nach oben

Empirical Economics

Erschienen in:

01.06.2014

Intrasectoral structural change and aggregate productivity development: robust stochastic nonparametric frontier function estimates

verfasst von: Jens J. Krüger

Erschienen in: Empirical Economics | Ausgabe 4/2014

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This paper investigates the sources of total factor productivity growth in the German manufacturing sector during 1981–1998. Decompositions of aggregate productivity growth are used to identify the effects of structural change and entry–exit on aggregate productivity growth. We find a substantial rise in productivity growth after the German reunification. The bulk of this rise can be attributed to structural change and entry–exit. Two methodological refinements are implemented. The first refinement is the application of robust stochastic nonparametric approaches to frontier function analysis, and the second is the calculation of bootstrap confidence intervals for the components of the productivity decompositions.

Vorheriger Artikel Testing for complementarities among countable strategies

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Input orientation is favored here over output orientation because our DMUs are firms which are more likely to be able to decide about their input usage while being more constrained on the output side.

The influence function of an estimator, introduced by Hampel (1974), shows the effect of a small (tending to zero) fraction of outlying observations. If the influence function is unbounded, a small fraction of outlying observations is sufficient to let the estimator diverge. Estimators with an unbounded influence function are thus not robust. In contrast, estimators with a bounded influence function are considered to be robust.

These firms are the DMUs referred to in the methodological description.

Thus, entry as appearance in the data set may be de novo entry or may be due to firms growing to a size so that they become recognized by Hoppenstedt and the annual accounts will be recorded in the data set. Exit as disappearance from the data set may be real exit, or it may be the exit due to mergers or acquisitions by other firms. This should also be kept in mind when interpreting the entry and exit components of the productivity decomposition below. So, the effects of entry and exit on aggregate productivity growth are actually caused by a mixture of de novo entry, entry into the data set, real exit and exit due to mergers or acquisitions, respectively.

For a firm-level analysis with large multiproduct firms in the sample, there is no choice anyway. Physical output measures are only an alternative for physically homogeneous outputs at the plant level if such data are available as in the cases selected by Foster et al. (2008).

Since our sample mostly consists of large quoted firms, the meaning of aggregate productivity may be problematic. Large firms, however, naturally have large shares and are thus dominating the share-weighted aggregate productivity measure. Therefore, we stick to the standard terminology speaking of aggregate productivity also in this case. In addition, it is reassuring that the main findings are similar to those found in studies for other countries working on the level of individual establishments.

It is worth stressing at this point that the differences found in the subperiods before and after the German reunification cannot entirely be attributed to that event but are also influenced to a considerable extent by the differences in the macroeconomic conditions before and after the year 1990.

Recall that according to replicator dynamics, firms with above (below)-average productivity levels tend to have increasing (decreasing) employment shares.

In the words of Brown and Earle (2008, p. 109): “Unlike under central planning, job reallocation during the transition has contributed significantly to aggregate productivity growth. Jobs have been reallocated from less to more productive incumbent firms, and the exiting firms have been predominantly less productive ones. Though entering firms have not initially been more productive than incumbents, the surviving ones have caught or surpassed incumbents within 3 years.”

The program terminated with an error message.

See also the survey articles by Bartelsman and Doms (2000) and Haltiwanger (2000). Krüger (2008) contains a review of the literature mostly concerned with intersectoral structural change.

Aragon Y, Daouia A, Thomas-Agnan C (2005) Nonparametric frontier estimation: a conditional quantile-based approach. Econom Theory 21:358–389CrossRef

Baily MN, Hulten C, Campbell D (1992) Productivity dynamics in manufacturing plants. Brook Pap Econ Act: Microecon, pp 187–267

Baldwin JR, Gu W (2006) Plant turnover and productivity growth in Canadian manufacturing. Ind Corp Chang 15:417–465CrossRef

Baldwin JR, Gu W (2011) Firm dynamics and productivity growth: a comparison of the retail trade and manufacturing sectors. Ind Corp Chang 20:367–395CrossRef

Balk BM (2003) The residual: on monitoring and benchmarking firms, industries, and economies with respect to productivity. J Prod Anal 20:5–47CrossRef

Bartelsman EJ, Doms M (2000) Understanding productivity: lessons from longitudinal microdata. J Econ Lit 38:569–594CrossRef

Brown JD, Earle JS (2008) Creating productive jobs in East European transition economies: a synthesis of firm-level Studies. Nat Inst Econ Rev 204:108–125

Cantner U, Krüger JJ (2008) Micro-heterogeneity and aggregate productivity development in the German manufacturing sector: results from a decomposition exercise. J Evol Econ 18:119–133CrossRef

Cazals C, Florens JP, Simar L (2002) Nonparametric frontier estimation: a robust approach. J Econom 106:1–25CrossRef

Daouia A, Simar L (2007) Nonparametric efficiency analysis: a multivariate conditional quantile approach. J Econom 140:375–400CrossRef

Daraio C, Simar L (2005) Introducing environmental variables in nonparametric frontier models: a probabilistic approach. J Prod Anal 24:93–121CrossRef

Daraio C, Simar L (2007a) Conditional nonparametric frontier models for convex and nonconvex technologies: a unifying approach. J Prod Anal 28:13–32CrossRef

Daraio C, Simar L (2007b) Advanced robust and nonparametric methods in efficiency analysis: methodology and applications. Studies in Productivity and Efficiency, Springer, New York

Davison AC, Hinkley DV (1997) Bootstrap methods and their application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (Mass.)CrossRef

Disney R, Haskel J, Heden Y (2003) Restructuring and productivity growth in UK manufacturing. Econ J 103:666–694CrossRef

Dosi G, Malerba F, Marsili O, Orsenigo L (1997) Industrial structures and dynamics: evidence, interpretations and puzzles. Ind Corp Chang 6:3–24CrossRef

Efron B (1987) Better bootstrap confidence intervals. J Am Stat Assoc 82:171–185CrossRef

Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall, New YorkCrossRef

Ericson R, Pakes A (1995) Markov-perfect industry dynamics: a framework for empirical work. Rev Econ Stud 62:53–82CrossRef

Foster L, Haltiwanger J, Krizan CJ (2001) Aggregate productivity growth: lessons from microeconomic evidence. In: Hulten CR, Dean ER, Harper MJ (eds) New developments in productivity analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 303–363CrossRef

Foster L, Haltiwanger J, Krizan CJ (2006) Market selection, reallocation and restructuring in the U.S. retail trade sector in the 1990s. Rev Econ Stat 88:748–758CrossRef

Foster L, Haltiwanger J, Syverson C (2008) Reallocation, firm turnover, and efficiency: selection on productivity or profitability? Am Econ Rev 98:394–425CrossRef

Griliches Z, Regev H (1995) Productivity and firm turnover in Israeli industry: 1979–1988. J Econom 65:175–203CrossRef

Haltiwanger JC (2000) Aggregate growth: what have we learned from microeconomic evidence? OECD Economics Department Working Paper no. 267

Hampel FR (1974) The influence curve and its role in robust estimation. Ann Stat 69:383–393

Jorgenson DW, Ho MS, Stiroh KJ (2008) A retrospective look at the U.S. productivity growth resurgence. J Econ Persp 22:3–24CrossRef

Klette TJ, Kortum S (2004) Innovating firms and aggregate innovation. J Pol Econ 112:986–1018CrossRef

Krüger JJ (2008) Productivity and structural change: a review of the literature. J Econ Surv 22:330–363CrossRef

Krüger JJ (2012) A Monte Carlo study of old and new frontier methods for efficiency measurement. Eur J Oper Res 222:137–148

Lambson VE (1991) Industry evolution with sunk costs and uncertain market conditions. Int J Ind Org 9:171–196CrossRef

Lentz R, Mortensen DT (2005) Productivity growth and worker reallocation. Int Econ Rev 46:731–751CrossRef

Lentz R, Mortensen DT (2008) An empirical model of growth through product innovation. Econometrica 76:1317–1373CrossRef

Luttmer EGJ (2007) Selection, growth, and the size distribution of firms. Quart J Econ 122:1103–1144CrossRef

Metcalfe JS (1994) Competition, Fisher’s principle and increasing returns in the selection process. J Evol Econ 4:327–346CrossRef

Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Mass.)

Nickell SJ (1996) Competition and corporate performance. J Pol Econ 104:724–746CrossRef

Nickell SJ, Nicolitsas D, Dryden N (1997) What makes firms perform well? Eur Econ Rev 41:783–796CrossRef

Oliner SD, Sichel DE, Stiroh KJ (2007) Explaining a productive decade. Brook Pap Econ Act 1:81–137CrossRef

O’Mahony M, van Ark B (eds.) (2003) EU productivity and competitiveness: an industry perspective: can Europe resume the catching-up process? Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. (update on the web page http://www.ggdc.net/dseries/60-Industry.shtm/)

Schumpeter JA (1942) Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. Harper and Brothers, New York

Simar L, Wilson PW (2008) Statistical inference in nonparametric frontier models: recent developments and perspectives. In: Fried HO, Lovell CAK, Schmidt SS (eds) The measurement of productive efficiency and productivity growth. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 421–521

Steil B, Victor DG, Nelson RR (2002) Technological innovation and economic performance. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Syverson C (2011) What determines productivity? J Econ Lit 49:326–365CrossRef

van Ark B, O’Mahony M, Timmer MP (2008) The productivity gap between Europe and the United States: trends and causes. J Econ Persp 22:25–44CrossRef

Wilson PW (2008) FEAR: a software package for frontier efficiency analysis with \(R\). Socio-Econ Plan Sci 42:247–254CrossRef

Winter SG, Kaniovski YM, Dosi G (2000) Modeling industrial dynamics with innovative entrants. Struct Chang Econ Dyn 11:255–293CrossRef

Winter SG, Kaniovski YM, Dosi G (2003) A baseline model of industry evolution. J Evol Econ 13:355–383CrossRef

Titel: Intrasectoral structural change and aggregate productivity development: robust stochastic nonparametric frontier function estimates
verfasst von: Jens J. Krüger
Publikationsdatum: 01.06.2014
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Empirical Economics / Ausgabe 4/2014
Print ISSN: 0377-7332
Elektronische ISSN: 1435-8921
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-013-0727-0

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2014

Reconsidering the welfare cost of inflation in the US: a nonparametric estimation of the nonlinear long-run money-demand equation using projection pursuit regressions

Consumption multipliers of different types of public spending: a structural vector error correction analysis for the UK

Employment comovements at the sectoral level over the business cycle

On the redistributive effects of Germany’s feed-in tariff

On the reliability of retrospective unemployment information in European household panel data

Default options and training participation