Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Small Business Economics
Erschienen in: Small Business Economics 1/2021

23.12.2019

Neodualism in the Italian business firms: training, organizational capabilities, and productivity distributions

verfasst von: Giovanni Dosi, Dario Guarascio, Andrea Ricci, Maria Enrica Virgillito

Erschienen in: Small Business Economics | Ausgabe 1/2021

Einloggen

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

search-config
loading …

Abstract

What has been the dynamics of productivity in the Italian business firms in the aftermath of the crisis? And what has been the impact of training efforts upon such dynamics? In this work, we address these questions exploring a unique Italian micro-level dataset which links information on the amount and the nature of training and firm balance-sheet data. First, we document what we call a neodualist tendency with a leader-laggard dynamics entailing a widening support of the productivity distributions. Second, we analyze the relationship between productivities and training intensities by means of quantile regression analysis. There is indeed some relationship in the whole sample which however gets much weaker when disaggregating by sector and by size. Moreover, hardly any dynamic relationship appears, either between initial training intensities and subsequent productivity changes or between changes in both variables. Our results do not imply that training is not important, but that its effectiveness must be shaped by the interaction with other firm-specific characteristics, associated with idiosyncratic organizational capabilities.
Vorheriger Artikel The changing form of overconfidence and its effect on growth expectations at the early stages of startups
Nächster Artikel Are large firms born or made? Evidence from developing countries

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

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

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
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
Such Italian patterns are also discussed in Calligaris et al. (2016), Codogno (2009), and Daveri and Jona-Lasinio (2008).
 
2
Conversely, to our knowledge, patterns of convergence at the firm level are currently characterizing some emerging economies such as China (Yu et al. 2015), where a process of internal “creative restructuring” has seen state-owned and public-private enterprises as the leading firms in triggering productivity growth.
 
3
The RIL survey sample is stratified by size, sector, geographic area and the legal form of firms. For more details on RIL questionnaire, sample design, and methodological issues, see INAPP (2017).
 
4
“Measured productivity” might either capture (i) value added at constant prices or, more rarely, (ii) physical output (e.g., tons of steel). The physical measure and related unit prices are rarely available given ubiquitous multi-product firms (Foster et al. 2008). So, generally, micro-analyses use the latter, as we do. Such a measure captures both “physical productivity” and the ability of firms to charge higher prices per unit of output.
 
5
Note that for the main variables, the data collected by RIL survey in 2015 really refer to 2014, while those derived from the RIL survey in 2010 are aligned (with minor exceptions) to the same year. Thus, in what follows, we mention the longitudinal sample RIL 2010–2014. More details are available upon request.
 
6
The RIL survey has been recently used in other studies focusing on the relationship between unionization, type of labor contracts, corporate governance, and Italian companies’ performance (Berton et al. 2017; Devicienti et al. 2016; Devicienti et al. 2017, 2018; Damiani et al. 2018).
 
7
The deflators are available at http://​dati.​istat.​it/​#.
 
8
Note that the dynamics in labor productivities of the RIL sample are quite similar to the AIDA one. Comparisons, available upon request, show that when some discrepancies appear, the latter database most often displays a higher fall then the corresponding RIL cohorts.
 
9
Our dataset reports a much severe drop in labor productivity than the one reported by OECD data (originated by Eurostat) on the whole universe. However, the drop is closer as mentioned to the one documented by AIDA. The difference is due to two main reasons, namely, first, ownership structure (the RIL-AIDA dataset only contains limited liability companies) and, second, size (the RIL-AIDA dataset excludes firms below 5 employees). The difference between our sample and the universe is itself informative, in that micro-firms undertook a disproportional share of the total labor shedding which followed the double dip of the Italian economy.
 
10
Note that here by entry and exit we mean into and out of the sample, as we are unable to distinguish genuine birth and death from attrition.
 
11
So, in case of fat-tailed distributions, as the one presented in the paper, the mean is not a sufficient statistics to characterize the distribution itself. Information on the higher moments are required. For these reasons, we believe that kernels increase the understanding of, e.g., whether the left or the right tails are governing the dispersion.
 
12
Our independent variable is defined as ln(training cost/n. employees +1) to avoid to assign value 0 to both effective zero training and very low training.
 
13
Notice that this variable is included only in the Canay’s specification.
 
14
In particular, we are aware that the two-step procedure proposed by Canay may suffer from a bias in a short time span (T = 2) and that the assumption that the additive term ηi in equation (1) is treated as pure location shifter parameter common to all conditional quantiles restricts the types of firms’ unobserved heterogeneity that we can handle. On the other hand, using the Canay’s technique—under the hypothesis that the separate term ηi is independent from the rest of the control variables—is more informative in our context than quantile models with non-additive fixed effects—which maintain the non-separable terms (Powell 2016). In this latter case, the estimated coefficients are consistent for small T but the role of time invariant firms’ unobserved heterogeneity cannot be properly accounted for.
 
Literatur
Abadie, A., Angrist, J., & Imbens, G. (2002). Instrumental variables estimates of the effect of subsidized training on the quantiles of trainee earnings. Econometrica, 70(1), 91–117.CrossRef
Acemoglu, D., & Pischke, J. S. (1999). The structure of wages and investment in general training. Journal of Political Economy, 107(3), 539–572.CrossRef
Bartelsman, E. J., & Doms, M. (2000). Understanding productivity: lessons from longitudinal microdata. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3), 569–594.CrossRef
Barth, E., Bryson, A., Davis, J. C., & Freeman, R. (2016). It’s where you work: increases in the dispersion of earnings across establishments and individuals in the United States. Journal of Labor Economics, 34(S2), S67–S97.CrossRef
Bassanini, A., Booth, A. L., Brunello, G., De Paola, M., & Leuven, E. (2005). Workplace training in Europe, G.Brunello, P.Garibaldi and E.Wasmer (Ed.), Education and Training in Europe, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007.
Becker, G. S. (1994). Human capital revisited, In Human capital: a theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to education (3rd Edition) (pp. 15-28). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Berlingieri, G., Blanchenay, P., & Criscuolo, C. (2017). The great divergence (s). Paris: OECD , Working Paper
Calligaris, S., Del Gatto, M., Hassan, F., Ottaviano, G. I. and Schivardi, F. (2016). Italy’s productivity conundrum. A study on resource misallocation in Italy, European Commission, Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), Working Paper 060.
Canay, I. A. (2011). A simple approach to quantile regression for panel data. The Econometrics Journal, 14(3), 368–386.CrossRef
Chandler, A., Hagström, P., & Sölvell, Ö. (1998). The dynamic firm. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Codogno, L. (2009). Two Italian puzzles: are productivity growth and competitiveness really so depressed?. Working Paper: Ministry of Economy and Finance - Department of the Treasury, Italy.
Coriat, B., & Dosi, G. (1995). Learning how to govern and learning how to solve problems: on the co-evolution of competences, conflicts, and organizational routines. Chandler et al., 1998.
Daveri, F., & Jona-Lasinio, C. (2008). Off-shoring and productivity growth in the Italian manufacturing industries. CESifo Economic Studies, 54(3), 414–450.CrossRef
Dearden, L., Reed, H., & Van Reenen, J. (2006). The impact of training on productivity and wages: evidence from British panel data. Oxford bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 68(4), 397–421.CrossRef
Devicienti, F., Grinza, E., & Vannoni, D. (2017). The impact of part-time work on firm productivity: evidence from Italy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(2), 321–347.CrossRef
Devicienti, F., Naticchioni, P., & Ricci, A. (2018). Temporary employment, demand volatility, and unions: firm-level evidence. ILR Review, 71(1), 174–207.CrossRef
Dosi, G. (2008). Statistical regularities in the evolution of industries. A guide through some evidence and challenges for the theory, in Malerba F. and Brusoni S. (Eds.) Perspectives on Innovation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Dosi, G., & Marengo, L. (2015). The dynamics of organizational structures and performances under diverging distributions of knowledge and different power structures. Journal of Institutional Economics, 11(3), 535–559.CrossRef
Dosi, G., Grazzi, M., Marengo, L., & Settepanella, S. (2016). Production theory: accounting for firm heterogeneity and technical change. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 64(4), 875–907.CrossRef
Dosi, G., & Grazzi, M. (2006). Technologies as problem-solving procedures and technologies as input–output relations: some perspectives on the theory of production. Industrial and Corporate Change, 15(1), 173–202.CrossRef
Dosi, G., Grazzi, M., Tomasi, C., & Zeli, A. (2012). Turbulence underneath the big calm? The micro-evidence behind Italian productivity dynamics. Small Business Economics, 39(4), 1043–1067.CrossRef
Dosi, G., Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (Eds.). (2001). The nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Dosi, G., Pereira, M. C., Roventini, A., & Virgillito, M. E. (2019). What if supply-side policies are not enough? The perverse interaction of flexibility and austerity, Journal of Economic Behaviours and Organization, 162, 360–388.
Foster, L., Haltiwanger, J., & Syverson, C. (2008). Reallocation, firm turnover, and efficiency: selection on productivity or profitability? American Economic Review, 98(1), 394–425.CrossRef
Foster, L., Grim, C., & Haltiwanger, J. (2016). Reallocation in the Great Recession: cleansing or not? Journal of Labor Economics, 34(S1), S293–S331.CrossRef
Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece, D., & Winter, S. G. (2009). Dynamic capabilities: understanding strategic change in organizations. New York: Wiley.
Ichniowski, C., Shaw, K. and Prennushi, G. (1997). ‘The effects of human resource management practices on productivity’, American Economic Review, Vol. 87, pp. 291–313.
Koenker, R., & Bassett Jr., G. (1978). Regression quantiles. Econometrica, 46, 33–50.CrossRef
Konings, J., & Vanormelingen, S. (2015). The impact of training on productivity and wages: firm-level evidence. Review of Economics and Statistics, 97(2), 485–497.CrossRef
Machado, J. A. F., & Silva, J. S. (2005). Quantiles for counts. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100(472), 1226–1237.CrossRef
Manello, A., Calabrese, G. G., & Frigero, P. (2016). Technical efficiency and productivity growth along the automotive value chain: evidence from Italy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 25(2), 245–259.CrossRef
Mincer, J. (1981). Union effects: wages, turnover, and job training, NBER Working Paper. N., 808.
Mishel, L., and Bivens, J. (2017). The zombie robot argument lurches on: there is no evidence that automation leads to joblessness or inequality. Economic Policy Institute Working Papers.
Parente, P. M., & Silva, J. M. S. (2016). Quantile regression with clustered data. Journal of Econometric Methods, 5(1), 1–15.CrossRef
Syverson, C. (2011). What determines productivity? Journal of Economic Literature, 49(2), 326–365.CrossRef
Syverson, C. (2017). Challenges to mismeasurement explanations for the US productivity slowdown. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 165–186.CrossRef
Winter, S. G. (1997). Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. In A. Klein (Ed.), The strategic management of intellectual capital (pp. 165–187). New York: Elsevier Ed.
Yu, X., Dosi, G., Lei, J., & Nuvolari, A. (2015). Institutional change and productivity growth in China’s manufacturing: the microeconomics of knowledge accumulation and “creative restructuring”. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(3), 565–602.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Neodualism in the Italian business firms: training, organizational capabilities, and productivity distributions
verfasst von
Giovanni Dosi
Dario Guarascio
Andrea Ricci
Maria Enrica Virgillito
Publikationsdatum
23.12.2019
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Small Business Economics / Ausgabe 1/2021
Print ISSN: 0921-898X
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0913
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00295-x

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2021

Small Business Economics 1/2021 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Evaluating the effects of Small Business Administration lending on growth

OriginalPaper

Management turnover, ownership change, and post-bankruptcy failure of small businesses

OriginalPaper

The changing form of overconfidence and its effect on growth expectations at the early stages of startups

OriginalPaper

Spillovers to small business credit risk

OriginalPaper

Do employees’ generational cohorts influence corporate venturing? A multilevel analysis

OriginalPaper

Innovation and growth in the UK pharmaceuticals: the case of product and marketing introductions