/pdf/the-theory-of-industrial-organization-19bejph0ej.pdf

The Theory of Industrial Organization

Economists have shown that large and persistent differences in productivity levels across businesses are ubiquitous. This finding has shaped research agendas in a number of fields, including (but not limited to) macroeconomics, industrial organization, labor, and trade. This paper surveys and evaluates recent empirical work addressing the question of why businesses differ in their measured productivity levels. The causes are manifold, and differ depending on the particular setting. They include elements sourced in production practices -- and therefore over which producers have some direct control, at least in theory -- as well as from producers' external operating environments. After evaluating the current state of knowledge, I lay out what I see are the major questions that research in the area should address going forward. (JEL D24, G31, L11, M10, O30, O47)

/pdf/what-determines-productivity-2hh0dpac5x.pdf

What Determines Productivity

We develop a monopolistically competitive model of trade with firm heterogeneityâ€”in terms of productivity differencesâ€”and endogenous differences in the "toughness" of competition across marketsâ€”in terms of the number and average productivity of competing firms. We analyse how these features vary across markets of different size that are not perfectly integrated through trade; we then study the effects of different trade liberalization policies. In our model, market size and trade affect the toughness of competition, which then feeds back into the selection of heterogeneous producers and exporters in that market. Aggregate productivity and average mark-ups thus respond to both the size of a market and the extent of its integration through trade (larger, more integrated markets exhibit higher productivity and lower mark-ups). Our model remains highly tractable, even when extended to a general framework with multiple asymmetric countries integrated to different extents through asymmetric trade costs. We believe this provides a useful modelling framework that is particularly well suited to the analysis of trade and regional integration policy scenarios in an environment with heterogeneous firms and endogenous mark-ups.

Market Size, Trade, and Productivity

We develop a monopolistically competitive model of trade with firm heterogeneity—in terms of productivity differences—and endogenous differences in the “toughness” of competition across markets—in terms of the number and average productivity of competing firms. We analyse how these features vary across markets of different size that are not perfectly integrated through trade; we then study the effects of different trade liberalization policies. In our model, market size and trade affect the toughness of competition, which then feeds back into the selection of heterogeneous producers and exporters in that market. Aggregate productivity and average mark-ups thus respond to both the size of a market and the extent of its integration through trade (larger, more integrated markets exhibit higher productivity and lower mark-ups). Our model remains highly tractable, even when extended to a general framework with multiple asymmetric countries integrated to different extents through asymmetric trade costs. We believe this provides a useful modelling framework that is particularly well suited to the analysis of trade and regional integration policy scenarios in an environment with heterogeneous firms and endogenous mark-ups.

/pdf/market-size-trade-and-productivity-44u8qzsiib.pdf

Resource misallocation can lower aggregate total factor productivity (TFP).We
use microdata on manufacturing establishments to quantify the potential extent
of misallocation in China and India versus the United States. We measure sizable
gaps in marginal products of labor and capital across plants within narrowly
defined industries in China and India compared with the United States. When
capital and labor are hypothetically reallocated to equalize marginal products to
the extent observed in the United States, we calculate manufacturing TFP gains
of 30%–50% in China and 40%–60% in India.

/pdf/misallocation-and-manufacturing-tfp-in-china-and-india-2iv0rc70q7.pdf

Misallocation and Manufacturing TFP in China and India

There is considerable evidence that producer-level churning contributes substantially to aggregate (industry) productivity growth, as more productive businesses displace less productive ones. However, this research has been limited by the fact that producer-level prices are typically unobserved; thus within-industry price differences are embodied in productivity measures. If prices reflect idiosyncratic demand or market power shifts, high "productivity" businesses may not be particularly efficient, and the literature's findings might be better interpreted as evidence of entering businesses displacing less profitable, but not necessarily less productive, exiting businesses. In this paper, we investigate the nature of selection and productivity growth using data from industries where we observe producer-level quantities and prices separately. We show there are important differences between revenue and physical productivity. A key dissimilarity is that physical productivity is inversely correlated with plant-level prices while revenue productivity is positively correlated with prices. This implies that previous work linking (revenue-based) productivity to survival has confounded the separate and opposing effects of technical efficiency and demand on survival, understating the true impacts of both. We further show that young producers charge lower prices than incumbents, and as such the literature understates the productivity advantage of new producers and the contribution of entry to aggregate productivity growth.

Reallocation, Firm Turnover, and Efficiency: Selection on Productivity or Profitability?

We investigate the nature of selection and productivity growth in industries where we observe producer-level quantities and prices separately. We show there are important differences between revenue and physical productivity. Because physical productivity is inversely correlated with price while revenue productivity is positively correlated with price, previous work linking (rev- enue-based) productivity to survival confounded the separate and opposing effects of technical efficiency and demand on survival, understating the true impacts of both. Further, we find that young producers charge lower prices than incumbents. Thus the literature understates new producers' productivity advantages and entry's contribution to aggregate productivity growth. (JEL D24, L11, L25)

/pdf/reallocation-firm-turnover-and-efficiency-selection-on-36snbx8c6c.pdf

Reallocation, Firm Turnover, and Efficiency : Selection on Productivity or Profitability?

This paper shows that imperfect output substitutability explains part of the observed persistent plant-level productivity dispersion. Specifically, as substitutability in a market increases, the market’s productivity distribution exhibits falling dispersion and higher central tendency. The proposed mechanism behind this result is truncation of the distribution from below as increased substitutability shifts demand to lower-cost plants and drives inefficient plants out of business. In a case study of the ready-mixed concrete industry, I examine the impact of one manifestation of this effect, driven by geographic market segmentation resulting from transport costs. A theoretical foundation is presented characterizing how differences in the density of local demand impact the number of producers and the ability of customers to choose between suppliers, and through this, the equilibrium productivity and output levels across regions. I also introduce a new method of obtaining plant-level productivity estimates that is well suited to this application and avoids potential shortfalls of commonly used procedures. I use these estimates to empirically test the presented theory, and the results support the predictions of the model. Local demand density has a significant influence on the shape of plant-level productivity distributions, and accounts for part of the observed intra-industry variation in productivity, both between and within given market areas.

Market Structure and Productivity: A Concrete Example

We investigate the role that non-portfolio fund differentiation and information/search frictions play in creating two salient features of the mutual fund industry: the large number of funds and the sizeable dispersion in fund fees. In a case study, we find that despite the financial homogeneity of S&P 500 index funds, this sector exhibits the fund proliferation and fee dispersion observed in the broader industry. We show how extra-portfolio mechanisms explain these features. These mechanisms also suggest an explanation for the puzzling late-1990s shift in sector assets to more expensive (and often newly entered) funds: an influx of highinformation-cost novice investors.

/pdf/product-differentiation-search-costs-and-competition-in-the-3ef5nbklmp.pdf

Chad Syverson

Papers

What Determines Productivity

Reallocation, Firm Turnover, and Efficiency: Selection on Productivity or Profitability?

Reallocation, Firm Turnover, and Efficiency : Selection on Productivity or Profitability?

Market Structure and Productivity: A Concrete Example

Product Differentiation, Search Costs, and Competition in the Mutual Fund Industry: A Case Study of S&P 500 Index Funds