DOCSLIB.ORG

What Determines Productivity?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What Determines Productivity? Journal of Economic Literature 2011, 49:2, 326–365 http:www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jel.49.2.326 What Determines Productivity? Chad Syverson* Economists have shown that large and persistent differences in productivity levels across businesses are ubiquitous. This finding has shaped research agendas in a num- ber of fields, including (but not limited to) macroeconomics, industrial organization, labor, and trade. This paper surveys and evaluates recent empirical work address- ing the question of why businesses differ in their measured productivity levels. The causes are manifold, and differ depending on the particular setting. They include ele- ments sourced in production practices—and therefore over which producers have some direct control, at least in theory—as well as from producers’ external operat- ing 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) 1. Introduction persistent measured productivity differences across producers, even within narrowly hanks to the massive infusion of detailed defined industries. Tproduction activity data into economic The magnitudes involved are striking. study over the past couple of decades, Chad Syverson (2004b) finds that within four- researchers in many fields have learned a digit SIC industries in the U.S. manufactur- great deal about how firms turn inputs into ing sector, the average difference in logged outputs. Productivity, the efficiency with total factor productivity (TFP) between an which this conversion occurs, has been a industry’s 90th and 10th percentile plants topic of particular interest. The particulars is 0.651. This corresponds to a TFP ratio of of these studies have varied depending on e0.651 1.92. To emphasize just what this = the researchers’ specific interests, but there number implies, it says that the plant at the is a common thread. They have documented, 90th percentile of the productivity distribu- virtually without exception, enormous and tion makes almost twice as much output with the same measured inputs as the 10th per- * University of Chicago and National Bureau of Eco- centile plant. Note that this is the average nomic Research. I thank Eric Bartelsman, Nick Bloom, 90–10 range. The range’s standard deviation Roger Gordon, John Haltiwanger, Chang-Tai Hsieh, Ariel Pakes, Amil Petrin, John Van Reenen, and anonymous across four-digit industries is 0.173, so sev- referees for helpful comments. This work is supported by eral industries see much larger productiv- the NSF (SES-0519062 and SES-0820307), and both the ity differences among their producers. U.S. Stigler Center and the Centel Foundation/Robert P. Reuss Faculty Research Fund at the University of Chicago Booth manufacturing is not exceptional in terms of School of Business. productivity dispersion. Indeed, if anything, 326 Syverson: What Determines Productivity? 327 it is small relative to the productivity varia- by no means is it meant to be a comprehen- tion observed elsewhere. Chang-Tai Hsieh sive accounting. They speak to the breadth and Peter J. Klenow (2009), for example, of the impact that answers to this paper’s title find even larger productivity differences in question would have. China and India, with average 90–10 TFP Macroeconomists are dissecting aggregate ratios over 5:1.1 productivity growth—the source of almost all These productivity differences across pro- per capita income differences across coun- ducers are not fleeting, either. Regressing tries—into various micro-components, with a producer’s current TFP on its one-year- the intent of better understanding the sources lagged TFP yields autoregressive coefficients of such growth. Foster, Haltiwanger, and C. on the order of 0.6 to 0.8 (see, e.g., Árpád J. Krizan (2001), for example, overview the Ábrahám and Kirk White 2006 and Foster, substantial role of reallocations of economic Haltiwanger, and Syverson 2008). Put sim- activity toward higher productivity produc- ply, some producers seem to have figured out ers (both among existing plants and through their business (or at least are on their way), entry and exit) in explaining aggregate pro- while others are woefully lacking. Far more ductivity growth. Hsieh and Klenow (2009) than bragging rights are at stake here: another ask how much larger the Chinese and Indian robust finding in the literature—virtually economies would be if they achieved the invariant to country, time period, or indus- same efficiency in allocating inputs across try—is that higher productivity producers are production units as does the United States. more likely to survive than their less efficient Models of economic fluctuations driven by industry competitors. Productivity is quite lit- productivity shocks are increasingly being erally a matter of survival for businesses. enriched to account for micro-level patterns, and are estimated and tested using plant- 1.1 How Micro-Level Productivity or firm-level productivity data rather than Variation and Persistence Has aggregates (e.g., Jeffrey R. Campbell and Influenced Research Jonas D. M. Fisher 2004, Eric J. Bartelsman, The discovery of ubiquitous, large, and per- Haltiwanger, and Stefano Scarpetta 2009, sistent productivity differences has shaped and Marcelo Veracierto 2008). Micro pro- research agendas in a number of fields. Here ductivity data have also been brought to bear are some examples of this influence, though on issues of long-run growth, income conver- gence, and technology spillovers. They offer 1 These figures are for revenue-based productivity mea- a level of resolution unattainable with aggre- sures; i.e., where output is measured using plant revenues gated data. (deflated across years using industry-specific price indexes). In industrial organization, research has TFP measures that use physical quantities as output mea- sures rather than revenues actually exhibit even more linked productivity levels to a number of variation than do revenue-based measures as documented features of technology, demand, and market in Lucia Foster, John Haltiwanger, and Syverson (2008). structure. Examples include the effect of Hsieh and Klenow (2009) also find greater productivity dispersion in their TFP measures that use quantity proxies competition (Syverson 2004a and James A. to measure output (actual physical quantities are not avail- Schmitz 2005), the size of sunk costs (Allan able for most producers in their data). Even though it is Collard-Wexler 2010), and the interaction of only a component of revenue-based TFP (the other being the producer’s average price), quantity-based TFP can be product market rivalry and technology spill- more dispersed because it tends to be negatively corre- overs (Nicholas Bloom, Mark Schankerman, lated with prices, as more efficient producers sell at lower and John Van Reenen 2007). Another line of prices. Thus revenue-based productivity measures, which combine quantity-based productivity and prices, tend to study has looked at the interaction of firms’ understate the variation in producers’ physical efficiencies. organizational structures with productivity 328 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XLIX (June 2011) levels (e.g., Vojislav Maksimovic and Gordon literatures, the facts above raise obvious and Phillips 2002, Antoinette Schoar 2002, and crucial questions. Why do firms (or factories, Ali Hortaçsu and Syverson 2007, 2011). stores, offices, or even individual production Labor economists have explored the lines, for that matter) differ so much in their importance of workers’ human capital in abilities to convert inputs into output? Is it explaining productivity differences (John M. dumb luck or instead something—or many Abowd et al. 2005 and Jeremy T. Fox and things—more systematic? Can producers Valérie Smeets 2011), the productivity effects control the factors that influence productiv- of incentive pay (Edward P. Lazear 2000), ity or are they purely external products of the other various human resources practices operating environment? What supports such (Casey Ichniowski and Kathryn Shaw 2003), large productivity differences in equilibrium? managerial talent and practices (Bloom and A decade ago, when Bartelsman and Mark Van Reenen 2007), organizational form Doms (2000) penned the first survey of the (Luis Garicano and Paul Heaton 2007), and micro-data productivity literature for this social connections among coworkers (Oriana journal, researchers were just beginning to Bandiera, Iwan Barankay, and Imran Rasul ask the “Why?” question. Much of the work 2009). There has also been a focus on the to that point had focused on establishing facts role of productivity-driven reallocation on like those above—the “What?” of productiv- labor market dynamics via job creation and ity dispersion. Since then, the literature has destruction (Haltiwanger, Scarpetta, and focused more intensely on the reasons why Helena Schweiger 2008). productivity levels are so different across Perhaps in no other field have the produc- businesses. There has definitely been prog- tivity dispersion patterns noted above had ress. But we’ve also learned more about what a greater influence on the trajectory of the we don’t know, and this is guiding the ways research agenda than in the trade literature. in which the productivity literature will be Theoretical frameworks using heterogeneous- moving. This article is meant to be a guide to productivity firms like Jonathan Eaton and and comment on this research. Samuel Kortum (2002) and Marc J. Melitz I begin by setting some boundaries. I have (2003) are now the dominant conceptual to. A comprehensive overview of micro- lenses through which economists view trade founded productivity research is neither impacts. In these models, the trade impacts possible in this format nor desirable. There vary across producers and depend on their are simply too many studies to allow ade- productivity levels in particular. Aggregate quate coverage of each. First, I will focus on productivity gains come from improved selec- empirical work. This is not because I view tion and heightened competition that trade it as more important than theory. Rather, brings.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Marxist Economics: How Capitalism Works, and How It Doesn't
    MARXIST ECONOMICS: HOW CAPITALISM WORKS, ANO HOW IT DOESN'T 49 Another reason, however, was that he wanted to show how the appear- ance of "equal exchange" of commodities in the market camouflaged ~ , inequality and exploitation. At its most superficial level, capitalism can ' V be described as a system in which production of commodities for the market becomes the dominant form. The problem for most economic analyses is that they don't get beyond th?s level. C~apter Four Commodities, Marx argued, have a dual character, having both "use value" and "exchange value." Like all products of human labor, they have Marxist Economics: use values, that is, they possess some useful quality for the individual or society in question. The commodity could be something that could be directly consumed, like food, or it could be a tool, like a spear or a ham­ How Capitalism Works, mer. A commodity must be useful to some potential buyer-it must have use value-or it cannot be sold. Yet it also has an exchange value, that is, and How It Doesn't it can exchange for other commodities in particular proportions. Com­ modities, however, are clearly not exchanged according to their degree of usefulness. On a scale of survival, food is more important than cars, but or most people, economics is a mystery better left unsolved. Econo­ that's not how their relative prices are set. Nor is weight a measure. I can't mists are viewed alternatively as geniuses or snake oil salesmen. exchange a pound of wheat for a pound of silver.
    [Show full text]
  • Aggregate Productivity Growth: Lessons from Microeconomic Evidence
    Aggregate Productivity Growth: Lessons from Microeconomic Evidence Lucia Foster, John Haltiwanger and C.J. Krizan* June 2000 * Respectively, Bureau of the Census; University of Maryland, Bureau of the Census, and NBER; and Fannie Mae and Bureau of the Census. We thank Tomas Dvorak for helpful research assistance. The analyses and results presented in this paper are attributable to the authors and do not necessarily reflect concurrence by the Bureau of the Census. 1 I. Overview Recent research using establishment and firm level data has raised a variety of conceptual and measurement questions regarding our understanding of aggregate productivity growth.1 Several key, related findings are of interest. First, there is large scale, ongoing reallocation of outputs and inputs across individual producers. Second, the pace of this reallocation varies over time (both secularly and cyclically) and across sectors. Third, much of this reallocation reflects within rather than between sector reallocation. Fourth, there are large differentials in the levels and the rates of growth of productivity across establishments within the same sector. The rapid pace of output and input reallocation along with differences in productivity levels and growth rates are the necessary ingredients for the pace of reallocation to play an important role in aggregate (i.e., industry) productivity growth. However, our review of the existing studies indicates that the measured contribution of such reallocation effects varies over time and across sectors and is sensitive to measurement methodology. An important objective of this paper is to sort out the role of these different factors so that we can understand the nature and the magnitude of the contribution of reallocation to aggregate productivity growth.
    [Show full text]
  • 1- TECHNOLOGY Q L M. Muniagurria Econ 464 Microeconomics Handout
    M. Muniagurria Econ 464 Microeconomics Handout (Part 1) I. TECHNOLOGY : Production Function, Marginal Productivity of Inputs, Isoquants (1) Case of One Input: L (Labor): q = f (L) • Let q equal output so the production function relates L to q. (How much output can be produced with a given amount of labor?) • Marginal productivity of labor = MPL is defined as q = Slope of prod. Function L Small changes i.e. The change in output if we change the amount of labor used by a very small amount. • How to find total output (q) if we only have information about the MPL: “In general” q is equal to the area under the MPL curve when there is only one input. Examples: (a) Linear production functions. Possible forms: q = 10 L| MPL = 10 q = ½ L| MPL = ½ q = 4 L| MPL = 4 The production function q = 4L is graphed below. -1- Notice that if we only have diagram 2, we can calculate output for different amounts of labor as the area under MPL: If L = 2 | q = Area below MPL for L Less or equal to 2 = = in Diagram 2 8 Remark: In all the examples in (a) MPL is constant. (b) Production Functions With Decreasing MPL. Remark: Often this is thought as the case of one variable input (Labor = L) and a fixed factor (land or entrepreneurial ability) (2) Case of Two Variable Inputs: q = f (L, K) L (Labor), K (Capital) • Production function relates L & K to q (total output) • Isoquant: Combinations of L & K that can achieve the same q -2- • Marginal Productivities )q MPL ' Small changes )L K constant )q MPK ' Small changes )K L constant )K • MRTS = - Slope of Isoquant = Absolute value of Along Isoquant )L Examples (a) Linear (L & K are perfect substitutes) Possible forms: q = 10 L + 5 K Y MPL = 10 MPK = 5 q = L + K Y MPL = 1 MPK = 1 q = 2L + K Y MPL = 2 MPK = 1 • The production function q = 2 L + K is graphed below.
    [Show full text]
  • Dangers of Deflation Douglas H
    ERD POLICY BRIEF SERIES Economics and Research Department Number 12 Dangers of Deflation Douglas H. Brooks Pilipinas F. Quising Asian Development Bank http://www.adb.org Asian Development Bank P.O. Box 789 0980 Manila Philippines 2002 by Asian Development Bank December 2002 ISSN 1655-5260 The views expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Asian Development Bank. The ERD Policy Brief Series is based on papers or notes prepared by ADB staff and their resource persons. The series is designed to provide concise nontechnical accounts of policy issues of topical interest to ADB management, Board of Directors, and staff. Though prepared primarily for internal readership within the ADB, the series may be accessed by interested external readers. Feedback is welcome via e-mail ([email protected]). ERD POLICY BRIEF NO. 12 Dangers of Deflation Douglas H. Brooks and Pilipinas F. Quising December 2002 ecently, there has been growing concern about deflation in some Rcountries and the possibility of deflation at the global level. Aggregate demand, output, and employment could stagnate or decline, particularly where debt levels are already high. Standard economic policy stimuli could become less effective, while few policymakers have experience in preventing or halting deflation with alternative means. Causes and Consequences of Deflation Deflation refers to a fall in prices, leading to a negative change in the price index over a sustained period. The fall in prices can result from improvements in productivity, advances in technology, changes in the policy environment (e.g., deregulation), a drop in prices of major inputs (e.g., oil), excess capacity, or weak demand.
    [Show full text]
  • Economics 352: Intermediate Microeconomics
    EC 352: Intermediate Microeconomics, Lecture 7 Economics 352: Intermediate Microeconomics Notes and Sample Questions Chapter 7: Production Functions This chapter will introduce the idea of a production function. A production process uses inputs such as labor, energy, raw materials and capital to produce one (or more) outputs, which may be computer software, steel, massages or anything else that can be sold. A production function is a mathematical relationship between the quantities of inputs used and the maximum quantity of output that can be produced with those quantities of inputs. For example, if the inputs are labor and capital (l and k, respectively), the maximum quantity of output that may be produced is given by: q = f(k, l) Marginal physical product The marginal physical product of a production function is the increase in output resulting from a small increase in one of the inputs, holding other inputs constant. In terms of the math, this is the partial derivative of the production function with respect to that particular input. The marginal product of capital and the marginal product of labor are: ∂q MP = = f k ∂k k ∂q MP = = f l ∂l l The usual assumption is that marginal (physical) product of an input decreases as the quantity of that input increases. This characteristic is called diminishing marginal product. For example, given a certain amount of machinery in a factory, more and more labor may be added, but as more labor is added, at some point the marginal product of labor, or the extra output gained from adding one more worker, will begin to decline.
    [Show full text]
  • Oecd Compendium of Productivity Indicators 2005
    OECD COMPENDIUM OF PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS 2005 ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: • To achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy. • To contribute to sound economic expansion in member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and • To contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countries became members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan (28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973), Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech Republic (21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland (22nd November 1996), Korea (12th December 1996) and the Slovak Republic (14th December 2000). The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD (Article 13 of the OECD Convention). © OECD 2005 FOREWORD Over the past few years, productivity and economic growth have been an important focus of OECD work.
    [Show full text]
  • Retail Inventory Behavior and Business Fluctuations
    ALAN S. BLINDER Princeton University Retail Inventory Behavior and Business Fluctuations THE enigmatic behavior of the U.S. economy during the 1980 recession makes it more imperative than ever that some of the mystery that sur- rounds inventory behavior be solved. On the surface, the economy seems to have reacted quite differently to what appear to be rather similar exter- nal shocks (principally, rapid increases in oil prices) in 1973-75 and in 1979-80. However, if one abstracts from inventory behavior and focuses on final sales, the two recessions look rather similar. Several observations confirm this. First, the briefest recession in U.S. history was also the first in which inventory investment did not swing sharply toward liquidation between the peak and the trough. Second, if one judges the contraction by real final sales instead of real GNP, the 1980 recession was actually far deeper than the "severe" 1973-75 recession.1 And third, the way the 1980 recession was concentrated into a single quarter seems less unusual if one looks at real final sales instead of real GNP. In the 1973-75 reces- I thank Danny Quah for exceptional research assistance. I also thank Gregory Mankiw and Leonard Nakamura for research assistance and Stephenie Sigall and Phyllis Durepos for quickly and efficiently typing the paper. I am grateful to mem- bers of the Brookingspanel and to a numberof colleagues for helpful discussions on this research. I apologize to those I leave out when I mention Angus S. Deaton, David Germany, Wayne Gray, F. Owen Irvine, Jr., Louis J.
    [Show full text]
  • An Interview with Franco Modigliani
    THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS WORKING PAPERS SERIES IN THEORETICAL AND APPLIED ECONOMICS AN INTERVIEW WITH FRANCO MODIGLIANI Interviewed by William A. Barnett University of Kansas Robert Solow MIT THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS WORKING PAPERS SERIES IN THEORETICAL AND APPLIED ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NUMBER 200407 Macroeconomic Dynamics, 4, 2000, 222–256. Printed in the United States of America. MD INTERVIEW AN INTERVIEW WITH FRANCO MODIGLIANI Interviewed by William A. Barnett Washington University in St. Louis and Robert Solow Massachusetts Institute of Technology November 5–6, 1999 Franco Modigliani’s contributions in economics and finance have transformed both fields. Although many other major contributions in those fields have come and gone, Modigliani’s contributions seem to grow in importance with time. His famous 1944 article on liquidity preference has not only remained required reading for generations of Keynesian economists but has become part of the vocabulary of all economists. The implications of the life-cycle hypothesis of consumption and saving provided the primary motivation for the incorporation of finite lifetime models into macroeconomics and had a seminal role in the growth in macroeconomics of the overlapping generations approach to modeling of Allais, Samuelson, and Diamond. Modigliani and Miller’s work on the cost of capital transformed corporate finance and deeply influenced subsequent research on investment, capital asset pricing, and recent research on derivatives. Modigliani received the Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics in 1985. In macroeconomic policy, Modigliani has remained influential on two continents. In the United States, he played a central role in the creation of a the Federal Re- serve System’s large-scale quarterly macroeconometric model, and he frequently participated in the semiannual meetings of academic consultants to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • The Survival of Capitalism: Reproduction of the Relations Of
    THE SURVIVAL OF CAPITALISM Henri Lefebvre THE SURVIVAL OF CAPITALISM Reproduction of the Relations of Production Translated by Frank Bryant St. Martin's Press, New York. Copyright © 1973 by Editions Anthropos Translation copyright © 1976 by Allison & Busby All rights reserved. For information, write: StMartin's Press. Inc.• 175 Fifth Avenue. New York. N.Y. 10010 Printed in Great Britain Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 75-32932 First published in the United States of America in 1976 AFFILIATED PUBLISHERS: Macmillan Limited. London­ also at Bombay. Calcutta, Madras and Melbourne CONTENTS 1. The discovery 7 2. Reproduction of the relations of production 42 3. Is the working class revolutionary? 92 4. Ideologies of growth 102 5. Alternatives 120 Index 128 1 THE DISCOVERY I The reproduction of the relations of production, both as a con­ cept and as a reality, has not been "discovered": it has revealed itself. Neither the adventurer in knowledge nor the mere recorder of facts can sight this "continent" before actually exploring it. If it exists, it rose from the waves like a reef, together with the ocean itself and the spray. The metaphor "continent" stands for capitalism as a mode of production, a totality which has never been systematised or achieved, is never "over and done with", and is still being realised. It has taken a considerable period of work to say exactly what it is that is revealing itself. Before the question could be accurately formulated a whole constellation of concepts had to be elaborated through a series of approximations: "the everyday", "the urban", "the repetitive" and "the differential"; "strategies".
    [Show full text]
  • Productivity and Costs by Industry: Manufacturing and Mining
    For release 10:00 a.m. (ET) Thursday, April 29, 2021 USDL-21-0725 Technical information: (202) 691-5606 • [email protected] • www.bls.gov/lpc Media contact: (202) 691-5902 • [email protected] PRODUCTIVITY AND COSTS BY INDUSTRY MANUFACTURING AND MINING INDUSTRIES – 2020 Labor productivity rose in 41 of the 86 NAICS four-digit manufacturing industries in 2020, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The footwear industry had the largest productivity gain with an increase of 14.5 percent. (See chart 1.) Three out of the four industries in the mining sector posted productivity declines in 2020, with the greatest decline occurring in the metal ore mining industry with a decrease of 6.7 percent. Although more mining and manufacturing industries recorded productivity gains in 2020 than 2019, declines in both output and hours worked were widespread. Output fell in over 90 percent of detailed industries in 2020 and 87 percent had declines in hours worked. Seventy-two industries had declines in both output and hours worked in 2020. This was the greatest number of such industries since 2009. Within this set of industries, 35 had increasing labor productivity. Chart 1. Manufacturing and mining industries with the largest change in productivity, 2020 (NAICS 4-digit industries) Output Percent Change 15 Note: Bubble size represents industry employment. Value in the bubble Seafood product 10 indicates percent change in labor preparation and productivity. Sawmills and wood packaging preservation 10.7 5 Animal food Footwear 14.5 0 12.2 Computer and peripheral equipment -9.6 9.9 -5 Cut and sew apparel Communications equipment -9.5 12.7 Textile and fabric -10 10.4 finishing mills Turbine and power -11.0 -15 transmission equipment -10.1 -20 -9.9 Rubber products -14.7 -25 Office furniture and Motor vehicle parts fixtures -30 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 Hours Worked Percent Change Change in productivity is approximately equal to the change in output minus the change in hours worked.
    [Show full text]
  • Market Size, Division of Labor, and Firm Productivity
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES MARKET SIZE, DIVISION OF LABOR, AND FIRM PRODUCTIVITY Thomas Chaney Ralph Ossa Working Paper 18243 http://www.nber.org/papers/w18243 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 July 2012 We are grateful to Pol Antras, Holger Breinlich, Alejandro Cunat, Elhanan Helpman, Gianmarco Ottaviano, Henry Overman, Stephen Redding, and Tony Venables. We also thank the editor, Robert W. Staiger, and two anonymous referees, for their thoughtful comments. All remaining errors are ours. This work extends the second chapter of Ossa’s Ph.D. dissertation originally entitled "Trade Liberalization, Outsourcing, and Firm Productivity". The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer- reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2012 by Thomas Chaney and Ralph Ossa. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Market Size, Division of Labor, and Firm Productivity Thomas Chaney and Ralph Ossa NBER Working Paper No. 18243 July 2012 JEL No. F10,F12,L22,L25 ABSTRACT We generalize Krugman's (1979) 'new trade' model by allowing for an explicit production chain in which a range of tasks is performed sequentially by a number of specialized teams. We demonstrate that an increase in market size induces a deeper division of labor among these teams which leads to an increase in firm productivity.
    [Show full text]
  • Texte Intégral
    Working Paper History as heresy: unlearning the lessons of economic orthodoxy O'SULLIVAN, Mary Abstract In spring 2020, in the face of the covid-19 pandemic, central bankers in rich countries made unprecedented liquidity injections to stave off an economic crisis. Such radical action by central banks gained legitimacy during the 2008-2009 global financial crisis and enjoys strong support from prominent economists and economic historians. Their certainty reflects a remarkable agreement on a specific interpretation of the Great Depression of the 1930s in the United States, an interpretation developed by Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz in A Monetary History of the United States (1963). In this article, I explore the origins, the influence and the limits of A Monetary History’s interpretation for the insights it offers on the relationship between theory and history in the study of economic life. I show how historical research has been mobilised to show the value of heretical ideas in order to challenge economic orthodoxies. Friedman and Schwartz understood the heretical potential of historical research and exploited it in A Monetary History to question dominant interpretations of the Great Depression in their time. Now that [...] Reference O'SULLIVAN, Mary. History as heresy: unlearning the lessons of economic orthodoxy. Geneva : Paul Bairoch Institute of Economic History, 2021, 38 p. Available at: http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:150852 Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version. 1 / 1 FACULTÉ DES SCIENCES DE LA SOCIÉTÉ Paul Bairoch Institute of Economic History Economic History Working Papers | No. 3/2021 History as Heresy: Unlearning the Lessons of Economic Orthodoxy The Tawney Memorial Lecture 2021 Mary O’Sullivan Paul Bairoch Institute of Economic History, University of Geneva, UniMail, bd du Pont-d'Arve 40, CH- 1211 Genève 4.
    [Show full text]