model. I allow for rich colocation benefits and cross-country interdependencies and prove supermodularity of the model to solve this otherwise NP-hard problem. I find the effects of manufacturing reshoring policies are nonlinear, contingent upon firm heterogeneity, and they accumulate dynamically.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperGood Dispersion, Bad Dispersion
March 2024
Working Paper Number:
CES-24-13
We document that most dispersion in marginal revenue products of inputs occurs across plants within firms rather than between firms. This is commonly thought to reflect misallocation: dispersion is 'bad.' However, we show that eliminating frictions hampering internal capital markets in a multi-plant firm model may in fact increase productivity dispersion and raise output: dispersion can be 'good.' This arises as firms optimally stagger investment activity across their plants over time to avoid raising costly external finance, instead relying on reallocating internal funds. The staggering in turn generates dispersion in marginal revenue products. We use U.S. Census data on multi-plant manufacturing firms to provide empirical evidence for the model mechanism and show a quantitatively important role for good dispersion. Since there is less scope for good dispersion in emerging economies, the difference in the degree of misallocation between emerging and developed economies looks more pronounced than previously thought.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperCollaborative Micro-productivity Project: Establishment-Level Productivity Dataset, 1972-2020
December 2023
Working Paper Number:
CES-23-65
We describe the process for building the Collaborative Micro-productivity Project (CMP) microdata and calculating establishment-level productivity numbers. The documentation is for version 7 and the data cover the years 1972-2020. These data have been used in numerous research papers and are used to create the experimental public-use data product Dispersion Statistics on Productivity (DiSP).View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperOutsourcing Dynamism
December 2023
Working Paper Number:
CES-23-64
This paper investigates the increasing importance of domestic outsourcing in U.S. manufacturing. Under domestic outsourcing, the agency is the employer of record for temporary workers, though they perform their tasks at the client business' premises. On a yearly basis, one in two manufacturing plants hires at least some of its workers through a temporary help agency. Furthermore, domestic outsourcing is becoming increasingly more important: the average share of revenue spent on such arrangements has gone up by 85 percent since 2006. We develop a methodology to transform reported expenses on temporary and leased workers into plant-level outsourced employment counts, using administrative data on the U.S. manufacturing sector. We find that domestic outsourcing is an important margin of adjustment that plants use to modify their workforce in response to productivity shocks. Plant-level outsourced employment adjusts more quickly and is twice as responsive as payroll employment. These micro implications have significant aggregate consequences. Without taking reallocations in outsourced employment into account, the measured pace at which jobs reallocate across workplaces is underestimated. On average, we omit the equivalent of 15 percent of payroll employment reallocations in each year. However, outsourced employment churns at a much higher rate compared to its payroll counterpart. Therefore, the omission of outsourced reallocations can rationalize 37 percent of the secular decline in the aggregate job reallocation rate. Lastly, the extent of mismeasurement varies with the business cycle; falling in downturns and increasing in upturns implying that the speed of economic recovery is underestimated.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperTemperature and Local Industry Concentration
October 2023
Working Paper Number:
CES-23-51
We use plant-level data from the US Census of Manufacturers to study the short and long run effects of temperature on manufacturing activity. We document that temperature shocks significantly increase energy costs and lower the productivity of small manufacturing plants, while large plants are mostly unaffected. In US counties that experienced higher increases in average temperatures between the 1980s and the 2010s, these heterogeneous effects have led to higher concentration of manufacturing activity within large plants, and a reallocation of labor from small to large manufacturing establishments. We offer a preliminary discussion of potential mechanisms explaining why large manufacturing firms might be better equipped for long-run adaptation to climate change, including their ability to hedge across locations, easier access to finance, and higher managerial skills.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperUnionization, Employer Opposition, and Establishment Closure
July 2023
Working Paper Number:
CES-23-35
We study the effect of private-sector unionization on establishment employment and survival. Specifically, we analyze National Labor Relations Board union elections from 1981'2005 using administrative Census data. Our empirical strategy extends standard difference-in-differences techniques with regression discontinuity extrapolation methods. This allows us to avoid biases from only comparing close elections and to estimate treatment effects that include larger marginof- victory elections. Using this strategy, we show that unionization decreases an establishment's employment and likelihood of survival, particularly in manufacturing and other blue-collar and industrial sectors. We hypothesize that two reasons for these effects are firms' ability to avoid working with new unions and employers' opposition to unions. We find that the negative effects are significantly larger for elections at multi-establishment firms. Additionally, after a successful union election at one establishment, employment increases at the firms' other establishments. Both pieces of evidence are consistent with firms avoiding new unions by shifting production from unionized establishments to other establishments. Finally, we find larger declines in employment and survival following elections where managers or owners were likely more opposed to the union. This evidence supports new reasons for the negative effects of unionization we document.View Full Paper PDF
