The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity
Summary (6 min read)
1 Introduction
- Recent empirical research using longitudinal plant or Þrm-level data in several countries has overwhelmingly substantiated the existence of large and persistent productivity differences among establishments in the same narrowly deÞned industries.
- Evidence reported in Roberts and Tybout (1996) and Davis and Haltiwanger (1999) conÞrms that these patterns are not speciÞc to the U.S. and that substantial within sector reallocations between heterogeneous Þrms are also prevalent in developing countries.
- On the other hand, if the reallocations are related to Þrm characteristics, then the nature of the link between the two signiÞcantly affects several important aspects of industry performance.
- The paper then shows how further increases in the industry s exposure to trade (driven either by trade liberalization or the addition of new trading partners) lead to additional inter-Þrm reallocations towards more productive Þrms.
- Neither of these studies Þnds evidence supporting this hypothesis.
2 Model Background
- Incorporating heterogeneity in a dynamic industry setting, where forward looking Þrms make entry and export decisions, necessarily increases the technical complexity of this model vis-a-vis its representative Þrm counterparts.
- The main forces explaining the impact of trade on an industry are nevertheless quite intuitive.
- The model draws heavily from Hopenhayn s (1992a, 1992b) work on Þrm and industry productivity dynamics to explain the endogenous selection of heterogeneous Þrms in an industry.
- Forward looking, Þrm entry decision, it greatly simpliÞes 5As was previously mentioned, one of the robust empirical patterns emerging from recent industry studies is that new entrants are much more likely to have lower productivity and exit than do older incumbents.
- This equilibrium therefore does not respond to changes in the entry cost while being overly sensitive to the magnitude of the losses incurred by Þrms who exit the industry.
Demand
- The measure of the set Ω will represent the mass (or alternatively, the number) of available goods.
- (1) These aggregates can then be used to derive the optimal consumption decisions over individual varieties using q(ω) = Q µ p(ω).
Production
- Production requires only one factor, labor, which is inelastically supplied at its aggregate level L (which also indexes the size of the economy).
- Firm technology is represented by a cost function that exhibits constant marginal cost with a Þxed overhead cost.
Aggregation
- Using the same weighted average function deÞned in (9), let ϕ = ϕ(ϕ∗) and ϕx = ϕ(ϕ∗x) denote the average productivity levels of, respectively, all Þrms and exporting Þrms only.
- The average productivity across all Þrms, ϕ, is based only on domestic market share differences between Þrms (as reßected by differences in the Þrms productivity levels).
- If some Þrms do not export, then this average will not reßect the additional export shares of the more productive Þrms.
4 Firm Entry and Exit
- There is a large pool of prospective entrants into the industry.
- Upon entry with a low productivity draw, a Þrm may decide to immediately exit and not produce.
- He then shows how these Þrm level productivity dynamics give the equilibrium distribution of productivity levels µ(ϕ) a different shape than the ex-ante distribution g(ϕ), and determine the ex-ante survival probabilities for a Þrm, conditional on successful entry.
- On the other hand, the range of productivity levels, and hence the average productivity level, are endogenously determined.
- Modeling an additional time discount factor would not qualitatively change any of the results.
Zero Cutoff ProÞt Condition
- This will not be the case in the current situation.
- The model thus does not differentiate between cohorts of incumbent Þrms.
- This cohort is then critically differentiated from that formed by new entrants, whose distribution of productivity levels is given by g(ϕ).
Free Entry and the Value of Firms
- Since all incumbent Þrms other than the cutoff Þrm earn positive proÞts, the average proÞt level π̄ must be positive.
- If this value were negative, no Þrm would want to enter.
- In any equilibrium where entry is unrestricted, this value could further not be positive since the mass of prospective entrants is unbounded.
5 Equilibrium in a Closed Economy
- A stationary equilibrium is deÞned by constant aggregate variables over time and the free entry of Þrms into the industry.
- Me of new entrants in every period, such that the mass of successful entrants, pinMe, exactly replaces the mass δM of incumbents who are hit with the bad shock and exit: pinMe = δM.
- The labor used by these new entrants for investment purposes must, of course, be reßected in the accounting for aggregate labor L, and affects the aggregate labor available for production: L = Lp+Le where Lp and Le represent the aggregate labor used for production and investment (by new entrants).
- In equilibrium, the aggregate return Π equals the aggregate investment cost Le in every period so there is no net investment income (this would not be the case with a positive time discount factor).
Existence and Uniqueness of the Equilibrium
- The free entry (FE) and zero cutoff proÞt (ZCP) conditions represent two different relationships between the average proÞt level π̄ and the cutoff productivity level ϕ∗ (see (12)).
- I Þrst summarize their important properties for the determination of the equilibrium values of ϕ∗ and π̄: In (ϕ,π) space the FE curve is increasing and is cut by the ZCP curve only once from above .
- As the cutoff level ϕ∗ goes to zero, the revenue of the cutoff Þrm also goes to zero.
- If g(ϕ) belongs to most of the common families of distributions (including the lognormal, exponential, Gamma, or Weibull distributions or truncations on (0,∞) of the normal, logistic, extreme value, or Laplace distributions), then k(ϕ) will monotonically decrease to zero on (0,∞).
- These regularity conditions ensure that an increase in the cutoff level ϕ∗ redistributes the mass of incumbent Þrms towards the cutoff level.
Analysis of the Equilibrium
- As was just shown, the equilibrium productivity cutoff level, ϕ∗, and average Þrm proÞt, π̄, do not depend on the country size L. Hence, the equilibrium distribution of productivity levels µ(ϕ) and average productivity level ϕ will also be independent of country size.
- The large country will just have more Þrms in an amount proportional to its country size.
- Once ϕ and π̄ are determined, the aggregate outcome predicted by this model is identical to one generated by an economy with representative Þrms who share the same productivity level ϕ and proÞt level π̄.
- In the following sections, I argue that the exposure of a country to trade creates precisely the type of shock that induces reallocations between Þrms and generates increases in aggregate productivity.
- These results can not be explained by representative Þrm models where the aggregate productivity level is exogenously given as the productivity level common to all Þrms.
6 Overview and Assumptions of the Open Economy Model
- I now examine the impact of trade in a world (or trade bloc) that is composed of countries whose economies are of the type that was previously described.
- The transition to trade will thus not affect 19Consumers in every country have access to the same bundle of goods at the same aggregate price index.
- The current model is modiÞed by allowing the elasticity of substitution to endogenously increase with product variety.
- Bernard and Jensen (1999a), Clerides, Lach and Tybout (1998), Roberts and Tybout (1997a), and Roberts, Sullivan and Tybout (1995) all introduce a Þxed export cost into the theoretical sections of their work in order to explain the self-selection of Þrms into the export market.
- Countries who differ only in country size can exhibit different wage rates in the equilibrium with trade.
7 Equilibrium in the Open Economy
- The symmetry assumption ensures that all countries share the same wage, which is still normalized to one, and also share the same aggregate variables.
- Firms who export will set higher prices in the foreign markets that reßect the increased marginal cost τ of serving these markets: px(ϕ) = τ ρϕ = τpd(ϕ).
- The analysis of these equilibria is left for future work.
- (16) If some Þrms do not export, then there no longer exists an integrated world market for all goods.
Firm Entry, Exit, and Export Status
- All the exogenous factors affecting Þrm entry, exit, and productivity levels remain unchanged by trade.
- Prior to entry, Þrms face the same ex-ante distribution of productivity levels g(ϕ).
- In a stationary equilibrium, any incumbent Þrm with productivity ϕ earns variable proÞts rx(ϕ)σ in every period from its export sales to any given country.
- If ϕ∗x > ϕ∗, then some Þrms (with productivity levels between ϕ∗ and ϕ∗x) produce exclusively for their domestic market.
Determination of the Equilibrium
- As in the closed economy case, a stationary equilibrium is uniquely determined by the triplet (ϕ∗, P,R) satisfying the free entry and zero cutoff proÞt conditions.
- The equilibrium ϕ∗, in turn, determines the export productivity cutoff ϕ∗x as well as the average productivity levels ϕ, ϕx, ϕt, and the ex-ante successful entry and export probabilities pin and px.
- As was the case in the closed economy equilibrium, the free entry condition and the aggregate stability condition30 (pinMe = δM) ensure that the aggregate payment to the investment workers.
- Le equals the aggregate proÞt level Π. As shown in (18), the aggregate price index is determined by the aggregate number of goods available in each country (Mt) and the average productivity level across all Þrms selling these goods ( ϕt).
8 The Impact of Trade
- The result that the modeling of Þxed export costs explains the partitioning of Þrms by export status and productivity level is not exactly earth-shattering.
- On the other hand, such a model would be ill-suited to address several important questions concerning the impact of trade in the presence of export market entry costs and Þrm heterogeneity:.
- It is nevertheless possible, when the export costs are high, that these foreign Þrms replace a larger number of domestic Þrms (if the latter are sufficiently less productive).
Why Does Trade Force the Least Productive Firms to Exit?
- The most obvious cause explaining the exit of the least productive domestic Þrms would be the new competition from the entry of the more productive Þrms into the domestic market.
- With C.E.S. product differentiation, the new import competition affects domestic Þrms with different productivity levels in similar ways, and translates only into a reduction in aggregate sales for all domestic Þrms.
- On the other hand, if the model were amended to allow for the opening of new export markets without any import competition, then distributional changes very similar to those described for the symmetric trade case would occur (and the least productive Þrms would be forced to exit the industry).
- In equilibrium, an increase in the proÞts of more productive Þrms relative to less productive Þrms leads to more entry and a higher cutoff productivity level.
- It is therefore the pull of the export markets, rather than the push of import competition that forces the least productive Þrms to exit.
9 The Impact of Trade Liberalization
- The preceding analysis compared the equilibrium outcomes of an economy undergoing a massive change in trade regime from autarky to trade.
- The current model is well-suited to address several different mechanisms that would produce an increase in trade exposure and plausibly correspond to observed decreases in trade costs over time or some speciÞc policies to liberalize trade.
- These three scenarios involve comparative statics of the open economy equilibrium with respect to n, τ , and fx.
- The main impact of the transition from autarky to trade was an increase in aggregate productivity and welfare generated by a reallocation of market shares towards more productive Þrms (where the least productive Þrms are forced to exit).
- The increased exposure to trade will also unequivocally deliver welfare gains.
Increase in the Number of Trading Partners
- Throughout this comparative static exercise, I use the notation of the open economy equilibrium to describe the old equilibrium with n countries.
- I then add primes (0) to all variables and functions when they pertain to the new equilibrium with n0 > n countries.
- Thus, both market shares and proÞts are reallocated towards the more efficient Þrms.
Decrease in Trade Costs
- A decrease in the variable trade cost τ will induce almost identical effects to those just described for the increase in trading partners.
- 0 < τ (again I use primes to reference all variables and functions in the new equilibrium) will shift up the ZCP curve and induce an increase in the cutoff productivity level ϕ∗0 > ϕ∗.
- As before, the increased exposure to trade will force the least productive Þrms to exit, but it will now also generate the entry of new Þrms into the export market (who did not export with the higher τ).
- As before, the exit of the least productive Þrms and the market share increase of the most productive Þrms both contribute to an aggregate productivity gain and an increase in welfare.
- 40 38There is a transitional issue associated with the exporting status of Þrms with productivity levels between ϕ∗x and ϕ∗0x .
10 Conclusion
- This paper has described and analyzed a new transmission channel for the impact of trade on industry structure and performance.
- Since this channel works through intra-industry reallocations across Þrms, it can only be studied within an industry model that incorporates Þrm level heterogeneity.
- The paper shows how the existence of export market entry costs drastically affects how the impact of trade is distributed across different types of Þrms.
- In fact, only a portion of the Þrms the more efficient ones reap beneÞts from trade in the form of gains in market share and proÞt.
- It is therefore important to have a model that can predict the impact of trade policy on inter-Þrm reallocations in order to design accompanying policies that would address issues related to the transition towards a new regime.
Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback
Citations
3,823 citations
2,818 citations
2,380 citations
2,002 citations
1,995 citations
References
6,161 citations
4,876 citations
3,756 citations
2,778 citations
2,416 citations
Related Papers (5)
Frequently Asked Questions (10)
Q2. What are some other important explanatory characteristics that have been highlighted in some studies?
some studies have also found evidence that reallocations unrelated to entry and exit contribute to 1Firm age and capital vintage are other important explanatory characteristics that have been highlighted in some studies, although their impact may be limited to their effect on productivity.
Q3. How does the probability of entry increase?
As ϕ∗ increases, the probability of successful entry (pin = 1−G(ϕ∗)) decreases average proÞts must therefore increase for Þrms to remain indifferent about entry.
Q4. What is the effect of the export market selection effect on the productivity of rms?
This export market selection effect and the domestic market selection effect (of Þrms out of the industry) both reallocate market shares towards more efficient Þrms and contribute to an aggregate productivity gain.
Q5. What is the ratio of the average to cutoff rm revenue?
Since the average revenue level is always positive (even when ϕ∗ → 0), the ratio of the average to cutoff Þrm revenue becomes inÞnite as ϕ∗ goes to zero:
Q6. What is the main reason why trade-induced reallocations are so important?
These trade-induced reallocations towards more efficient Þrms explain why trade may generate aggregate productivity gains without necessarily improving the productive efficiency of individual Þrms.
Q7. What is the effect of the decrease in product variety on welfare?
Although the direction of the change in product variety is ambiguous (product variety will decrease so long as the ZCP curve is downward sloping), the decrease in aggregate productivity is enough to unambiguously entail a welfare loss (see appendix for proof).
Q8. What is the main reason for the absence of an upper bound on productivity?
The absence of an upper bound on productivity is assumed only for simplicity; an upper bound can be incorporated in the analysis without qualitatively changing any of the main results.
Q9. What is the main force that drives the hypothesis that increased productivity in Mexico s growing export industries?
Tybout and Westbrook (1995) test and reject the hypothesis that increased productivity in Mexico s growing export industries was driven by increases in the scale of plant production.
Q10. How does Hopenhayn explain the rm productivity dynamics?
Hopenhayn shows how these dynamics shape the equilibrium distribution of Þrm productivity and analyzes the impact of these dynamics on Þrm value and the performance of cohorts of Þrms over time.