Teoria de Productividad PDF

American Economic Review 2008, 98:1, 394–425
http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.98.1.394
Reallocation, Firm Turnover, and Efficiency:

Selection on Productivity or Profitability?
By Lucia Foster, John Haltiwanger, and Chad Syverson*
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)
A robust finding of the large and growing literature using business-level microdata is that
within-industry reallocation, and its associated firm turnover, shape changes in industry aggre-
gates. The effect of this churning process on aggregate productivity has received particular theo-
retical and empirical attention.
Models of such selection mechanisms characterize industries as collections of heterogeneous-
productivity producers and link producers’ productivity levels to their performance and survival in
the industry (see, for example, Boyan Jovanovic (1982), Hugo A. Hopenhayn (1992), Richard Ericson
and Ariel Pakes (1995), Marc J. Melitz (2003), and Marcus Asplund and Volker Nocke (2006)). The
important mechanism driving aggregate productivity movements in these models is the reallocation
of market shares to more efficient producers, either through market share shifts among incumbents
or through entry and exit. Low productivity plants are less likely to survive and thrive than their
more efficient counterparts, creating selection-driven aggregate (industry) productivity increases.
Hence the theories point to the productivity-survival link as a crucial driver of productivity growth.
The related empirical literature has documented this mechanism as a robust feature of indus-
try dynamics. Businesses’ measured productivity levels are persistent and vary significantly
within industries, suggesting that productivity “types” among producers have an inherent idio-
syncratic element. Reallocation, entry, and exit rates are large. Businesses with higher measured
* Foster: Center for Economic Studies, Bureau of the Census, Room 2K130F, Washington, DC 20233 (e-mail: Lucia.
S.Foster@census.gov); Haltiwanger: Department of Economics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742,
and National Bureau of Economic Research (e-mail: haltiwan@econ.umd.edu); Syverson: Department of Economics,
University of Chicago, 1126 E. 59th St., Chicago, IL 60637, and National Bureau of Economic Research (e-mail:
syverson@uchicago.edu). We thank Susanto Basu, Judy Chevalier, Steven Davis, Kevin Murphy, Derek Neal, Mark
Roberts, Jim Tybout, and anonymous referees for helpful comments. We have also benefited from seminar participants
at Chicago, Duke, London School of Economics, Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank, Purdue, Yale, NBER Summer
Institute, Upjohn Conference, CAED, NBER Productivity Meetings, and the ASSA meetings. We thank the Kauffman
Foundation and the National Science Foundation for financial support. This work is unofficial and thus has not under-
gone the review accorded to official Census Bureau publications. The views expressed in the paper are those of the
authors and not necessarily those of the US Census Bureau.

Eric J. Bartelsman and Mark Doms (2000) review much of this literature.
394
VOL. 98 NO. 1 FOSTER ET AL.: SELECTION ON PRODUCTIVITY OR PROFITABILITY? 395
productivity levels tend to grow faster and are more likely to survive than their less productive
industry cohorts. These signs all point to a selection mechanism at work.
In reality, however, the productivity-survival link is a simplification. Selection is on profit-
ability, not productivity (though the two are likely correlated). Productivity is only one of several
possible idiosyncratic factors that determine profits, however. Other idiosyncratic factors may
affect survival as well.
Given the empirical findings discussed above on the importance of productivity to survival,
does this theoretical simplification matter? There is reason to believe it may. A limitation of
empirical research with business microdata is that establishment-level prices are typically unob-
served. Previous studies have had to measure establishment output as revenue divided by a com-
mon industry-level deflator. Therefore within-industry price differences are embodied in output
and productivity measures. If prices reflect idiosyncratic demand shifts or market power varia-
tion rather than quality or production efficiency differences, a reasonable supposition for many
industries, then high “productivity” businesses may not be particularly technologically efficient.
If this is the case, the empirical literature documents the importance of selection on profits, but
not necessarily productivity. Therefore the connection between productivity and survival prob-
ability, reallocation, and industry dynamics may be overstated, and the impact of demand-side
influences on survival understated.
In this paper, we attempt to measure the separate influences of idiosyncratic productivity and
demand on selection. We can explore this bifurcation systematically because, unlike most of the
previous empirical work on the subject, we are able to observe both producers’ physical outputs
and prices. We can then directly measure physical efficiency (the quantity of physical units of
output produced per unit of input) as well as estimate idiosyncratic demand shocks at the busi-
ness level. We use these measures to look at the independent contributions of technology and
demand heterogeneity on producer dynamics and within-industry reallocation.
Our empirical strategy is to focus on establishments producing physically homogeneous
products. Avoiding large quality variation in producers’ physical outputs—the dimension along
which we have direct quantity measures—allows us to highlight the quantity-versus-revenue
distinction that is otherwise confounded in the literature. For example, one might reasonably
consider two plants’ outputs of 1000 cubic feet of ready-mixed concrete as equivalent. And if
these plants require the same inputs to produce this much output, it seems reasonable to think
of them as being equally technically efficient. Note that this equivalence does not necessarily
imply that these producers operate in an undifferentiated product market. Prices could vary
within industries because, for instance, geographic demand variations, or webs of history-laden
relationships between particular consumers and producers that create producer-specific demand
shifts. (We discuss in detail in Section IIC what factors might explain price/demand variations
across producers in our sample.) The output equivalence in this example is meaningful not due

While the models cited above and their literature counterparts do actually construct their selection mechanism on
profits, productivity is the only idiosyncratic producer characteristic. Thus producer profits are a positive monotonic
function of productivity, and selection on profits is equivalent to selection on productivity.

Syverson (2004), who uses physical output data as we do in this study, is an exception to this. In addition, in a series
of papers using Colombian data, Marcela Eslava, Haltiwanger, Adriana Kugler, and Maurice Kugler (2004, 2005a,
2005b) use plant-level output and input price data in a manner similar to that used here. The focus of the latter papers
is in the impact of market reform on firm dynamics, but at the core, the findings for Colombia are consistent with the
findings reported here.

Input price variation is another possible business-specific profitability influence that could also show up in produc-
tivity measures. Businesses enjoying idiosyncratically low input prices will look as though they are hiring fewer inputs
per unit output. While we abstract from the effects of input price variation here, Haijime Katayama, Shihua Lu, and
James Tybout (2003) and Yuriy Gorodnichenko (2005) argue factor prices are potentially important. We see this area
as a possible expansion point for future work.
396 THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW March 2008
to the complete absence of differentiation, but rather because there is no differentiation along
the dimension in which we measure output—the physical unit. We have chosen our sample
industries based on the notion that a consumer should be roughly indifferent between unlabeled
units of the industry output. This upfront effort to obtain homogeneity aside, we will consider
below, in light of the evidence, whether the patterns we observe are consistent with this suppos-
edly small quality variation.
The specific products that we investigate are corrugated and solid fiber boxes (henceforth
referred to as boxes), white pan bread (bread), carbon black, roasted coffee beans (coffee), ready-
mixed concrete (concrete), oak flooring (flooring), motor gasoline (gasoline), block ice, processed
ice, hardwood plywood (plywood), and raw cane sugar (sugar). Producers of these products make
outputs that are among the most physically homogeneous in the manufacturing sector. In addi-
tion to product homogeneity, the set of producers is large enough to exhibit sufficiently rich
within-industry reallocation and turnover.
We are not the first to note the possible difficulties involved in using revenue-based output and
productivity measures when using microdata. Thomas A. Abbott (1992) documents the extent of
price dispersion within broad industries and outlines possible implications for measurement of
aggregates. Tor J. Klette and Zvi Griliches (1996) and Jacques Mairesse and Jordi Jaumandreu
(2005) consider how intra-industry price fluctuations can affect production function and produc-
tivity estimates. Melitz (2000), Jan De Loecker (2005) and Gorodnichenko (2005) have extended
these analyses to accommodate multi-product producers and factor price variation. Katayama,
Lu, and Tybout (2003), whose theme perhaps most closely matches that of this paper, demon-
strate that revenue-based output and expenditure-based input measures can lead to productivity
mismeasurement and incorrect interpretations about how heterogeneous producers respond to
shocks and associated welfare implications. Each of these papers forwards an alternative method
of empirical inference that attempts to avoid the difficulties inherent in productivity analysis
when business-level price data is unavailable.
This paper shares an obvious common thread with this earlier body of work. It departs in that,
rather than using alternative estimation strategies to try separating confounded demand-side
impacts from technological efficiency, we have the unusual opportunity to compute physical
productivity using the data at hand. We can therefore directly compare revenue-based productiv-
ity measures with measures of physical efficiency, and show precisely the impacts of each on
selection dynamics and industry evolution. We can further use our business-level price observa-
tions to estimate the influence of idiosyncratic demand elements on survival. We do not mean
to imply that having to econometrically infer true technological productivity is a weakness of
the earlier research. Indeed, the thrust of those papers was to seek alternate inference methods,
given that revenue-based output measures are so ubiquitous. We instead seek to take advantage
of observing both “standard” microdata and the much more rare quantity data in order to deter-
mine definitively (at least for our sample industries) the differences between revenue-based and
physical output measures. The hope is, of course, that our findings for a small subset of industries
offer insight into these links in the broader economy.

If prices varied, instead, primarily due to quality differences within a unit of physical output, then the sorts of
comparisons above would be less meaningful. Asserting output equivalence between, say, two automobile assemblers
producing 1000 cars each, is dubious since there is considerable scope for quality variation even within the unit of
output measurement (one car).

Seven of our products are in the group of thirteen products that Mark J. Roberts and Dylan Supina (1996, 2000)
use in their studies of establishment-level price variation. We could not use all thirteen products due to data availability
issues. The four products that we study that are not used in the Roberts and Supina studies are carbon black, block ice,
processed ice, and raw cane sugar. There are also homogeneous-output industries with large numbers of businesses
outside of the manufacturing sector. Unfortunately, the microdata for these other sectors lacks the detailed production
information necessary for this study.
To preview our findings, we note that the large and persistent within-industry dispersion
observed in revenue-based productivity measures is also present in prices and physical-quan-
tity-based productivity measures. Interestingly, physical productivity is actually more dispersed
than revenue-based productivity even though the former is a component of the latter. This pat-
tern reflects the fact that, while the two productivity measures are highly correlated with each
other, physical productivity is negatively correlated with establishment-level prices while rev-
enue productivity is positively correlated with prices. The negative physical productivity-price
correlation is consistent with equilibria where producers are price setters and more efficient
businesses find it optimal to pass along their cost savings through lower prices.
We exploit the observed variation in prices, physical output and physical productivity to esti-
mate plants’ idiosyncratic demand levels. Our physical productivity measures provide a unique
and powerful instrument for price to overcome the typical simultaneity bias in demand estimation.
The demand estimates allow us to decompose plant-level price variation into two components,
one reflecting movements along the demand curve due to differences in physical efficiency, the
other reflecting producers’ idiosyncratic demand shift.
With regard to industry evolution, we find that exiting businesses have lower productivity lev-
els—either revenue based or physical quantity based—than incumbents, though the gap is larger
in magnitude for revenue productivity. Entering businesses, on the other hand, have higher physi-
cal productivity levels than incumbents, but their revenue-based productivity advantage is much
less pronounced and sometimes nonexistent. Similar patterns are seen when we compare young
businesses to their more mature competitors. For all of these findings, the key source of discrepan-
cies between the estimated effects of revenue and physical productivity is that young businesses
charge lower prices than incumbents. This also suggests that the current literature understates the
contribution of entry to aggregate productivity growth.
We bring these pieces together to explore the determinants of market selection. As in the
existing literature, we find that plants with lower revenue productivity are more likely to exit.
When we decompose revenue productivity into physical productivity and prices, though, we find
that both independently affect survival and the magnitudes of their individual effects are larger
than their combined effect through revenue productivity measures. That is, while low prices and
low physical productivity are both associated with higher probabilities of exit in isolation, the
marginal effect of each is substantially enhanced by controlling for the other. When we further
decompose prices into technology and demand fundamentals, our analysis shows that producers
facing lower demand shocks are more likely to exit. In fact, our estimates suggest that demand
variations across producers are the dominant factor in determining survival.
The paper proceeds as follows. The next section provides the theoretical motivation for the
paper by highlighting the multi-dimensional nature of selection with a simple model of imperfect
competition among producers that differ not only in their cost/productivity levels, but also in the
idiosyncratic demand conditions they face. Section II describes the data and measurement issues
involved in our empirical study. Basic empirical facts about productivity and price distributions
in our industries are then discussed in Section III, and the central results regarding selection
dynamics are presented in Section IV. Section V describes robustness checks of our empirical
results, and Section VI concludes.
I. Theoretical Motivation
We construct a model that shows how idiosyncratic technology and demand factors can jointly
determine producers’ long-run survival prospects in industry equilibrium. While simple, the
model has the advantages of having an analytically tractable equilibrium and a straightforward
selection mechanism. To further enhance the presentation’s clarity, we assume a specific demand
system for industry products. It is important to note, however, that the qualitative characteristics
of the results can be obtained using other demand structures.
An industry is comprised of a continuum of producers of measure N. Producers are indexed
by i (I is the set of industry producers), each making a distinct variety of the industry product.
Demand for the industry’s product is embodied in the representative industry consumer’s prefer-
ences over varieties, which is given by
U 5 y 13 1a 1 di 2 qi di 2 h a3 qi dib 2 2 g3 q2i di

1 1
(1)
i[I 2 i[I 2 i[I
5 y 1 a3 qi di 2 ah 1 b a3 qi dib 2 1 3 di qi di 2 g3 1qi 2 qˉ 2 2 di,

1 g 1

i[I 2 N i[I i[I 2 i[I
where y is the quantity of a numeraire good, a . 0, h . 0, and g $ 0. The variable di is a

variety-specific, mean-zero taste shifter; qi is the quantity of good i consumed; and qˉ 5 N 21∫qi di.
Utility is thus a quadratic in total consumption of the industry’s output, plus a term capturing
idiosyncratic tastes for particular varieties, minus a term increasing in the variance of consump-
tion across varieties. This last term introduces an incentive to equate consumption levels of
different varieties. The parameter g embodies the extent to which varieties are substitutable for
one another; a higher g imposes a greater utility loss from consuming idiosyncratically large or
small quantities of particular qi, limiting consumer responses to price differences among indus-
try producers. As g S 0, substitutability becomes perfect: only the total taste-adjusted quantity
of industry varieties consumed affects utility. The parameters a and h shift overall demand for
the industry’s output relative to the numeraire, and di shifts demand for particular goods relative
to the level of a.
The technology is a single-input production function
(2) qi 5 vi xi,
where xi is the input and vi is producer-specific productivity. The input can be purchased at a
price wi, which we also allow to be specific to producers. Therefore producers’ total costs are
Ci 1qi 2 5 1wi /vi 2 qi with marginal costs equal to wi/vi. Hence there is within-industry variation in
demand 1di 2 , productivity 1vi 2 , and factor prices 1wi 2.
These demand and supply fundamentals imply (see Foster, Haltiwanger, and Syverson 2005)
that a producer’s profit-maximizing price is
1 g 1 hN ˉ 1 hN 1 1 wi
(3) pi 5 a2 d1 pˉ 1 di 1
2 hN 1 g 2 hN 1 g 2 hN 1 g 2 2 vi

This demand system is a modified version of the one used in a different context by Melitz and Gianmarco I. P.
Ottaviano (forthcoming).

A decrease in g has another effect: it raises the utility of any given bundle of industry goods and therefore draws
in expenditure into the industry from the numeraire. While this will impact certain equilibrium elements such as the
average price level and number of industry producers, it does not impact any of the qualitative implications we draw on
below. We thank a referee for bringing this second effect to our attention.
and maximized profits are
1 g hN hN wi 2
(4) pi 5 a a2 dˉ 1 pˉ 1 di 2 b ,
4g hN 1 g hN 1 g hN 1 g vi
where pˉ and dˉ are the average price and quality weight among industry producers 1dˉ need not be
zero in equilibrium2. Prices and profits are intuitively increasing in the overall level of demand
for the industry’s output, the average price of industry competitors, and demand for the specific
producer’s variety 1measured by di 2. They are decreasing in the average quality level of the
producer’s competitors. Higher marginal costs lead to higher prices and lower profits.
We can compute the deviation of any particular producer’s price from the industry average by
taking the mean of (3) across producers and subtracting it from (3). This gives
1 1 wi w
(5) pi 2 pˉ 5 1di 2 dˉ 2 1 a 2 a bb ,
2 2 vi v
where 1 w/v 2 is the average marginal cost in equilibrium. Note that both higher-demand and
higher-cost (those facing high input prices or the less efficient) producers charge higher prices.
We will see this dual influence acting in our empirical work below.
Define the “profitability index” of a particular producer as follows:
wi
(6) fi K di 2 .
vi
Note that this index captures both idiosyncratic demand for producer i’s product and its own
marginal cost. Expression (4) implies a critical value of this index, f*, where producers with
fi , f* will not find operations profitable.10 If we set (4) equal to zero and then solve to obtain f*
explicitly, we can substitute f* and (6) back into (4) to obtain a simple expression for a producer’s
operating profits in terms of its own and the cutoff profitability levels:
1
(7) pi 5 1f 2 f*2 2.
4g i
A large pool of ex ante identical potential entrants decides whether to enter the industry as
follows. They first choose whether to pay a sunk entry cost s in order to receive demand, produc-
tivity, and input price draws from a joint distribution with probability density function f 1d, v, w2.
The marginal distributions of d, v, and w are defined respectively over 32de, de 4 , 3vl, vu 4 , and 30,
wu 4 , where de , a and vl . 0. (Values de, vl, vu, and wu are otherwise arbitrary, and while the
marginal distribution of d need not be symmetric, we assume here for simplicity that it is.) If they
choose to receive draws, they determine, after observing them, whether to begin production and
earn the corresponding operating profits (7). Clearly, only potential entrants with draws yielding
a profitability index that offers nonnegative operating profits 1fi $ f*2 will choose to produce in
equilibrium. Hence the expected value of paying s is the expected value of (7) over f 1d, v, w2 ,

The derivation does not account for the fact that, since marginal utility for any particular good is bounded at a 1 di
(see (1)), some goods may not be purchased at the price given by (3). However, one can show that any producer operating
in equilibrium (i.e., satisfying qi . 0 and pi $ 0) has an optimal price given by (3) that is below this marginal utility
bound. See Foster, Haltiwanger, and Syverson (2005).
10
Note that while the quadratic form of the profit function (4) implies positive profits for fi , f*, this would also
imply that qi , 0.
conditional on drawing fi $ f*. This expected value is obviously affected by the cutoff cost level
f*. A free-entry condition pins down this value: f* must set the net expected value of entry into
the industry V e equal to zero. Thus f* satisfies
V e 5 3 3 3
wu vu de
1
(8) 1fi 2 f*2 2f 1d, v, w2 dd dv dw 2 s 5 0.
0 vl f*1w/v 4g
This expression summarizes the industry equilibrium. (The equilibrium mass of producers
N is determined by a, h, g, 1 w/v 2 , and f*, and can be solved for by substituting the pˉ implied
by (3) into the explicit expression for f*.) It combines the two conditions that all producers
make nonnegative operating profits and that entry occurs until the expected value of taking
demand, efficiency, and factor price draws is zero. Notice that the equilibrium requires producers
to obtain a combination of idiosyncratic draws high enough to meet the profitability threshold.
The particular value of this threshold is affected by the distributions of the demand, efficiency,
and factor price draws, as well as industry-wide demand and technology parameters, discussed
below. Hence the model points to idiosyncratic technology and demand factors jointly determin-
ing the likelihood of survivorship in the industry.11
A. Productivity Measures
We now derive from the model the productivity measures corresponding to those discussed
in the introduction. The first measure, which we call physical productivity (TFPQ), is based on
quantities of physical output:
qi v i xi
TFPQi 5 5 x 5 v i.
xi i
Notice that TFPQi equals the producer’s “true” technical efficiency level vi.
The second productivity measure, which we call revenue productivity (TFPR), is based on
producer revenue:
piqi 1 ga 1 hN 1 1
TFPRi 5 5 pi vi 5 vi 1 Apˉ 2 dˉ B vi 1 divi 1 vi.
xi 2 hN 1 g 2 hN 1 g 2 2
Empirical work with micro data typically uses revenue-based productivity measures. While it is
positively correlated with true productivity vi, TFPRi confounds idiosyncratic demand and fac-
tor price effects with efficiency differences. Producers can have high TFPR levels because they
are efficient, but this can also be driven by high producer-specific demand.12
11
As a two-stage entry and production model, our framework abstracts from dynamics. It can thus be interpreted as
highlighting selection effects across long-run industry equilibria. However, embedding our model into a fully dynamic
framework like that in Asplund and Nocke (2006) would be conceptually straightforward (albeit space-consuming).
An additional implication that Asplund-Nocke-type dynamics would make explicit is that the quantitative impact of
profitability components on survival depend on the persistence of their plant-level stochastic processes. That is, a given
change in (say) plant-level demand will have a larger effect on a plant’s survival the greater is the persistence of the
idiosyncratic demand process. We will see this feature in the empirical work below.
12
In practice, comprehensive input quantity data are rarely available, so expenditures are used instead 1 i.e., total
inputs are measured as wi xi 2 . This would imply that TFPQ reflects plants’ idiosyncratic cost components, both tech-
nological fundamentals and factor prices, while TFPR still confounds these supply-side factors with demand-side
effects.
B. Comparative Statics
The model yields implications about the relationship between exogenous parameters and f*,
the equilibrium cutoff profitability level. From these we can draw connections between changes
in industry-wide demand or technology parameters and survivorship.
Using the implicit function theorem on (8) yields two comparative statics of interest: df*/dg
, 0 and df*/ds , 0. The first indicates that a decrease in subsitutability (an increase in g)
leads to a lower cutoff profitability cost level. This is intuitive; lower substitution possibilities
for consumers protect producers with less appealing products or higher costs from being driven
out of business by high-demand and/or low-cost competitors. The second is that a higher sunk
entry cost, s, makes it easier for relatively unprofitable (low-demand and/or high-cost) producers
to survive in equilibrium. Higher entry costs reduce the number of potential entrants who buy
profitability draws, lowering the highest order statistics of draws among potential entrants that
end up producing in equilibrium.
C. Discussion
The model offers several insights that we test in the data. First, selection and survival in indus-
try equilibrium can depend on both producer-specific technology and demand factors. Second,
shifts in aggregate industry conditions interact with idiosyncratic factors to determine the mar-
gins along which selection occurs (i.e., as f* shifts). Whether such shifts “bite” harder on, say,
the demand or technical efficiency margin depends on the joint density of the producer-specific
draws f 1d, v, w2. This question is one area of focus for the empirical work below. Third, the
producer-specific deviation from average industry price is positively correlated with idiosyn-
cratic demand and negatively correlated with true productivity. And finally, revenue-based TFP
measures are positively correlated with true productivity, but they also confound idiosyncratic
demand with efficiency factors.
II. Data and Measurement Issues
We explore the demand-efficiency-survival links using establishment-level data for producers

of eleven manufacturing products. The data is from the Census of Manufactures (CM). The CM
is conducted quinquenially in years ending in “2” and “7” and covers the universe of manufac-
turing plants. We select census years 1977, 1982, 1987, 1992, and 1997 for our sample based
upon the availability and quality of physical output data in the CM.13 The CM collects informa-
tion on plants’ annual value of shipments by seven-digit SIC product category and, when feasible,
shipments in physical units. The CM also contains production worker and nonproduction worker
employment, production worker hours, book values of equipment and structures, cost of materi-
als, and cost of energy usage.
The unit of observation in our sample is the establishment (“plant”). Our product definitions
are built up from the seven-digit SIC product classification system. Some of our eleven products
are the only seven-digit product in their respective four-digit standard industrial classification
(SIC) industry, and thus the product defines the industry. This is true of, for example, ready-
mixed concrete. Others are single seven-digit products that are parts of industries that make
13
A problem with CMs prior to our sample is that it is more difficult to identify balancing product codes (these are
used to make sure the sum of the plant’s product-specific shipment values equals the plant’s separately reported total
value of shipments). A related problem is that there are erratic time series patterns in the number of establishments
reporting physical quantities. Given our focus on entry and exit, we chose to focus on the data in 1977 and beyond.
multiple products. Raw cane sugar, for instance, is one seven-digit product produced by the four-
digit sugar and confectionary products industry. Finally, some of our eleven products are combi-
nations of seven-digit products within the same four-digit industry. For example, the product we
call boxes is actually comprised of roughly ten seven-digit products.14
We calculate unit prices for each producer using their reported revenue and physical output.15
These prices are then adjusted to a common 1987 basis using the revenue-weighted geometric
mean of the product price across all of the plants producing the product in our sample. In the
analysis that follows, we use the log of this real price.
We also compute three total factor productivity (TFP) values for each plant. Each measure
follows the typical index form
(9) tfpit 5 yit 2 allit 2 akkit 2 ammit 2 aeeit ,
where the lower-case letters indicate logarithms of establishment-level TFP, gross output, labor
hours, capital stocks, materials, and energy inputs, and aj 1 j 5 5l, k, m, e 62 are the factor elas-
ticities for the corresponding inputs.16 Labor inputs are measured in hours, capital as plants’
reported book values of equipment and structures deflated to 1987 dollars, and materials and
energy inputs are the reported expenditures on each deflated using the corresponding input price
indices from the NBER Productivity Database. Because we use expenditures to compute materi-
als and energy use, idiosyncratic establishment-level variation in input prices will be captured
here as high measured inputs and, in turn, low measured productivity. For many purposes, this
does not pose a problem (we discuss this further below), because the implications of being high
cost are the same as those of low productivity.17 To measure the input elasticities aj, we use
14
The exact definition of the eleven products can be found in the Web Appendix (http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.
php?doi=10.1257/aer.98.1.394). In cases where we combine products, we base the decision on our impression of the
available physical quantity metric’s ability to capture output variations across the seven-digit products without intro-
ducing serious measurement problems due to product differentiation. In boxes, for instance, the several seven-digit
products differ in their final demand sector; e.g., classifications include “boxes for glass, clay, and stone products,” and
“boxes for lumber and wood products, including furniture,” and “ boxes for electrical machinery, equipment, supplies,
and appliances.” While there may be some slight variations in the physical attributes of these different types of boxes,
we presume that short tons (our physical output measure) of these box types are comparable among one another. That
is, a plant making 1000 tons of furniture boxes has the same output as one making 1000 tons of appliance boxes.
15
The reported revenues and physical quantities are annual aggregates, so the unit price is an annual average. This
is equivalent to a quantity-weighted average of all transaction prices charged by the plant during the year.
16
An implicit assumption in this index is constant returns to scale. If the scale elasticity were different from one,
each of the input elasticities aj should be multiplied by the scale elasticity. Syverson (2004) actually estimates a physi-
cal production function for ready-mixed concrete plants and finds constant returns to scale (the estimated scale elastic-
ity is 0.996). On this basis, we are confident of our constant returns assumption for the most prominent product/industry
in our sample. In further explorations of the influence of the assumed scale elasticities, we found our results robust to
modest departures from unitary scale elasticities, and assuming decreasing returns of any degree served only to rein-
force the survival effect of higher productivity. We did see sensitivity when increasing returns were assumed to be large
enough (around 1.1 or above). This is because assuming high enough scale elasticities can make the correlation between
TFP and plant size negative. Since large plants are more likely to survive, as will be seen below, our estimates of the
survival effect of productivity shrink in magnitude, and in extreme cases can actually imply higher productivity plants
are more likely to exit. We are not particularly concerned about this sensitivity, however. First, there are the concrete
results described above. In addition, the empirical literature on plant-level production function estimation supports the
assumption of constant returns to scale (or if anything decreasing returns to scale)—see, e.g., Martin N. Baily, Charles
Hulten and David Campbell (1992) and G. Steven Olley and Pakes (1996). Second, many researchers have found a
positive correlation between plant size and productivity using various methods of TFP measurement. Third, regardless
of what the scale elasticity is, equilibrium selection tends to create a positive correlation between plant size and TFP.
This suggests the negative correlation that we found is likely to be an artifact of imposing a large degree of increasing
returns that is not suggested by observed input and output patterns.
17
Timothy Dunne and Roberts (1992) and Roberts and Supina (1996, 2000) use CM materials price data and find
that plants facing high materials prices charge high output prices. Syverson (2007) finds that there is also a relationship
between the dispersion of local materials and output price distributions. We do not use the materials data here because
industries’ average cost shares over our sample. Labor, materials, and energy cost shares are
computed from reported expenditures in the CM, while capital cost shares are constructed as
reported equipment and building stocks multiplied by their respective capital rental rates for
each plant’s corresponding two-digit industry. Further details on the construction of input mea-
sures and elasticities can be found in the Web Appendix.18
The difference between our three TFP indices lies in the log output measure yi. The first index,
physical productivity (TFPQ), uses the physical output data described above.19 As we noted
earlier, TFPQ variation reflects dispersion in physical efficiency and possibly factor input prices;
it essentially reflects a producer’s average cost per unit. The next two indices are revenue-based
measures of productivity. They differ in their nominal revenue measure and the price deflator
used to construct real revenue. We call one index traditional TFP (TFPT), since it corresponds
to the standard revenue-based output measure used in the literature. This index measures out-
put as the dollar value of shipments adjusted for inventory changes, deflated by the four-digit
industry-level shipments deflator from the NBER Productivity Database. The final TFP index
measures output as the deflated nominal revenue from product sales, where the deflator is the
revenue-weighted geometric mean price across all plants making that product in our sample.
We call this index revenue-based productivity (TFPR). TFPR satisfies the simple identity that it
equals the sum of TFPQ (already in logged terms) and logged plant level prices. Thus one can
interpret much of our analysis below as decomposing TFPR into its two components: physical
efficiency and prices.20
A. Rules for Inclusion in the Sample
While the Economic Census data we use is very rich, it still has limitations that make neces-
sary three restrictions on the set of producers included in our sample. First, we exclude plants in
our focus is on industry evolution, and the number of plants for which materials prices are available is considerably
more limited than our current sample. Idiosyncratic variation in labor costs may be especially difficult to disentangle
as wage variation across plants undoubtedly reflects skill mix differences across plants.
18
There are a number of alternative means of measuring factor elasticities. One is to estimate factor elasticities
using either an instrumental variables procedure or the proxy methods developed by Olley and Pakes (1996) or James
Levinsohn and Amil Petrin (2003). These latter methods are best suited to annual panel data, however. Moreover,
interpreting their estimates as factor elasticities is appropriate only if plants are price takers, because idiosyncratic
demand shocks make the proxies functions of both technology and demand shocks, thereby inducing a possible omit-
ted variable bias. Put simply, proxy methods require a one-to-one mapping between plant-level productivity and the
observable used to proxy for productivity. This mapping breaks down if other unobservable plant-level factors besides
productivity drive changes in the observable proxy. Of course, this possibility is the very point of our paper. While it
would be interesting to explore the robustness of our findings to alternative factor elasticities, the findings of Johannes
Van Biesebroeck (2004), who finds high TFP correlations across various measurement alternatives, suggest this is
unlikely to be a first-order issue. Further, Syverson (2004) finds similar robustness among producer TFP measures
for one of our products, ready-mixed concrete, with a specification and approach that incorporates the presence of
idiosyncratic demand shocks.
19
Given that producers of the products in focus also sometimes make other products, some adjustment to this physi-
cal quantity is made as described below.
20
The differences in nominal revenue concepts between TFPR and TFPT deserve further comment. TFPR uses the
nominal product-level revenue that is collected during the process of measuring physical output. TFPT, instead, uses
a closely related measure called the “total value of shipments,” which potentially includes additional revenue streams
such as that from contract work. Moreover, TFPT output adjusts for inventory changes. In practice, we will see that
TFPT and TFPR are highly correlated at the micro level. But the identities between revenue productivity, physical
productivity, and prices—which play an important role in interpretation of our results below—only hold using TFPR
as the revenue-based productivity measure. We include TFPT analysis because it is the measure that most researchers
using microdata (and the U.S. Economic Census in particular) have used. Finally, as noted before, our products do not
always fully cover the four-digit industries from which they are drawn. For most purposes this is not a concern for mea-
surement and analysis of prices, since we control for product-year interactions in our empirical work below. However,
as will become clear, the discrepancy between the price deflators for products and industries causes measurement dif-
ficulties for the analysis of aggregate (industry/product) effects.
Table 1—Summary Statistics for Output, Price, and Productivity Measures
Correlations
Variables Trad’l. Revenue Physical Price Trad’l. Revenue Physical Capital

output output output TFP TFP TFP
Traditional output 1.00
Revenue output 0.99 1.00
Physical output 0.98 0.99 1.00
Price 20.03 20.03 20.19 1.00
Traditional TFP 0.19 0.18 0.15 0.13 1.00
Revenue TFP 0.17 0.21 0.18 0.16 0.86 1.00
Physical TFP 0.17 0.20 0.28 20.54 0.64 0.75 1.00
Capital 0.86 0.85 0.84 20.04 0.00 20.00 0.03 1.00
Standard deviations
1.03 1.03 1.05 0.18 0.21 0.22 0.26 1.14
Notes: This table shows correlations and standard deviations for plant-level variables for our pooled sample of 17,669
plant-year observations. We remove product-year fixed effects from each variable before computing the statistics. All
variables are in logs. See the text for definitions of the variables.
a small number of product-years for which physical output data are not available due to Census
decisions to not collect it, or obvious recording problems. Second, we exclude establishments
whose production information appears to be imputed (imputes are not always identifiable in the
CM), or suffering from gross reporting errors. Third, we impose a product specialization crite-
rion: a plant must obtain at least 50 percent of its revenue from sales of our product of interest.
This restriction reduces measurement problems in computing physical TFP. Because plants’ fac-
tor inputs are not reported separately by product, but rather at the plant level, for multi-product
plants, we must apportion the share of inputs used to make our product of interest. Operationally,
we make this adjustment by dividing the plant’s reported output of the product of interest by that
product’s share of plant sales. This restriction is not very binding in seven of our products whose
establishments are on average quite specialized. Bread, flooring, gasoline, and block ice pro-
ducers are less specialized, however, so care must be taken in interpreting our sample as being
representative of all producers of those products. We test below the sensitivity of our results to
the inclusion of less specialized producers.21 Characteristics of the final sample can be seen in
Table A1 in the Web Appendix.
Details of these specific restrictions, as well as the way we identify affected establishments,
are in the Web Appendix.
B. Properties of the Sample
Applying the rules described above yields a pooled sample of 17,669 establishment-year obser-
vations over five census years. Table 1 shows summary statistics for core variables. We focus on
correlations and standard deviations. We remove product-year fixed effects from these summary
21
This input-adjustment method, in effect, assumes inputs are used proportionately to each product’s revenue share.
For example, a plant producing 1000 cubic yards of ready-mixed concrete accounting for 80 percent of its shipment
revenues will have the same physical TFP value as a completely specialized plant producing 1250 cubic yards of con-
crete, assuming they employ the same measured inputs. Without adjusting the output, the first plant would appear less
productive because the inputs it uses to make its other products would be, instead, attributed entirely to ready-mixed
production. The average share of our sample plants’ values of shipments accounted for by the corresponding product is
given in parentheses: boxes (93), bread (39), carbon black (96), coffee (86), concrete (92), flooring (46), gasoline (49),
block ice (37), processed ice (76), plywood (64), and sugar (90).
statistics—and control for them in all of our empirical exercises—so cross-product heterogeneity
or aggregate intertemporal movements do not drive our results.
The table shows summary statistics for our three measures of log output (traditional, revenue,
and physical, as described above), our price measure, our three total factor productivity measures
(corresponding to each output measure), and log plant capital. The first point to note is the very
high correlation in the output measures. This partly reflects the enormous dispersion in the size
of businesses within industries, as evidenced by the output measures’ large standard deviations.
Put simply, a large business is a large business, regardless of the details of output measurement.
The second point to note is that the productivity measures are also highly correlated and exhibit
substantial dispersion within product-years, with standard deviations exceeding 20 log points.
Interestingly, physical productivity TFPQ has higher dispersion than revenue-based productivity
TFPR. Since the former is, along with logged price, a component of the latter, this might at first
seem surprising. However, notice that physical productivity and prices are strongly inversely
correlated. Thus, even though there is substantial price dispersion across producers in the same
industry, the negative covariance between prices and physical productivity results in revenue
productivity being less dispersed than physical productivity.
The inverse correlation between physical productivity and prices is consistent with more effi-
cient businesses having lower marginal costs and, in turn, charging lower prices, a common impli-
cation of models of imperfect competition and our model above. Note that this effect might also be
reflecting input price variation. High input price plants will have low TFPQ values because their
materials and energy expenditures will be larger than those of their industry counterparts.
We note that the negative correlation between physical productivity and prices bolsters our
strategy of focusing on homogenous products to reduce the effects of quality variation. While
this correlation is consistent with price variation reflecting demand shifts across producers, it
is far from obvious that physical productivity and prices would be negatively correlated if price
variation simply reflected output quality differences.
It is also interesting that, again as predicted by the model, revenue productivity and prices are
positively correlated. By construction, revenue productivity combines both prices and physical
productivity. As such, one component of revenue productivity is positively correlated with prices
while the other is negatively correlated. We shall return to this point below.
In what follows, we often present results on both an unweighted and a real revenue-weighted
basis. The unweighted results treat all observations equally, while the weighted results give a
greater influence to high-revenue plants. Since most of the empirical exercises that follow use
the pooled sample, it is useful to know the influence that individual products have in the sample.
(Although we always control for a full set of product-year interactions, it is also the case within
product-year variation that we are exploiting.) Regarding general sample properties, concrete dom-
inates the sample in terms of the number of establishments, while gasoline dominates the sample
in terms of the share of real revenue. Table A1 in the Web Appendix contains more details.
C. Idiosyncratic Demand: Concept and Measurement
This paper seeks to separate the influences of idiosyncratic technology and demand—influ-
ences that previous studies have had to lump together due to data limitations—and explore the
contribution of each to plant survival and productivity growth. In this vein, we compute the tech-
nology component (physical efficiency) as described above. We describe here how we use the
other component of revenue-based productivity, price, to estimate plants’ idiosyncratic demand
levels. We use these demand estimates, along with our physical productivity measures, exten-
sively in our analysis below.
Before describing the empirical methodology, it is useful to discuss what the price and demand
variations within our sample products embody. As noted, we construct our sample from produc-
ers of goods that, to our best judgment, are physically homogeneous. The purpose of doing so is
to make physical productivity (i.e., the number of units of the good produced per unit of input)
a measure of technical efficiency that is directly comparable across plants producing a given
product. It also means that the across-producer price variation, and the plant-specific demand
measures we estimate from these prices, reflect factors other than vertical quality differentials
among producers’ physical products.
What might these other factors be? For products with high enough transport costs, these fac-
tors could reflect demand idiosyncrasies across local markets.22 Producers in markets that hap-
pen to be facing particularly high demand (or, to a lesser extent, those producers in high-demand
areas within markets) are likely able to set higher prices, or sell more at a given price, than those
in low-demand markets. High-demand producers are also more apt to survive even if they are no
more physically efficient than their low-demand industry cohorts. This is the demand-based sur-
vival benefit we wish to separate from physical productivity’s survival benefit. Notice that local
demand idiosyncrasies imply producers of such products have some degree of market power
despite producing what are, from a physical standpoint, commodities. Importantly, however,
this market power is driven by horizontal product differentiation. Consumers will have different
preference orderings over producers’ locations. Also, differentiation is not tied to the physi-
cal product which we measure (e.g., cubic yards of concrete or tons of ice). Most construction
contractors, for example, would be indifferent between—and in fact be unable to discern—two
unlabeled truckloads of ready-mixed concrete. This allows us to be confident that physical output
and productivity measures are comparable across producers and economically meaningful from
the standpoint of technical efficiency.
Even for producers of national-market products in our sample, there are probable sources
of other, non-spatial horizontal differentiation. Leading candidate sources of this differentia-
tion are the often complex and history-laden collection of relationships between suppliers and
their customers. Long-run buyer-supplier ties, whether driven primarily by business or personal
bonds, are likely pervasive across industries. While it is, of course, very difficult to quantify
these relationships, there is some anecdotal evidence of their importance in our industries.
For instance, while press accounts describe carbon black as “… a typical commodity business
wherein there is very limited scope for value addition” (B. Krishnakumar, 2001), major producer
Cabot Corporation states in its 2005 annual report that, “Under appropriate circumstances, we
have pursued a strategy of entering into annual and long-term supply contracts (those with a
term longer than one year) with certain customers” (Cabot Corporation, 2005, p. 15). In its 2005
annual report, Imperial Sugar comments on “… the harsh realities of operating in a commod-
ity business,” but also states that “… the majority of our sales [are made] to industrial custom-
ers under fixed price, forward sales contracts,” though typically with terms of one year or less
(Imperial Sugar Company, 2005, 3 and 11). Both of these examples suggest that non-spatial prod-
uct differentiation exists even among producers of physically identical commodities. Customers
do not perceive all producers as symmetric—hence their willingness to enter into what are
likely multiple-transaction contracts with certain producers.23 Moreover, these examples reflect
22
According to the 1977 Commodity Transportation Survey (US Census Bureau 1981) —the last survey for which
detailed product-level shipment distance data are reported—six of our products saw a majority of their shipments sent
less than 100 miles (the shortest distance category for which tabulations are available) from the plant. Over 99 percent
of ice products and 95 percent of ready-mixed concrete production was shipped to buyers within this distance. For
boxes, bread, and gasoline, the shares were 63, 62, and 53 percent, respectively.
23
Such relationship-driven differentiation can also exist alongside the spatial demand idiosyncrasies in the more
local industries discussed above. For example, the president of National Portland Cement Company testified in a
p roducer-consumer relationships that are actually contracted over. We suspect, though of course
cannot show definitively, that noncontractual “relationship capital” of this sort is as, or even more,
important in our industries.24 Such differentiation is conceptually identical to the spatial demand
idiosyncrasies described above, as long as such contracts (explicit or implicit) reflect horizontal
preference variation across consumers rather than vertical differentiation—for example, a tire
firm contracts with Cabot because of some match-specific factor (perhaps a past history with this
supplier has built relationship capital), rather than Cabot’s carbon black and bundled products
being considered superior by all possible consumers. Therefore, just as with the spatially dif-
ferentiated industries, the idiosyncratic price and demand variation across producers reflects the
strength of particular producers’ horizontal demand differentials.
To measure such idiosyncratic demand elements, we begin by estimating the following demand
system separately for each of our eleven products:
(10) ln qit 5 ao 1 a1 ln pit 1 a atYEARt 1 a2 ln 1INCOMEmt 2 1 hit ,

t
where qit is the physical output of plant i in year t, pit is the plant’s price, and hit is a plant-year
specific disturbance term. We also control for a set of demand shifters, including a set of year
dummies 1YEARt 2 , which adjust for any economy-wide variation in the demand for the product,
as well as the average income in the plant’s local market m. We define local markets using the
Bureau of Economic Analysis’ Economic Areas (EAs).25
Of course, estimating (10) using ordinary least squares (OLS) methods could lead to positively
biased estimates of the price elasticity a1, because producers may optimally respond to demand
shocks in hit by raising prices. This would create a positive correlation between the error term
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation that acquiring (i.e., forward integrating into) an existing ready-mixed
concrete business is easier than building one from scratch. His stated reasoning was, “The ready-mixed business, as we
analyze it, is a very personal type of business and the operators develop personal relationships with contractors over
many, many years. To go in and go through developing those relationships on the part of a newcomer would assure you
that you are going to lose money for 3, 4, 5 years.” (US FTC, 1966)
24
Some striking examples of the strength and persistence of consumers’ relationships with particular producers can
be found in Bart J. Bronnenberg, Sanjay K. Dhar, and Jean-Pierre Dubé (2005). They document large and persistent
geographic variation in preferences for specific brands of what are physically very similar consumer package goods
(including, incidentally, ground coffee, though they look at retail sales while we focus on manufacturers). They find
that this variation can be tied to being the first mover into the particular market, even if the initial entry episode took
place more than a century prior. One caveat that should be kept in mind with regard to relationship capital is that if
producers spend current productive resources to build it, this might be thought of as revenue-enhancing, even though
it could lower the producer’s TFPQ (but raising the price it can charge in exchange). We obtained a rough measure of
the possible magnitude of such activities by looking at the correlation between a plant’s nonproduction worker share
(i.e., the fraction of its employees classified as nonproduction workers according to the Census Bureau’s definition)
and the plant’s TFPQ and price. This is based on the notion that “relationship-building” activity would primarily be
conducted by nonproduction workers. We found nonproduction workers’ share is positively correlated with prices
and negatively correlated with physical productivity. This is consistent with relationship-building activity trading off
physical efficiency for a higher price. However, these correlations were quite weak, with absolute magnitudes of 0.01.
Further, there was also indication that any active cultivation captured by these measures might not be yielding net gains
for the producer: nonproduction worker intensity and TFPR were negatively correlated. In short, we are assuming in the
present analysis that the sources of demand variation across plants are essentially exogenous (or at least unrelated to
current measured input choices). This evidence on the relationship of key measures to the nonproduction worker share
suggests this assumption is not unreasonable.
25
EAs are collections of counties usually, but not always, centered on Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Counties are
selected for inclusion in a given EA based upon their MSA status, commuting patterns, and newspaper circulation
configurations, subject to the condition that EAs contain only contiguous counties. EA boundaries do not have to coin-
cide with state boundaries. The roughly 3,200 US counties are grouped into 172 EAs that are mutually exclusive and
exhaustive of the land area of the United States. See US Bureau of Economic Analysis (1995) for detailed information.
A small percentage of establishments in the CM switch counties over time (either due to data errors or, more rarely,
changes in county limits). Since INCOMEmt is merged into our dataset using county level information, we edit such
county-switchers in our sample so that they remain in a fixed county over time.
and pit. A solution to this is to instrument for pit using supply-side (cost) influences on prices.
While such instruments can sometimes be hard to come by in practice, we believe we have
very suitable instruments at hand: namely, plants’ TFPQ levels. As discussed previously, these
embody producers’ idiosyncratic technologies (physical production costs). As such, they should
have explanatory power over prices. The large negative correlation between TFPQ and prices
shown above indicates that this is the case. Further, it is unlikely they will be correlated with
any short-run plant-specific demand shocks embodied in hit. Hence they appear quite suitable as
instruments for plant prices.26
Our demand estimates are shown in Table 2. The first two columns provide the main results
using plants’ physical productivity levels as instrumental variables (IV) for their prices, and the
second two columns provide OLS estimates for reference purposes.
Focusing on the IV estimation cases, we find that all estimated price elasticities are negative,
and for all but carbon black, they exceed one in absolute value. Elasticities range from –5.93 for
concrete to –0.52 for carbon black. These estimates are reassuring since price-setting producers
should be operating in the elastic portion of their demand curves. (Carbon black’s inelastic point
estimate may arise, in part, because the small number of producers yields imprecise estimates;
in fact, we cannot reject that carbon black producers face elastic demand.)
Additionally reassuring for our demand estimation strategy is that all products (again except
for carbon black) have more elastic IV demand estimates than in the OLS estimations. This is
consistent with the theorized simultaneity bias present in the OLS results as well as the ability
of TFPQ to instrument for endogenous prices. The table also shows for the IV results the Shea-
corrected first-stage R2 of price on TFPQ.27 In all cases these show that physical productivity is a
relevant instrument. The coefficient on local income is positive for most, but not all, products.
We exploit the residuals from these demand function estimations in the analysis of market selec-
tion below. Specifically, the producer-specific demand measure we use is the residual from the IV
demand estimation, along with the estimated contribution of local income added back in. One way
of thinking about this measure is that it is the output variation across plants due to shifts in the
demand curve, rather than movements along the demand curve. Alternatively, it is a measure of
output variation that is, by construction, orthogonal to physical productivity TFPQ. (Some correla-
tion may remain in the constructed demand measures because while the demand function residuals
themselves are orthogonal to TFPQ, the local market income component that is added back in may
be related to average TFPQ levels. However, as we will see below this correlation is small.) It is
also worth noting that although we have variation in elasticities across products, we do not exploit
those in our analysis. The reason is that all of our subsequent analysis controls for a complete set of
product-year interactions, and thus we are abstracting from all between-product variation.
26
There are two potential problems with using TFPQ as an instrument. The first is that selection on profitability can
lead to a correlation between TFPQ and demand at the plant level, even if the innovations to both series are orthogonal
as assumed. This is because producers with higher TFPQ draws can tolerate lower demand draws (and vice versa),
while still remaining profitable. Hence producers that chose in the previous period to continue operations into the
current period—i.e., the continuing plants—will tend to have negatively correlated lagged TFPQ and lagged demand
levels. (This is unlikely to be a problem for entering plants, however, since profitability-based selection has not yet
had time to act.) To address this issue, we estimated product demand curves using an alternative instrument for price
that is based only upon innovations to TFPQ. A second potential problem is measurement error. We compute prices
by dividing reported revenue by quantity, and any measurement error in physical quantities will overstate the negative
correlation between prices and TFPQ. Since the first stage of the IV estimation regresses plants’ prices on their TFP
levels, measurement error would yield biased estimates of the fitted prices used in the second stage, possibly leading,
in turn, to biased price elasticities and idiosyncratic demand measures. We employ another alternative specification to
deal with measurement error. In both cases (described in detail in the Web Appendix), we found the patterns of elastici-
ties, demand shocks, and the results that depend upon demand shocks in Tables 3–6 to be quite robust. Hence it does
not appear that either concern is driving our demand estimation results.
27
This uses John Shea’s (1997) correction for a multivariate regression in which the instruments are highly collinear.
Table 2—Estimating Price Elasticities by Product
IV estimation OLS estimation

Price Income Price Income
coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient
Product 1a12 1a22 1a12 1a22
Boxes 23.02 20.03 22.19 20.03
(0.17) [0.61] (0.02) (0.12) (0.02)
Bread 23.09 0.12 20.89 0.07
(0.42) [0.33] (0.05) (0.15) (0.04)
Carbon black 20.52 20.21 20.57 20.21
(0.38) [0.50] (0.11) (0.21) (0.11)
Coffee 23.63 0.22 21.03 0.20
(0.98) [0.41] (0.14) (0.32) (0.13)
Concrete 25.93 0.13 20.83 0.15
(0.36) [0.10] (0.01) (0.09) (0.01)
Hardwood flooring 21.67 20.20 20.87 20.24
(0.48) [0.61] (0.18) (0.47) (0.18)
Gasoline 21.42 0.23 20.16 0.23
(2.72) [0.20] (0.07) (0.80) (0.07)
Block ice 22.05 0.00 20.63 0.16
(0.46) [0.32] (0.11) (0.20) (0.07)
Processed ice 21.48 0.18 20.70 0.16
(0.27) [0.37] (0.03) (0.13) (0.03)
Plywood 21.21 20.23 21.19 20.23
(0.14) [0.89] (0.10) (0.13) (0.10)
Sugar 22.52 0.76 21.04 0.72
(1.01) [0.15] (0.13) (0.55) (0.12)
Notes: This table shows the results of estimating demand isoelastic curves separately for each product (shown by
row). Two specifications are estimated for each product, one using IV methods and one using OLS for comparison.
All regressions also include year fixed effects. Sample sizes by product are shown in Table A1 in the Web Appendix.
Standard errors, clustered by plant, are in parentheses. Where applicable, Shea-corrected first-stage R2 are listed in
brackets. See text for details.
Our measure of producer-specific demand is positively correlated with revenue productivity

(correlations of 0.23 with TFPT and 0.28 with TFPR) and prices (correlation of 0.34) but, as dis-
cussed above, virtually uncorrelated with physical productivity (0.01). The standard deviation of
demand shocks is quite large (1.16), reflecting the large dispersion in output across producers of
the same product. As noted, the interesting aspect of this measure is that it captures the variation
in output after taking into account productivity variations and the movements along the demand
curve associated with these.
III. Basic Facts about Dynamics
In this section, we provide additional basic facts about the plant-level distributions of total
factor productivity, prices, and demand shocks using our pooled sample to set the stage for our
analysis of selection in Section IV. We first examine the persistence of plants’ productivity,
prices, and demand levels. We next characterize the entry and exit dynamics of our sample.
A. Persistence
Preceding work (e.g., Baily, Hulten, and Campbell (1992); Roberts and Supina (1996); and
Foster, Haltiwanger and C. J. Krizan (2006)) has found that, conditional on survival, there is
substantial persistence in revenue productivity and prices. The findings from our sample reported
in Table 3 are consistent with this earlier research.
Table 3—Persistence of Productivity, Prices and Demand Shocks
Five-year horizon Implied one-year persistence rates

Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted
Dependent variable regression regression regression regression
Traditional TFP 0.249 0.316 0.757 0.794
(0.017) (0.042)
Revenue TFP 0.277 0.316 0.774 0.794
(0.021) (0.042)
Physical TFP 0.312 0.358 0.792 0.814
(0.019) (0.049)
Price 0.365 0.384 0.817 0.826
(0.025) (0.066)
Demand shock 0.619 0.843 0.909 0.966
(0.013) (0.021)
Notes: This table reports the results of regressing a plant’s current TFP, price, or idiosyncratic demand (shown by row)
on its value in the previous Census of Manufactures (five years prior). Reported coefficients are those on the lagged
variable. The sample includes continuing establishments only, N 5 7812. Weighted regressions are weighted by rev-
enue. The implied one-year persistence rates are the autocorrelation coefficients for annual data that would yield the
same persistence over a five-year period as is implied by the regressions; i.e., they are the estimated coefficients to the
one-fifth power. Standard errors, clustered by plant, are in parentheses.
The table shows the coefficients on the respective lagged dependent variables in simple autore-
gressive regressions of each measure on its own lag (five years earlier). We report the regression
coefficients and standard errors in the first two columns and provide as a reference the implied
one-year persistence rates in the next two columns. We find that producer-level revenue produc-
tivity measures and output prices are highly persistent in our sample as well, with implied annual
autocorrelation values of roughly 0.75 to 0.80.
We also characterize (for the first time in the literature, to our knowledge) the persistence in
physical productivity and demand shocks. Interestingly, we find that physical productivity exhib-
its persistence of similar magnitude to that for revenue productivity. Demand shocks are even
more persistent. All variables are more persistent in the weighted results, implying that larger
establishments have more persistent idiosyncratic characteristics.28
While all of the fundamentals exhibit substantial persistence, the finding that demand shocks
are substantially more persistent than physical productivity shocks has potentially important
implications for market selection. The persistence of a current shock to profitability is critical
for the impact on the expected present discounted value of profits, and as such, the impact on
market selection.
B. Establishment Turnover
Our focus on the determinants of selection naturally compels us to measure the rate of estab-
lishment turnover in our sample. The entry rate in year t is defined simply as the number of enter-
ing establishments between t2k 1k 5 5 here given use of Economic Censuses2 and t as a fraction
of the total number of establishments in year t. The exit rate in t is the fraction of establishments
in year t2k that exit between t2k and t.
28
We always use real revenue, rather than physical-quantity weights, for the weighted results to avoid comparabil-
ity/aggregation problems across products.
Table A2 in the Web Appendix contains the detailed results that we summarize here. There
is substantial entry and exit of establishments for all products.29 Our pooled sample has an entry
rate of 22.3 percent and an exit rate of 19.6 percent. These high turnover rates are in accor-
dance with earlier findings in the business microdata literature (e.g., Dunne, Roberts, and Larry
Samuelson (1988)). There are significant differences in turnover across products. Entry rates
vary from a low of 3.9 percent for sugar to a high of 26.6 percent for concrete (these are pooled
over all available years of data). The range of exit rates for products is narrower, the lowest being
9.0 percent for gasoline and the highest 27.7 percent for processed ice. Some products appear to
be in a period of retrenchment or consolidation. Sugar, for example, has a very low entry rate (3.9
percent) but a high exit rate (17.0 percent). Other products appear to simply have a high degree
of churning. For example, concrete and both types of ice products all have entry rates and exit
rates that exceed 20 percent.
Having established that our sample shows significant entry and exit of establishments, we turn
now to our analysis of selection dynamics.
IV. Selection Dynamics
The primary focus of our analysis is the connection between entry and exit dynamics and
productivity, prices, and demand. As emphasized in the theoretical model in Section I, the work-
ing hypothesis is that market selection is driven by both technology and demand factors. This
implies that the connections drawn between revenue TFP and entry and exit in the existing
literature may be misleading with regard to the importance of market selection for productivity
growth. That is, revenue TFP dynamics may not accurately reflect physical TFP dynamics. This
section characterizes the relations between entry and exit, and the evolution of producers’ idio-
syncratic technology and demand levels.
A. Evolution of Key Distributions
We begin with some simple descriptive statistics on the differences in means between continu-
ing, entering, and exiting establishments. We compute these differences in means by regressing
each of the key business-level measures (productivity, prices, and demand shocks) on entry and
exit dummies and a complete set of product-by-year fixed effects. The entry dummy for year t
equals one if the establishment enters the product group between t2k and t, and the exit dummy
equals one in year t if the establishment exits sometime between t and t1k. The product-year
interactions capture the evolution of continuing establishments (hereafter denoted incumbents).
The coefficient on the entry (exit) dummy thus measures the average difference between the
productivity/price/demand of entering (exiting) establishments and incumbent producers of the
respective products.
The outcome of this exercise is reported in Table 4. For the unweighted results, we find that
exiting establishments have lower revenue productivity (TFPR and TFPT), physical productivity
(TFPQ), prices, and demand shocks than incumbents. All these differences, save for prices, are
statistically significant. In contrast, entering establishments have significantly higher TFPQ and
29
We use the universe Census files to define entry and exit. Thus we do not introduce spurious turnover sim-
ply through imposing our sample selection criteria (only those plants with physical quantity data, etc.). One possible
remaining concern is that our criteria create sample selection problems particularly with respect to the implied effects
of idiosyncratic technology and demand on plant turnover. We have found, however, that plant turnover rates are simi-
lar for both the universe of plants and our sample of plants. Readers preferring to be more cautious can interpret our
results as being representative of these effects for the set of plants with physical output data available, which tend to be
the larger producers in an industry.
Table 4—Evolution of Revenue Productivity, Physical Productivity, Prices and Demand Shocks
Unweighted regression Weighted regression

Variable Exit dummy Entry dummy Exit dummy Entry dummy
Traditional TFP 20.0209 0.0014 20.0164 20.0032
(0.0042) (0.0040) (0.0126) (0.0188)
Revenue TFP 20.0218 0.0110 20.0197 20.0005
(0.0044) (0.0042) (0.0135) (0.0183)
Physical TFP 20.0186 0.0125 20.0142 0.0383
(0.0050) (0.0047) (0.0144) (0.0177)
Price 20.0033 20.0015 20.0055 20.0388
(0.0031) (0.0028) (0.0080) (0.0141)
Demand shock 20.3586 20.3976 20.5903 20.2188
(0.0228) (0.0224) (0.0968) (0.1278)
Notes: This table shows the coefficients on indicator variables for exiting and entering plants (shown by column) when
we regress plant-level productivity, price, and demand values (shown by row) on these indicators, and a full set of
product-year fixed effects. The sample is our pooled sample of 17,314 plant-year observations (355 observations from
the main sample are excluded because we cannot determine exiting plants in the 1997 CM, the final year of observa-
tion). Weighted regressions are weighted by revenue. Standard errors, clustered by plant, are in parentheses.
TFPR (but not TFPT) than incumbents, as well as lower prices (although not significantly), and
demand (highly significant). The finding that there is no significant difference between entrants
and incumbents in TFPT levels is common in the literature. When we weight observations by
revenue, similar patterns hold, but the magnitudes of differences between incumbents, entrants,
and exiters are larger. In particular, entering businesses have significantly lower prices (about
4 percent on average) on a quantity-weighted basis than incumbents. The larger magnitude of the
effects with weighting suggests that these differences will be important for aggregate dynamics.
These results already hint that caution needs to be used in interpreting entry and exit effects
on revenue-based productivity patterns. Specifically, the finding that entrants have lower prices
and demand shocks than incumbents means revenue-based productivity measures understate the
true technological productivity of entrants. In the weighted results of Table 4, this shows up as a
substantial difference in entrants’ revenue and physical productivity measures.
This finding is particularly important for vintage and learning models of productivity dynam-
ics. Many theories imply that entrants should be more efficient than incumbents because of vin-
tage technology/capital effects. However, a potentially offsetting factor is that learning-by-doing,
or start-up costs, keep entrants from immediately reaching their production frontier. The earlier
literature’s common finding, obtained using traditional measures of revenue productivity, that
there is not much productivity difference between entrants and incumbents (and in many studies,
entrants are found to have lower productivity than incumbents) has been taken as evidence of the
dominance of learning, or start-up costs over vintage effects. Our analysis here, however, suggests
this view should be tempered. Part of the reason for the lower revenue-based productivity levels of
entrants comes from the fact that entrants charge lower prices than incumbents, not because they
are less technologically efficient. In fact, we find that entrants do have significantly higher physi-
cal TFP levels than incumbents, but this advantage is clouded in revenue productivity. We explore
this empirical pattern a bit further here by comparing the dynamics of prices, productivity, and
demand shocks for young producers to those of more mature plants in the following analysis.
We start by categorizing each establishment in our sample according to their age (which is
determined based upon their existence in Census of Manufacturers from 1963 to 1997). We clas-
sify as “young” those establishments that first appeared in the census prior to the current time
period (i.e., those plants that were entrants in the previous census). Likewise, establishments first
appearing two censuses back are “medium” aged, and finally establishments that first appeared
Table 5—Evolution of Productivity, Price and Demand with Age Effects
Plant age dummies

Variable Exit Entry Young Medium
Unweighted regressions
Traditional TFP 20.0211 0.0044 0.0074 0.0061
(0.0042) (0.0044) (0.0048) (0.0048)
Revenue TFP 20.0220 0.0133 0.0075 0.0028
(0.0044) (0.0047) (0.0051) (0.0053)
Physical TFP 20.0186 0.0128 0.0046 20.0039
(0.0050) (0.0053) (0.0058) (0.0062)
Price 20.0034 0.0005 0.0029 0.0067
(0.0031) (0.0034) (0.0038) (0.0042)
Demand shock 20.3466 20.5557 20.3985 20.3183
(0.0227) (0.0264) (0.0263) (0.0267)
Weighted regressions
Traditional TFP 20.0156 20.0068 20.0156 20.0234
(0.0127) (0.0203) (0.0171) (0.0132)
Revenue TFP 20.0191 20.0038 20.0180 20.0165
(0.0136) (0.0200) (0.0198) (0.0131)
Physical TFP 20.0142 0.0383 0.0056 20.0050
(0.0144) (0.0186) (0.0142) (0.0135)
Price 20.0049 20.0421 20.0236 20.0114
(0.0079) (0.0147) (0.0114) (0.0096)
Demand shock 20.5790 20.2785 20.3133 20.3164
(0.0972) (0.1459) (0.1695) (0.1197)
Notes: This table shows the coefficients on indicator variables for exiting, entering, and continuing plants of two age
cohorts (shown by column; “young” establishments first appeared in the census five years ago, “medium” establish-
ments first appeared in the census ten years ago) when we regress plant-level productivity, price, and demand values
(shown by row) on these indicators, and a full set of product-year fixed effects. The excluded group includes plants that
appeared three or more censuses prior. The sample is our pooled sample of 17,314 plant-year observations (355 observa-
tions from the main sample are excluded because we cannot determine exiting plants in the 1997 CM, the final year of
observation). Weighted regressions are weighted by revenue. Standard errors, clustered by plant, are in parentheses.
three or more censuses prior to the current are classified as “old.” We then estimate a similar
specification to the entering-exiting-incumbent producer comparison above, but now also include
dummies for young and medium plants, as well as entry and exit dummies:
(11) xit 5 bo 1 b1 Exitit 1 b2 Entryit 1 b3 Youngit 1 b4 Mediumit 1 a bIT IndYearIT 1 uit ,

IT
where xit is an establishment-specific measure (i.e., TFP, price, or demand). As before, we include
a full set of product-year dummies IndYearIT . Thus the specification does not confound age with
time effects; the establishment age coefficients reflect average differences across producers of
different ages within product-years.
The results of our age effects estimation are reported in Table 5. In interpreting the results
(particularly when comparing them with Table 4), it is important to note that the omitted ref-
erence group in Table 5 is only old plants, while the reference group in Table 4 includes all
incumbents. The most striking patterns in Table 5 are for the weighted results, although many of
the general patterns also hold for the unweighted results. Entering plants in the weighted results
have a physical productivity advantage relative to old incumbents, but young and medium-aged
plants do not. For revenue productivity (either TFPT or TFPR), entrants have no productiv-
ity advantage, relative to old incumbents, and young and medium age plants have significantly
lower productivity. The source of these contrasts can be seen in the price results: plants’ prices
rise (relative to older plants in the industry) with plant age. Thus the decomposition of revenue
productivity into its price and physical productivity components reveals quite different life cycle
patterns over the first 15 years of a plant’s existence that are concealed if one looks only at the
evolution of revenue productivity.30
B. Selection
We now turn to the main focus of our analysis: the determinants of selection. We explore the
role of physical productivity, prices, and demand shocks on plant survival both in isolation and
jointly, testing if each has a significant impact on plants’ exit decisions. We also compare these
findings to those obtained in the literature using the traditional revenue productivity measure
(TFPT). This allows us to quantify the degree to which previous empirical work potentially mis-
interpreted the contribution of the productivity-survival link to aggregate productivity growth.
Table 6 presents the results of probit exit regressions, where we regress an indicator for plant
survival (equal to one if the plant survives to the next CM) on our measures of producers’ idio-
syncratic technology and demand.31 We also estimate a version of each specification that includes
the plant’s logged capital stock; these are shown in the bottom half of the table. Including the
capital stock in the specification has a benefit of allowing the short- and long-run components
of plant survival to be separately measured. As Olley and Pakes (1996) discuss, a plant’s capital
stock reflects persistent components of survival because it embodies accumulated effects of the
plant’s past profitability draws—a series of good draws (high demands or low costs) should lead
in equilibrium to higher investment and a large plant, and bad draws lead to smaller plants (or
exit). The TFP, price, and demand coefficients in the specifications that include capital, capture
the shorter-run survival effects that are orthogonal to those embodied in the plant’s capital stock.
All specifications in the table use the pooled sample and again include a full set of product-year
interactions as controls.32
The first five columns present the marginal effects (evaluated at the median) of each of our
main variables of interest in isolation. We find that establishments with lower TFP (by any mea-
sure), prices, or demand shocks are more likely to exit when each of these variables is consid-
ered in isolation. These results are statistically significant except for the impact of prices. The
summary statistics in Table 1 and Section IIC, and the coefficients in the upper part of Table 6,
30
The patterns of plants’ idiosyncratic demands are also interesting. New plants start with significantly lower aver-
age demands than older plants, and this gap closes very slowly. Even plants 10–15 years old have idiosyncratic demand
values that imply their quantities produced are roughly 20–25 percent lower than that of old plants charging the same
price. There are several plausible explanations for this. New producers in spatial industries might get less appealing
locations. Entrants may want to resolve residual uncertainty about their idiosyncratic profitability before making costly
investments to expand capacity. Consumers may establish match-specific relationship capital with producers, as dis-
cussed in Section IIC, that young firms need time to build; see Arthur Fishman and Rafael Rob (2003) for a model of
such a process. These explanations might also be partly related to the fact that new firms charge lower prices. While we
do not take a stand on any particular explanation here, we do see exploring these results more deeply as an interesting
avenue for future work.
31
Specifications using a simple linear probability model yield qualitatively similar results.
32
We do not estimate weighted specifications here. In the exercises above, weighted results could be interpreted as
comparing output-weighted average attributes across plants of various categories. The present specification predicts
how plants’ average exit probabilities vary with their attributes. One might then be tempted, as we were in an earlier
version, to interpret weighted versions of this specification as predicting exit probabilities of particular units of rev-
enue. However, exit is inherently a plant-level process. Units of revenue can only exit in plant-level clusters, making
weighted exit probability results hard to meaningfully interpret. Thus we do not report them. It is the case, though, that
the size of exiting plants relative to incumbents affects the evolution of industry-level productivity aggregates. This
will be accounted for below in Section IV.C. All this said, we have estimated weighted selection equations and found
the results were largely comparable to the unweighted results, with the exception of the highly-specialized-producer
subsample used in the robustness exercises below, where the weighted results indicated considerably weaker connec-
tions between plant attributes and survival.
Table 6—Selection on Productivity or Profitability?
Specification: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Traditional TFP 20.073

(0.015)
Revenue TFP 20.063
(0.014)
Physical TFP 20.040 20.062 20.034
(0.012) (0.014) (0.012)
Prices 20.021 20.069
(0.018) (0.021)
Demand shock 20.047 20.047
(0.003) (0.003)
Controlling for plant capital stock
(0.015)
Revenue TFP 20.061
(0.013)
Physical TFP 20.035 20.059 20.034
(0.012) (0.014) (0.012)
Prices 20.030 20.076
(0.018) (0.021)
(0.004) (0.004)
Capital stock 20.046 20.046 20.046 20.046 20.023 20.046 20.023
(0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.004) (0.003) (0.004)
Note: These results are from various probits of plant exit by the next census (shown by column) on plant-level produc-
tivity, price, demand, and capital stock measures (shown by row), as well as a full set of product-year fixed effects. The
sample is our pooled sample of 17,314 plant-year observations (355 observations from the main sample are excluded
because we cannot determine exiting plants in the 1997 CM, the final year of observation). Standard errors, clustered
by plant, are in parentheses.
imply that a one-standard-deviation increase each in TFPT, TFPR, TFPQ, price, and demand
corresponds respectively to declines in exit probabilities of 1.5, 1.4, 1.0, 0.4 and 5.0 percentage
points. Given that the mean five-year exit rate for our sample is around 20 percent, most of these
are nontrivial effects. The specifications controlling for plant capital show similar results. The
implied survival effects of the TFP measures fall insignificantly. More of a drop is seen in the
effect of demand shocks, where the magnitude of the coefficient falls by one-third. This is not
unexpected; recall that our demand measure is a plant-specific demand shifter. High-quantity
plants within an industry tend to be large plants with more capital (note the correlation between
plant output and logged capital shown in Table 1). Interestingly, however, despite their correla-
tion, both capital and our demand measure have statistically significant impacts on survival. The
estimated marginal survival impact of capital is notably stable across the other specifications.
A capital coefficient of 20.023 means that moving one standard deviation up the logged capital
distribution lowers the exit probability 2.6 percentage points.
The two richer specifications in columns 6 and 7 simultaneously include physical TFP and
producers’ prices, or idiosyncratic demand measures in the specification. When TFPQ and prices
are jointly controlled for in column 6, both higher TFPQ and higher prices are associated with
a lower likelihood of exit. Moreover, the magnitudes of both marginal effects increase substan-
tially relative to the case when each variable is considered in isolation (the impact of price more
than triples). One standard deviation increases in TFPQ, and prices reduce exit probabilities by
1.6 and 1.2 percentage points, respectively. The larger magnitudes for both price and physical
productivity effects in this case make sense, given the negative covariance between prices and
TFPQ. If high-cost/low-productivity plants are high-price plants, then when we include only
one of these plant-level measures, there is an implied omitted variable bias that obscures each
measure’s true effect. Put differently, the key point here is that controlling for both price and
productivity effects enables us to separately identify the cost/productivity and demand effects
that influence survival probabilities in opposite directions. Prices will, in general, reflect both
demand and cost/productivity factors; higher prices are related to higher survival rates when they
reflect idiosyncratic demand, but lower survival rates if they reflect higher costs/lower productiv-
ity. Once we control for TFPQ, however, the variation in prices isolates demand effects, raising
the estimated survival impact of prices.
We obtain similar results when TFPQ and demand effects are included simultaneously, con-
firming the predictions of the model. Both higher TFPQ and higher demand are associated with
a significantly lower exit probability. A one standard deviation increase in TFPQ corresponds
with a 1.2 percent decline in the probability of exit. The earlier estimate of the survival-enhanc-
ing impact of higher demand is invariant to controlling for TFPQ because our demand measure
is orthogonal to physical productivity. The larger response of exit to demand than to physical
productivity shocks reflects both the greater volatility of demand shocks and the greater mar-
ginal effect of a demand shock. The latter presumably reflects, among other things, the greater
persistence of demand shocks documented above.
In sum, the decomposition of revenue productivity into physical productivity, price, and
demand effects unmasks important features of selection. Moreover, it is important to control
for both price and productivity effects simultaneously. The unconditional relationship between
physical productivity and survival understates the true impact of physical productivity because
price effects are omitted. Likewise, unconditional relationship between prices and survival
understates the true impacts of prices.
As expected, we find demand shocks are very important in accounting for the likelihood of
survival. Indeed, even controlling for overall plant size using its capital stock, a one standard
deviation increase in demand shocks accounts for a decrease in the likelihood of exit that is
over three times larger than the decrease in the likelihood of exit from a one-standard-deviation
increase in physical productivity. It is difficult to avoid the interpretation that demand effects are
a predominant determinant of survival.
Given the importance of demand shocks, investigating the source of their variation is of interest
but beyond the scope of the current analysis. Since they are a residual measure, they may capture
many different factors. In our model, they embody the idiosyncratic variation in demand denoted
by d. Empirically, they may reflect geographic variations in product demand, differences in “rela-
tionship capital” in firm-consumer matches (see the discussion in Section IIC), or perhaps quality
differences that remain despite our product selection strategy (see, however, the discussion above
about quality variation, and the negative correlation between prices and physical productivity). In
addition, since we permit elasticities to vary across products but not within products, the demand
shocks may reflect differences in markups across producers of the same product.33
33
We have explored the possibility that elasticities vary across plants in the data, and the sensitivity of the estimated
survival impact of demand shocks to this variation. We allowed flexibility in our estimated demand specification based
on an observable difference across plants: specifically, whether or not they are a part of a multi-unit firm (a firm that
owns more than one plant). We estimated separate demand functions, keeping the isoelastic formulation above, for an
industry’s multi-unit and single-unit plants. The results, which we do not report here for space reasons, indicate that for
most industries (but not all: concrete and flooring are exceptions), multi-unit plants face more elastic demand than do
single-unit plants, though these differences are not always statistically significant. When we use the plant-level demand
shocks from this more flexible demand specification in the survival regressions, however, we find very little difference
from the results here. This suggests that the specific reasons why plants’ elasticities vary along the multi-/single-unit
C. Implications for Aggregate Productivity Growth
To gauge the implications of our findings for aggregate (product- or industry-level) produc-
tivity growth, we decompose across-CM changes in products’ real revenue-weighted average
TFPT, TFPR and TFPQ. The existing literature (see, e.g., Baily, Hulten, and Campbell (1992);
Bartelsman and Doms (2000); Bee Yan Aw, Xiaomin Chen and Roberts (2001); and Foster,
Haltiwanger, and Krizan (2001, 2006)) has found that an important fraction of productivity
growth is accounted for by reallocation effects, and net entry in particular.
To explore these issues in this context, we use our alternative productivity measures to cal-
culate the relative contributions of within-plant growth, reallocation between incumbents, and
entry and exit to aggregate productivity growth. There is some debate in the literature about
the appropriate form of such calculations; accordingly, we explore two alternative decomposi-
tions. The first is a modified version of the Baily, Hulten, and Campbell (1992) (hereafter BHC)
decomposition derived by Foster, Haltiwanger, and Krizan (2001) (hereafter FHK). It is given as
follows (this decomposition is referred to as BHC/FHK in Table 7):
(12) DTFPt 5 a uit21Dtfpit 1 a 1tfpit21 2 TFPt21 2Duit 1 a DtfpitDuit

i[C i[C i[C
1 a uit 1tfpit 2 TFPt21 2 2 a uit21 1tfpit21 2 TFPt21 2 ,

i[N i[X
where TFPt is the output-share-weighted average productivity (either physical or revenue TFP) in
period t across all producers of a product, tfpit is the productivity for establishment i in t, and uit is
the activity share for plant i for a given product. The sets C, N, and X, respectively, represent the
set of continuing, entering, and exiting establishments. This decomposition has five terms that
embody the contributions of various components to aggregate productivity growth. In the order
of their inclusion in (12), these are the within-establishment effect, the between-establishment
effect, the cross effect, the entry effect, and the exit effect (the difference between the final two
is often called the net entry effect). We apply this decomposition separately by product, and then
average the results across products using the aggregate product revenue as weights to obtain the
results reported in Table 7.
A closely related decomposition by Griliches and Haim Regev (1995) (and modified by FHK
to accommodate entry/exit appropriately, hereafter referred to as GR) is given by:
(13) DTFPt 5 a uˉ iDtfpit 1 a (tfpi 2 TFP2 Duit 1 a uit 1tfpit 2 TFP2 2 a uit21 1tfpit21 2 TFP2.
____ ____ ____
i[C i[C i[N i[X
In this decomposition, the bars over a variable indicate the average of the variable across t21 and
t. As such, this decomposition includes a within term based upon the growth rate of continuing
plants’ TFP weighted by average shares across the previous and current periods, a between term
based upon changes in shares weighted by average TFP deviations, and entry and exit terms
deviated from overall time averages. As noted by Erwin Diewert and Kevin Fox (forthcoming),
the within term in this decomposition is a Divisia index of continuing plants’ TFP growth. While
this links nicely the within term to the index number literature, FHK note the decomposition
is more difficult to interpret in the context of reallocation dynamics. The BHC/FHK within
term allows one to conduct the interesting counterfactual exercise of holding shares at their
initial levels so as to measure what productivity growth would have been in the absence of any
dimension, while beyond the scope of our present effort but an interesting point for future research, are not distorting
the results using idiosyncratic demand estimates from a less flexible specification.
Table 7—Decomposition of Industry Productivity Growth over Five-Year Horizons
Productivity Total Components of decomposition (BHC/FHK)

measure growth Within Between Cross Entry Exit Net entry
Traditional 2.30 0.82 20.38 1.16 0.55 0.16 0.70
Revenue 5.13 3.34 20.52 1.39 0.73 0.19 0.93
Physical 5.13 3.44 20.41 0.76 1.23 0.12 1.35
Components of decomposition (GR)

Within Between Entry Exit Net entry
Traditional 2.30 1.40 0.18 0.44 0.27 0.72
Revenue 5.13 4.03 0.16 0.55 0.39 0.94
Physical 5.13 3.82 20.05 1.04 0.32 1.36
Notes: This table shows decompositions of industry-level productivity growth for three different productivity measures
(shown by row) using equations (12) and (13) in text. The column labeled “Total Growth” reflects the weighted average
five-year productivity growth for the industry. The remaining columns reflect the individual terms in the decomposi-
tion. Weights used in decompositions are revenue weights. Average industry revenues across the sample are used to
calculate the results for the average industry. See text for details.
r eallocation. The GR decomposition does not permit the same counterfactual exercise because
the within term confounds changes in productivity and changes in shares. As will become clear,
however, the main results of this section are not sensitive to the choice of decomposition.
The choice of activity weights, uit, is an open question. We use plants’ real revenue shares for
the given product-year. This takes advantage of a basic and important identity emphasized by
Melitz (2003). He notes that industry productivity, defined as the weighted average of plant-level
productivity, is the same whether plant-level revenue productivity or physical productivity is used
as long as (i) the same revenue weights are used, and (ii) the industry price deflator for revenue
based productivity is the appropriate geometric mean of the plant-level prices. This identity
holds because upon aggregation, the weighted average of plant-level prices in the numerator of
aggregate revenue-based productivity cancels with the deflator’s weighted average price in the
denominator. Importantly, this identity will not, in general, hold for TFPT, as this productivity
measure uses the industry-level PPI as the price deflator. The PPI is a geometric mean, but it is
drawn from a different establishment survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics with
different plant-level weights.
We apply the above decompositions to all five-year changes available for each product and
report the averages of each term across products and time periods. (We weight the averages with
time-invariant product real revenue weights, so the results are not impacted by changing product
mixes over time.) Table 7 reports the results. The first row of each panel reports the decomposi-
tion of aggregate TFPT growth, the second row TFPR growth, and the third row TFPQ growth.
Observe first that the identity noted above holds for TFPR and TFPQ (aggregate productivity
growth in each is the same), but TFPT yields quite different aggregate patterns due to deflator
differences and the inclusion of non-production activities in the traditional output measure. As
such, we report TFPT for completeness, but focus our attention on TFPR and TFPQ given that
they are the internally consistent measures at the aggregate level.
Decompositions of both TFPR and TFPQ imply a substantial within-plant contribution to
five-year productivity growth. About 3.4 to 4.0 of the 5.1 percent aggregate productivity growth
comes from productivity growth within surviving plants, depending upon the decomposition.
Regardless of the decomposition used, though, TFPR growth has a substantially smaller entry
component than TFPQ. This is consistent with the plant-level price variation discussed above.
Specifically, entering plants charge appreciably lower prices (especially on a size-weighted basis,
and the decompositions here are weighted by construction), so they have significantly lower
easured revenue productivity levels at entry. This, in turn, causes revenue-based methods to
m
substantially understate the contribution of net entry to aggregate productivity growth. In this
case, the understatement is by one-third: in both decompositions, using TFPQ implies that net
entry’s contribution to productivity growth is about 1.35 percentage points of the 5.1 percent
total, while using TFPR implies it is only 0.9 percentage points of the total.
Since both TFPR and TFPQ yield the same overall aggregate productivity growth, the under-
statement of entry’s contribution must yield an overstatement in some other term. Under BHC/
FHK, this shows up in the contribution of the cross term, which is positive when businesses
experiencing productivity growth also gain market share. This is not surprising because we have
seen that producers tend to raise prices as they age, thereby (all else equal) driving up both their
revenue productivity and market share simultaneously. Under the GR decomposition, this shows
up in a combination of larger within and between terms under TFPR than TFPQ. This pattern
is also consistent with businesses that are increasing prices and revenue shares, because share
changes in this decomposition contribute to both the within and between terms.
The large differences we find between TFPQ and TFPR, in terms of the contribution of net
entry to aggregate productivity growth, are important in thinking about how reallocation dynam-
ics drive productivity growth. Some theories of industry dynamics emphasize entry and exit of
businesses in the creative destruction process, while others emphasize within-plant adjustment
and growth, or the reallocation of activity across continuing businesses. The frictions relevant
for these alternative types of adjustment and reallocation are likely to be quite different. For
continuing businesses, the frictions impinging upon within plant adjustment and reallocation
likely involve adjustment costs, as it is costly to adjust technology, as well as the mix and scale
of factors, and limited product substitutability due to product differentiation (in spatial terms,
physical attributes, or otherwise). For entering businesses, these same frictions likely apply, but
entry costs are obviously a distinguishing feature. The point to emphasize is that in terms of
understanding the barriers to allocative efficiency, these findings suggest that revenue based
productivity decompositions may focus too much attention on continuing businesses, and not
enough on the role of entering businesses.
V. Robustness Checks
In this section we briefly describe exercises we conducted to see if the results above are robust
to our empirical modeling assumptions.
A. Quality Variation versus Spatial Differentiation
We focus on producers of physically homogeneous goods to make quantity comparisons

meaningful and minimize price variations due to quality differences across producers’ outputs.
If this sample selection strategy does, in fact, avoid quality differences (at least in the physical
product) in our sample, then the observed price and demand variation above, as well as the finite
price elasticities we estimate, must be due to horizontal differentiation. As discussed in Section
II.C, in industries where transport costs are important, spatial separation is a readily identifiable
source of such horizontal differentiation. And while there are other plausible sources of horizon-
tal differentiation in national-market industries, their importance is more difficult to quantify.
One might then be concerned that some price variation in our non-spatial industries still reflects
quality variation not purged by our product selection process.
To see if this might be driving our key findings, we redo the empirical exercises above using
only those products that have sufficiently “local” markets. We define these as products for which
the majority of their shipments were within the shortest distance category in the 1977 Commodity
Transport Survey: less than 100 miles. These include block and processed ice, concrete, boxes,
bread, and gasoline. These products have a readily identifiable source of horizontal differentia-
tion that can explain price and demand differences among their producers.
We find very little difference between the results above and those from the local-market-
product-only subsample. This is perhaps not surprising, since these industries account for a large
majority of the establishment-years in our sample: 16,666 of 17,669 observations. Table 8 shows
results obtained from this subsample regarding the determinants of selection, and the BHC/FHK
decomposition of industry-level productivity growth (these are analogous to the results shown in
Table 6 and the upper part of Table 7 for the full sample). We report just these results because of
space limitations and the extensive similarity between the earlier results and those from this local-
market-product subsample. Indeed, the only notable quantitative difference from the full-sample
findings is a weaker, though still negative, price-survival correlation in the restricted sample.
B. Specialization
We impose a specialization criterion for inclusion in our sample: plants must derive at least 50
percent of their revenue from one of our products of interest. This reduces measurement prob-
lems involved in dealing with multi-product firms. Apportioning reported plant-level input usage
across different products made by the plant, a necessary step to compute TFPQ, is less likely to
result in quantity mismeasurement when producers are specialized in our products of interest.
(See the discussion in Section II.A.) Still, the 50 percent criterion is arbitrary and still leaves
some room for inaccuracies, particularly in products like bread and flooring whose producers
are not typically specialized. Therefore we check our results for sensitivity to this cutoff by
repeating the empirical exercises on a set of highly specialized producers: those earning over 90
percent of their revenue from one of our products. This more stringent selection criterion yields
a subsample of 14,310 plant-year observations, a 19 percent reduction from our full sample. The
subsample’s industry composition differs because average plant specialization rates vary across
the industries that make our products. For example, we lose about half of our flooring plants,
80 percent of our bread-making plants, and almost all of our gasoline manufacturers (in other
words, very few refineries obtain over 90 percent of their revenue from gasoline).
Despite these differences in the sample, the estimates we obtain using highly specialized
plants track our main results above closely. This is especially so for the unweighted results,
where there are no qualitative or even quantitative differences of note. The weighted results
regarding prices are more sensitive to the minimum specialization criterion. In particular, the
price gap between entrants and incumbents seen in the full sample is not as large. In Table 9, we
again report results corresponding to those in Tables 6 and 7 for the specialized producer sub-
sample. (Again space constraints and similarities between these and the earlier results cause us
to limit reported output.) The coefficients in Panel A closely match those in Table 6, and for that
matter, those in Panel A of Table 8. And despite the smaller price differences of entrants in the
weighted results, revenue-based productivity decompositions still understate the contribution of
entry to industry productivity growth, as can be seen in Panel B.
VI. Conclusion
The paper has explored the contributions of plant-level technology and demand fundamen-
tals to survival, and selection-based productivity growth. We construct a simple differentiated
products model that shows market selection should be driven by both demand and efficiency
(productivity) factors. Much of the recent empirical literature on productivity has focused on the
latter effect by effectively assuming away within-sector demand dispersion.
Table 8—Robustness Check: Local-Market Products Only
A. Selection on productivity or profitability?

Specification: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
(0.016)
Revenue TFP 20.067
(0.014)
Physical TFP 20.055 20.069 20.048
(0.013) (0.014) (0.013)
Prices 20.002 20.052
(0.020) (0.023)
(0.003) (0.003)
(0.016)
Revenue TFP 20.064
(0.014)
Physical TFP 20.049 20.065 20.048
(0.013) (0.014) (0.013)
Prices 20.014 20.061
(0.020) (0.023)
(0.004) (0.004)
Capital stock 20.045 20.046 20.045 20.046 20.024 20.046 20.024
(0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.004) (0.003) (0.004)
B. Decomposition of industry productivity growth over five-year horizons

Traditional 0.84 20.43 20.34 0.91 0.58 0.11 0.69
Revenue 4.01 2.39 20.45 1.12 0.80 0.15 0.95
Physical 4.01 2.37 20.33 0.57 1.29 0.11 1.40
Note: See notes to Table 6 for Panel A and notes to Table 7 for Panel B.
Using a sample of approximately 18,000 establishment-level observations of producers of

eleven homogenous products, we go on to empirically characterize the nature of selection. Our
ability to measure producer-level prices allows us to, unlike the previous literature, measure
technical efficiency and producer-specific demand separately. This, in turn, allows us to measure
the separate impact of each on plant survival.
We find that the producer heterogeneity assumed in the model is present in the data. Productivity
(both revenue- and physical-quantity-based measures) and prices exhibit substantial and per-
sistent dispersion across establishments within narrowly defined product classes. Interestingly,
quantity-based productivity measures exhibit greater dispersion than revenue-based measures.
This pattern reflects the fact that, while the two productivity measures are highly correlated with
each other (not surprising since the physical productivity is a component of revenue productiv-
ity), physical productivity is negatively correlated with establishment-level prices while revenue
productivity is positively correlated with prices.
We exploit this variation to estimate plants’ idiosyncratic demand levels. Our physical pro-
ductivity measure provides a unique instrument for price to avoid the typical simultaneity bias
in demand estimation. The demand estimates decompose plant-level price variation into two
Table 9—Robustness Check: Highly Specialized Producers Only
A. Selection on productivity or profitability?

Specification: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
(0.018)
Revenue TFP 20.071
(0.017)
Physical TFP 20.048 20.071 20.040
(0.014) (0.017) (0.014)
Prices 20.018 20.072
(0.021) (0.025)
(0.003) (0.003)
(0.018)
Revenue TFP 20.069
(0.016)
Physical TFP 20.042 20.067 20.040
(0.014) (0.017) (0.014)
Prices 20.029 20.081
(0.021) (0.025)
(0.004) (0.004)
Capital stock 20.045 20.045 20.045 20.045 20.021 20.045 20.021
(0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.004) (0.003) (0.004)
B. Decomposition of industry productivity growth over five-year horizons

Traditional 5.87 3.36 20.42 2.23 0.44 0.25 0.69
Revenue 6.90 3.98 20.76 2.77 0.66 0.22 0.87
Physical 6.90 4.67 20.97 1.76 1.13 0.27 1.40
Note: See notes to Table 6 for Panel A and notes to Table 7 for Panel B.
components, one reflecting movements along the demand curve due to differences in physical
efficiency, and the other reflecting producers’ idiosyncratic demand levels.
Turning to selection more directly, we find exiting businesses have lower prices and lower
productivity (either revenue based or physical quantity based) than incumbents or entrants.
Consistent with the earlier literature, we also find that there is, at best, weak evidence of a pro-
ductivity advantage of entrants, relative to incumbents, when revenue-based productivity mea-
sures are used. However, we show that this results, in part, because entering businesses also have
lower prices than incumbents. Therefore revenue-based measures understate entrants’ productiv-
ity advantages. Indeed, we show that entrants are more physically productive than incumbents.
This productivity understatement is also seen not just for entrants, but for young businesses in
general, relative to mature incumbents, because young businesses charge lower prices than their
older competitors.
Plants with lower productivity levels (revenue- or quantity-based), lower prices, and lower
idiosyncratic demand are more likely to exit. Decomposing and controlling for both price and
productivity effects simultaneously shows that both factors are important for survival. Moreover,
the contribution of each is much larger when controlled for simultaneously than when considered
in isolation, because the negative covariance between prices and physical productivity yields an
omitted variable bias when the effect of each is considered in isolation.
While physical productivity is an important factor in determining survival, the dominant fac-
tor determining survival is demand variation across producers. A basic message of this paper
is that recognizing the contribution of, and further investigation into, the determinants of these
demand factors is an important area for future research.
Finally, decompositions of aggregate (product-level) productivity growth using the alterna-
tive productivity measures suggest that the existing literature may understate the contribution
of entry to aggregate productivity growth and overstate the contribution of continuing business.
This misattribution is, again, driven by the relationship between prices and continuing and enter-
ing businesses, diminishing entrants’ true impact on productivity levels.
Our findings provide both good and “bad” news for the existing literature on productivity
dynamics and reallocation. The good news is that revenue-based and physical productivity are
highly correlated, and that price and physical productivity measures work in the same direction
in accounting for survival (i.e., low price and low physical productivity businesses are more
likely to exit). The “bad” news is that the interactions between prices and physical productiv-
ity are rich enough to make it important to decompose revenue productivity into its price and
physical productivity components, something that cannot be easily done with most producer
microdata.
Where do we go from here? Our findings suggest that the recent literature’s efforts to address
the role of demand factors (at least indirectly) in productivity dynamics should have a high pri-
ority. One possible item for this research agenda is to use those few data samples where plant-
level prices are observed directly to evaluate the various methods that have been proposed for
addressing these issues. Another direction for future research is to further develop theoretical
and empirical models that can account for the role of demand factors and price variation across
continuing, entering, and exiting plants. It seems to us that an important issue to explore in this
context is the striking finding here that entering businesses tend to charge lower prices. As we
have noted, this finding is important for understanding the contribution of net entry to aggregate
productivity dynamics, but it is also quite interesting in and of itself.
References
Abbott, Thomas A, III. 1992. “Price Dispersion in U.S. Manufacturing: Implications for the Aggregation
of Products and Firms.” US Census Bureau Working Paper 92–93.
Asplund, Marcus, and Volker Nocke. 2006. “Firm Turnover in Imperfectly Competitive Markets.” Review
of Economic Studies, 73(2): 295–327.
Aw, Bee Yan, Xiaomin Chen, and Mark J. Roberts. 2001. “Firm-Level Evidence on Productivity Differen-
tials and Turnover in Taiwanese Manufacturing.” Journal of Development Economics, 66(1): 51–86.
Baily, Martin Neil, Charles Hulten, and David Campbell. 1992. “Productivity Dynamics in Manufactur-
ing Plants.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Microeconomics: 187–249.
Bartelsman, Eric J., and Mark Doms. 2000. “Understanding Productivity: Lessons from Longitudinal
Microdata.” Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3): 569–94.
Bronnenberg, Bart J., Sanjay K. Dhar, and Jean-Pierre Dubé. 2005. “Market Structure and the
Geographic Distribution of Brand Shares in Consumer Package Goods Industries.” http://faculty.
chicagogsb.edu/jean-pierre.dube/research/papers/cpg_sept_1_2005.pdf.
Cabot Corporation. 2005. 2005 Annual Report. Boston, MA.
Davis, Steve J., and John Haltiwanger. 1991. “Wage Dispersion between and within U.S. Manufacturing
Plants, 1963–86.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Microeconomics: 115–80.
De Loecker, Jan. 2005. “Product Differentiation, Multi-Product Firms and Structural Estimation of Pro-
ductivity.” http://www.econ.kuleuven.be/econometrie/abstracts/abstract0506/DELOECKER.pdf.
Diewert, Erwin, and Kevin Fox. Forthcoming. “On Measuring the Contribution of Entering and Exit-
ing Firms to Aggregate Productivity Growth.” In Price and Productivity Measurement, ed. W. Erwin
iewert, Bert M. Balk, Dennis Fixler, Kevin Fox, and Alice O. Nakamura. Manchester: Trafford
D
Press.
Dunne, Timothy, and Mark J Roberts. 1992. “Costs, Demand, and Imperfect Competition as Determi-
nants of Plant-Level Output Prices.” In Empirical Studies in Industrial Organization: Essays in Honor
of Leonard W. Weiss, ed. David Audretsch and John Siegfried, 13–34. Norwell: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Dunne, Timothy, Mark J. Roberts, and Larry Samuelson. 1988. “Patterns of Firm Entry and Exit in U.S.
Manufacturing Industries.” RAND Journal of Economics, 19(4): 495–515.
Ericson, Richard, and Ariel Pakes. 1995. “Markov-Perfect Industry Dynamics: A Framework for Empiri-
cal Work.” Review of Economic Studies, 62(1): 53–82.
Eslava, Marcela, John Haltiwanger, Adriana Kugler, and Maurice Kugler. 2004. “The Effects of Struc-
tural Reforms on Productivity and Profitability Enhancing Reallocation: Evidence from Colombia.”
Journal of Development Economics, 75(2): 333–71.
Eslava, Marcela, John Haltiwanger, Adriana Kugler, and Maurice Kugler. 2005a. “Employment and Capital
Adjustments After Factor Market Deregulation.” http://www.banrep.gov.co/documentos/conferencias/
2006/ac_ehkk_060105.pdf.
Eslava, Marcela, John Haltiwanger, Adriana Kugler, and Maurice Kugler. 2005b. “Plant Survival, Mar-
ket Fundamentals and Trade Liberalization.” https://www.imf.org/external/np/res/seminars/2005/arc/
pdf/esla.pdf.
Fishman, Arthur, and Rafael Rob. 2003. “Consumer Inertia, Firm Growth and Industry Dynamics.” Jour-
nal of Economic Theory, 109(1): 24–38.
Foster, Lucia, John Haltiwanger, and C. J. Krizan. 2001. “Aggregate Productivity Growth: Lessons from
Microeconomic Evidence.” In New Development in Productivity Analysis, ed. Edward Dean, Michael
Harper, and Charles Hulten, 303–63. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Foster, Lucia, John Haltiwanger, and C. J. Krizan. 2006. “Market Selection, Reallocation, and Restructur-
ing in the U.S. Retail Trade Sector in the 1990s.” Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4): 748–58.
Foster, Lucia, John Haltiwanger, and Chad Syverson. 2005. “Reallocation, Firm Turnover, and Efficiency:
Selection on Productivity or Profitability?” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 11555.
Griliches, Zvi, and Haim Regev. 1995. “Firm Productivity in Israeli Industry: 1979–1988.” Journal of
Econometrics, 65(1): 175–203.
Gorodnichenko, Yuriy. 2005. “What Do We Estimate in Production Function Regressions? Critique and
New Approaches.” http://www.ces.census.gov/docs/caed/abstracts/abs_83_Yuriy_Gorodnichenko.pdf.
Harper, Michael J., Ernst R. Berndt, and David O. Wood. 1989. “Rates of Return and Capital Aggregation
Using Alternative Rental Prices.” In Technology and Capital Formation, ed. Dale W. Jorgenson and
Ralph Landau. 331–72. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hopenhayn, Hugo A. 1992. “Entry, Exit, and Firm Dynamics in Long Run Equilibrium.” Econometrica,
60(5): 1127–50.
Imperial Sugar Company. 2005. 2005 Annual Report. Sugar Land, Texas.
Johnson, Kenneth P., 1995. “Redefinition of the BEA Economic Areas.” Survey of Current Business.75(2):
75–81.
Jovanovic, Boyan. 1982. “Selection and the Evolution of Industry.” Econometrica, 50(3): 649–70.
Katayama, Haijime, Shihua Lu, and James Tybout. 2003. “Why Plant-Level Productivity Studies Are
Often Misleading, and an Alternative Approach to Interference.” National Bureau of Economic Research
Working Paper 9617.
Klette, Tor Jakob, and Zvi Griliches. 1996. “The Inconsistency of Common Scale Estimators when Output
Prices Are Unobserved and Endogenous.” Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11(4): 343–61.
Krishnakumar, B. 2001. “All Grey for Carbon Black.” Business Line’s Investment World, Jan. 7. http://
www.blonnet.com/iw/2001/01/07/stories/0507e051.htm.
Levinsohn, James, and Amil Petrin. 2003. “Estimating Production Functions Using Inputs to Control for
Unobservables.” Review of Economic Studies, 70(2): 317–41.
Mairesse, Jacques, and Jordi Jaumandreu. 2005. “Panel-Data Estimates of the Production Function and
the Revenue Function: What Difference Does It Make?” Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 107(4):
651–72.
Melitz, Marc J. 2000. “Estimating Firm-Level Productivity in Differentiated Product Industries.” http://
post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/melitz/papers/prodest.pdf.
Melitz, Marc J. 2003. “The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Pro-
ductivity.” Econometrica, 71(6): 1695–1725.
Melitz, Marc J., and Gianmarco I. P. Ottaviano. Forthcoming. “Market Size, Trade, and Productivity.”
Review of Economic Studies.
Olley, G. Steven, and Ariel Pakes. 1996. “The Dynamics of Productivity in the Telecommunications Equip-
ment Industry.” Econometrica, 64(6): 1263–97.
Roberts, Mark J, and Dylan Supina. 2000. “Output Price and Markup Dispersion in Micro Data: The
Roles of Producer Heterogeneity and Noise.” In Advances in Applied Microeconomics,Vol. 9, Industrial
Organization, ed. Michael R. Baye, 1–36. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Roberts, Mark J, and Dylan Supina. 1996. “Output Price, Markups, and Producer Size.” European Eco-
nomic Review, 40(3–5): 909–21.
Shea, John. 1997. “Instrument Relevance in Multivariate Linear Models: A Simple Measure.” Review of
Economics and Statistics, 79(2): 348–52.
Syverson, Chad. 2004. “Market Structure and Productivity: A Concrete Example.” Journal of Political
Economy, 112(6): 1181–1222.
Syverson, Chad. 2007. “Prices, Spatial Competition and Heterogeneous Producers: An Empirical Test.”
Journal of Industrial Economics, 55(2): 197–222.
US Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1983. “Trends in Multifactor Productivity: 1948–81.” Bulletin 2178. Wash-
ington, DC: Government Printing Office.
US Bureau of the Census. 1981. “Commodity Transportation Survey.” 1977 Census of Transportation,
TC77–CS. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Federal Trade Commission. 1966. Economic Report on Mergers and Vertical Integration in the
Cement Industry.
Van Biesebroeck, Johannes. 2004. “Robustness of Productivity Estimates” National Bureau of Economic
Research Working Paper 10303.
This article has been cited by:
1. Shaojian Chen, Hui Mao, Zongxian Feng. 2020. Political uncertainty and firm entry: Evidence from
Chinese manufacturing industries. Journal of Business Research 120, 16-30. [Crossref]
2. BENJAMIN L. COLLIER, ANDREW F. HAUGHWOUT, HOWARD C. KUNREUTHER,
ERWANN O. MICHEL‐KERJAN. 2020. Firms’ Management of Infrequent Shocks. Journal of
Money, Credit and Banking 52:6, 1329-1359. [Crossref]
3. Ariel Weinberger. 2020. Markups and misallocation with evidence from exchange rate shocks. Journal
of Development Economics 146, 102494. [Crossref]
4. Jinhee Woo. 2020. Do news shocks increase capital utilization?. Economic Modelling 91, 128-137.
[Crossref]
5. Eleonora Bartoloni, Alessandro Arrighetti, Fabio Landini. 2020. Recession and firm survival: is
selection based on cleansing or skill accumulation?. Small Business Economics 153. . [Crossref]
6. David B. Audretsch, Petra Moog. 2020. Democracy and Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice 34, 104225872094330. [Crossref]
7. Bongseok Choi. 2020. Productivity and misallocation of energy resources: Evidence from Korea’s
manufacturing Sector. Resource and Energy Economics 61, 101184. [Crossref]
8. Jun Oshiro, Yasuhiro Sato. 2020. Industrial structure in urban accounting. Regional Science and Urban
Economics 103576. [Crossref]
9. Milenko Fadic. 2020. Letting Luck Decide: Government Procurement and the Growth of Small
Firms. The Journal of Development Studies 56:7, 1263-1276. [Crossref]
10. Michael Olabisi. 2020. Input–Output Linkages and Sectoral Volatility. Economica 87:347, 713-746.
[Crossref]
11. Eduardo Pontual Ribeiro, Svetlana Golovanova. 2020. A UNIFIED PRESENTATION OF
COMPETITION ANALYSIS IN TWO‐SIDED MARKETS. Journal of Economic Surveys 34:3,
548-571. [Crossref]
12. Tasso Adamopoulos, Diego Restuccia. 2020. Land Reform and Productivity: A Quantitative Analysis
with Micro Data. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 12:3, 1-39. [Abstract] [View PDF
article] [PDF with links]
13. Dongyang Zhang. 2020. How do firms overcome financial constraint anxiety to survive in the
market? Evidence from large manufacturing data. International Review of Financial Analysis 70, 101503.
[Crossref]
14. Nuri Ersahin, Rustom M. Irani, Hanh Le. 2020. Creditor control rights and resource allocation within
firms. Journal of Financial Economics . [Crossref]
15. Stephen Ayerst, Loren Brandt, Diego Restuccia. 2020. Market constraints, misallocation, and
productivity in Vietnam agriculture. Food Policy 94, 101840. [Crossref]
16. Luisa Blanco, Jesse Mora, Michael Olabisi, James E. Prieger. 2020. Synergies and competition: Export
survival in Africa and Latin America. Southern Economic Journal 87:1, 245-273. [Crossref]
17. JANE BOURKE, FRANK CROWLEY, JUSTIN DORAN, ANTHONY McDONNELL. 2020.
AN ANALYSIS OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ACROSS FIRM OWNERSHIP: THE CASE
OF STANDALONE DOMESTIC FIRMS, DOMESTIC GROUPS AND MULTINATIONAL
ENTERPRISES. International Journal of Innovation Management 13, 2150030. [Crossref]
18. Esteban Rossi-Hansberg, Lorenzo Caliendo, Giordano Mion, Luca David Opromolla. 2020.
Productivity and Organization in Portuguese Firms. Journal of Political Economy . [Crossref]
19. Elias Dinopoulos, Sarantis Kalyvitis, Margarita Katsimi. 2020. Variable export price elasticity, product
quality, and credit constraints: Theory and evidence from Greek firms. Journal of International Money
and Finance 104, 102135. [Crossref]
20. Yusuf Emre Akgündüz, Huzeyfe Torun. 2020. Two and a half million Syrian refugees, tasks and
capital intensity. Journal of Development Economics 145, 102470. [Crossref]
21. Fabio Landini. 2020. Distortions in firm selection during recessions: a comparison across European
countries. Industrial and Corporate Change 29:3, 683-712. [Crossref]
22. Roberto Álvarez, Aldo Gonzalez. 2020. Competition, selection, and productivity growth in the
Chilean manufacturing industry. Industrial and Corporate Change 29:3, 877-892. [Crossref]
23. Lucas Figal Garone, Paula A. López Villalba, Alessandro Maffioli, Christian A. Ruzzier. 2020. Firm-
level productivity in Latin America and the Caribbean. Research in Economics 74:2, 186-192. [Crossref]
24. Felipe Benguria, Chris Vickers, Nicolas L. Ziebarth. 2020. Labor Earnings Inequality in
Manufacturing during the Great Depression. The Journal of Economic History 80:2, 531-563.
[Crossref]
25. Sasan Bakhtiari. 2020. Do manufacturing entrepreneurs in Australia have (or develop) a productivity
advantage?. Journal of Productivity Analysis 53:3, 321-338. [Crossref]
26. Yoshimichi Murakami, Keijiro Otsuka. 2020. Governance, Information Spillovers, and Productivity of
Local Firms: Toward an Integrated Approach to Foreign Direct Investment and Global Value Chains.
The Developing Economies 58:2, 134-174. [Crossref]
27. Ferran Vendrell-Herrero, Christian Darko, Yancy Vaillant. 2020. Firm productivity and government
contracts: The moderating role of corruption. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 100899. [Crossref]
28. Giammario Impullitti, Richard Kneller, Danny McGowan. 2020. Demand‐Driven Technical Change
and Productivity Growth: Theory and Evidence from the Energy Policy Act. The Journal of Industrial
Economics 68:2, 328-363. [Crossref]
29. Fabio Landini, Alessandro Arrighetti, Eleonora Bartoloni. 2020. The sources of heterogeneity in firm
performance: lessons from Italy1. Cambridge Journal of Economics 44:3, 527-558. [Crossref]
30. Stefan Wimmer, Johannes Sauer. 2020. Profitability Development and Resource Reallocation: The
Case of Sugar Beet Farming in Germany. Journal of Agricultural Economics 42. . [Crossref]
31. Hyoung-joo Lim, Dafydd Mali. 2020. Does the productivity of labor influence credit risk? new
evidence from South Korea. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics 27:3, 280-299. [Crossref]
32. David Autor, David Dorn, Lawrence F Katz, Christina Patterson, John Van Reenen. 2020. The Fall
of the Labor Share and the Rise of Superstar Firms*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 135:2,
645-709. [Crossref]
33. Jan De Loecker, Jan Eeckhout, Gabriel Unger. 2020. The Rise of Market Power and the
Macroeconomic Implications*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 135:2, 561-644. [Crossref]
34. Lixin Tang. 2020. Entrepreneur income inequality, aggregate saving and the gains from trade. Review
of Economic Dynamics . [Crossref]
35. Rebecca N. Hann, Heedong Kim, Wenfeng Wang, Yue Zheng. 2020. Information Frictions and
Productivity Dispersion: The Role of Accounting Information. The Accounting Review 95:3, 223-250.
[Crossref]
36. Mattia Di Ubaldo, Iulia Siedschlag. 2020. Investment in Knowledge‐Based Capital and Productivity:
Firm‐Level Evidence from a Small Open Economy. Review of Income and Wealth 46. . [Crossref]
37. Trond-Arne Borgersen, Roswitha M. King. 2020. Is the transition process neutral to the employment–
output ratio? Or does ‘jobless growth’ come naturally? The case when allocative and technological
effects interact. Post-Communist Economies 32:3, 391-408. [Crossref]
38. Jianmin Tang, Weimin Wang, Zhihao Yu. 2020. Globalisation, ICT Investment and Firm Dynamism.
Transnational Corporations Review 12:2, 193-202. [Crossref]
39. Fabian Rocha Aponte. 2020. Firm dispersion and total factor productivity: Are Norwegian salmon
producers less efficient over time?. Aquaculture Economics & Management 24:2, 161-180. [Crossref]
40. Sharat Ganapati, Joseph S. Shapiro, Reed Walker. 2020. Energy Cost Pass-Through in US
Manufacturing: Estimates and Implications for Carbon Taxes. American Economic Journal: Applied
Economics 12:2, 303-342. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
41. José Luis Preciado Arreola, Daisuke Yagi, Andrew L. Johnson. 2020. Insights from machine learning
for evaluating production function estimators on manufacturing survey data. Journal of Productivity
Analysis 53:2, 181-225. [Crossref]
42. Yu Sheng, Will Chancellor, Thomas Jackson. 2020. Deregulation reforms, resource reallocation and
aggregate productivity growth in the Australian dairy industry. Australian Journal of Agricultural and
Resource Economics 64:2, 477-504. [Crossref]
43. Yan Wu, Nico Heerink, Linhui Yu. 2020. Real estate boom and resource misallocation in
manufacturing industries: Evidence from China. China Economic Review 60, 101400. [Crossref]
44. Nuri Ersahin. 2020. Creditor Rights, Technology Adoption, and Productivity: Plant-Level Evidence.
The Review of Financial Studies 102. . [Crossref]
45. Victoria Castillo, Lucas Figal Garone, Alessandro Maffioli, Sofia Rojo, Rodolfo Stucchi. 2020.
Knowledge Spillovers through Labour Mobility: An Employer–Employee Analysis. The Journal of
Development Studies 56:3, 469-488. [Crossref]
46. Christopher Hansman, Jonas Hjort, Gianmarco León, Matthieu Teachout. 2020. Vertical Integration,
Supplier Behavior, and Quality Upgrading Among Exporters. Journal of Political Economy . [Crossref]
47. Elena Cefis, Eleonora Bartoloni, Marco Bonati. 2020. Show me how to live: Firms' financial conditions
and innovation during the crisis. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 52, 63-81. [Crossref]
48. Stefan Schneck. 2020. Times are a Changin’? The Emergence of New Firms and Rank Reshuffling.
Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 20:1, 1-33. [Crossref]
49. Ke Miao, Liangjun Su, Wendun Wang. 2020. Panel threshold regressions with latent group structures.
Journal of Econometrics 214:2, 451-481. [Crossref]
50. Michael Dotsey, Alexander L. Wolman. 2020. INVESTIGATING NONNEUTRALITY IN A
STATE‐DEPENDENT PRICING MODEL WITH FIRM‐LEVEL PRODUCTIVITY SHOCKS.
International Economic Review 61:1, 159-188. [Crossref]
51. David Rezza Baqaee, Emmanuel Farhi. 2020. Productivity and Misallocation in General Equilibrium*.
The Quarterly Journal of Economics 135:1, 105-163. [Crossref]
52. Binlei Gong. 2020. Multi-dimensional interactions in the oilfield market: A jackknife model averaging
approach of spatial productivity analysis. Energy Economics 86, 103744. [Crossref]
53. Jason W. Miller, William A. Muir. 2020. A New Perspective on Returns to Scale for Truckload Motor
Carriers. Journal of Business Logistics 29. . [Crossref]
54. Zifeng Feng, William G. Hardin, Zhonghua Wu. 2020. Employee productivity and REIT
performance. Real Estate Economics 83. . [Crossref]
55. Carlos Daniel Santos. 2020. Identifying Demand Shocks From Production Data. Journal of Business
& Economic Statistics 38:1, 93-106. [Crossref]
56. Jeffrey Yi-Lin Forrest, Jeananne Nicholls, Kurt Schimmel, Sifeng Liu. International Trade and Firm
Performance 211-232. [Crossref]
57. José De Sousa, Anne-Célia Disdier, Carl Gaigné. 2020. Export decision under risk. European Economic
Review 121, 103342. [Crossref]
58. Robin C. Sickles, Wonho Song, Valentin Zelenyuk. Econometric analysis of productivity: Theory and
implementation in R 267-297. [Crossref]
59. Christoph Breunig, Michael Kummer, Joerg Ohnemus, Steffen Viete. 2020. Information technology
outsourcing and firm productivity: eliminating bias from selective missingness in the dependent
variable. The Econometrics Journal 23:1, 88-114. [Crossref]
60. Pau Roldan-Blanco, Sonia Gilbukh. 2020. Firm dynamics and pricing under customer capital
accumulation. Journal of Monetary Economics . [Crossref]
61. María Teresa Ballestar, Ángel Díaz-Chao, Jorge Sainz, Joan Torrent-Sellens. 2020. Knowledge, robots
and productivity in SMEs: Explaining the second digital wave. Journal of Business Research 108,
119-131. [Crossref]
62. Charles Godfred Ackah, Richmond Atta-Ankomah, Johnson Appiah Kubi. Management Practices
and Performance Improvement in Manufacturing Enterprises: The Case of Kaizen Adoption in Ghana
269-292. [Crossref]
63. Ananth Ramanarayanan. 2020. Imported inputs and the gains from trade. Journal of International
Economics 122, 103260. [Crossref]
64. Francois Lafond, Diana Seave Greenwald, J. Doyne Farmer. 2020. Can Stimulating Demand Drive
Costs Down? World War II as a Natural Experiment. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
65. Binlei Gong. The Shale Technical Revolution—Cheer or Fear? Impact Analysis on Efficiency in the
Global Oilfield Service Market 103-130. [Crossref]
66. Binlei Gong. Multi-dimensional Interactions in the Oilfield Market: A Jackknife Model Averaging
Approach of Spatial Productivity Analysis 79-102. [Crossref]
67. Oren Ziv, Dominick Bartelme. 2020. The Internal Geography of Firms. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
68. Kory Kroft, Yao Luo, Magne Mogstad, Bradley Setzler. 2020. Imperfect Competition and Rents
in Labor and Product Markets: The Case of the Construction Industry. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
69. Giovanni Dosi, Dario Guarascio, Andrea Ricci, Maria Enrica Virgillito. 2019. Neodualism in the Italian
business firms: training, organizational capabilities, and productivity distributions. Small Business
Economics 70. . [Crossref]
70. Amit Gandhi, Salvador Navarro, David A. Rivers. 2019. On the Identification of Gross Output
Production Functions. Journal of Political Economy . [Crossref]
71. Masayuki Morikawa. 2019. Dispersion and volatility of TFPQ and TFPR: findings from three service
industries. Industrial and Corporate Change 28:6, 1515-1531. [Crossref]
72. Sanday Amos, Doungahire Abdoul Karim Zanhouo. 2019. Financial constraints, firm productivity
and cross-country income differences: Evidence from sub-Sahara Africa. Borsa Istanbul Review 19:4,
357-371. [Crossref]
73. Jiachao Peng, Jianzhong Xiao, Le Wen, Lian Zhang. 2019. Energy industry investment influences
total factor productivity of energy exploitation: A biased technical change analysis. Journal of Cleaner
Production 237, 117847. [Crossref]
74. Matthew Smith, Danny Yagan, Owen Zidar, Eric Zwick. 2019. Capitalists in the Twenty-First
Century*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 134:4, 1675-1745. [Crossref]
75. Bryan Hong, Lorenz Kueng, Mu-Jeung Yang. 2019. Complementarity of Performance Pay and Task
Allocation. Management Science 65:11, 5152-5170. [Crossref]
76. Joel Rodrigue, Yong Tan. 2019. PRICE, PRODUCT QUALITY, AND EXPORTER DYNAMICS:
EVIDENCE FROM CHINA. International Economic Review 60:4, 1911-1955. [Crossref]
77. Erick Sager, Olga A. Timoshenko. 2019. The double EMG distribution and trade elasticities.
Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique 52:4, 1523-1557. [Crossref]
78. Kaku Attah Damoah. 2019. Markups, Market Imperfections, and Trade Openness: Evidence from
Ghana. The World Bank Economic Review 97. . [Crossref]
79. Litan Wang, Sajid Anwar. 2019. VAT Rebate Policy and Export Performance: A Case Study of China’s
Mechanical Goods Industry. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 1-15. [Crossref]
80. Marc Cowling, George Tanewski. 2019. On the productive efficiency of Australian businesses: firm
size and age class effects. Small Business Economics 53:3, 739-752. [Crossref]
81. Xiaoyong Dai, Fang Wang. 2019. Does the high- and new-technology enterprise program promote
innovative performance? Evidence from Chinese firms. China Economic Review 57, 101330. [Crossref]
82. Michael A. Klein. 2019. Establishment productivity convergence and the effect of foreign ownership
at the frontier. World Development 122, 245-260. [Crossref]
83. Mike G. Tsionas, Michael L. Polemis. 2019. On the estimation of total factor productivity: A
novel Bayesian non-parametric approach. European Journal of Operational Research 277:3, 886-902.
[Crossref]
84. Ruipeng Tan, Boqiang Lin, Xiying Liu. 2019. Impacts of eliminating the factor distortions on energy
efficiency—A focus on China's secondary industry. Energy 183, 693-701. [Crossref]
85. Hien Thu Tran. 2019. Institutional quality and market selection in the transition to market economy.
Journal of Business Venturing 34:5, 105890. [Crossref]
86. Xuebing Yang, Lili Chen. 2019. Physical productivity of new firms: it is not as high as it appears.
Applied Economics 51:40, 4397-4410. [Crossref]
87. Chad Syverson. 2019. Macroeconomics and Market Power: Context, Implications, and Open
Questions. Journal of Economic Perspectives 33:3, 23-43. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with
links]
88. Yi Lu, Jin Wang, Lianming Zhu. 2019. Place-Based Policies, Creation, and Agglomeration
Economies: Evidence from China’s Economic Zone Program. American Economic Journal: Economic
Policy 11:3, 325-360. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
89. Patrick Kline, Neviana Petkova, Heidi Williams, Owen Zidar. 2019. Who Profits from Patents? Rent-
Sharing at Innovative Firms*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 134:3, 1343-1404. [Crossref]
90. L. Kamran Bilir, Eduardo Morales. 2019. Innovation in the Global Firm. Journal of Political Economy
. [Crossref]
91. Jin Tao, Chun-Yu Ho, Shougui Luo, Yue Sheng. 2019. Agglomeration economies in creative
industries. Regional Science and Urban Economics 77, 141-154. [Crossref]
92. Nguyen Thi Canh, Nguyen Thanh Liem, Phung Anh Thu, Nguyen Vinh Khuong. 2019. The
Impact of Innovation on the Firm Performance and Corporate Social Responsibility of Vietnamese
Manufacturing Firms. Sustainability 11:13, 3666. [Crossref]
93. Grigorios Spanos. 2019. Firm organization and productivity across locations. Journal of Urban
Economics 112, 152-168. [Crossref]
94. Sai Ding, Puyang Sun, Wei Jiang. 2019. The Effect of Foreign Entry Regulation on Downstream
Productivity: Microeconomic Evidence from China*. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics 121:3,
925-959. [Crossref]
95. Cecília Hornok, Balázs Muraközy. 2019. Markups of Exporters and Importers: Evidence from
Hungary. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics 121:3, 1303-1333. [Crossref]
96. SASAN BAKHTIARI, ANGELINA BRUNO. 2019. GOVERNMENT COMMERCIALIZATION
GRANTS AND BUSINESS PERFORMANCE. The Singapore Economic Review 1-21. [Crossref]
97. Aekapol Chongvilaivan, Jung Hur. 2019. Structural change and relative demand for skilled workers:
new evidence from the US manufacturing. Industrial and Corporate Change 14. . [Crossref]
98. YUAN AN, KEBIN DENG, ZHONG DING, FOX GAO. 2019. THE ROLE
OF MARKETIZATION ON THE LINKAGE BETWEEN MISALLOCATION AND
PRODUCTIVITY DISPERSION: EVIDENCE FROM CHINA. The Singapore Economic Review
1950029. [Crossref]
99. Justin M. Rao, Andrey Simonov. 2019. Firms’ reactions to public information on business practices:
The case of search advertising. Quantitative Marketing and Economics 17:2, 105-134. [Crossref]
100. Rebecca J. Davis, Charles Sims. 2019. Frack to the future: What enticed small firms to enter the
natural gas market during the hydraulic fracturing boom?. Energy Economics 81, 960-973. [Crossref]
101. Uwe Cantner, Ivan Savin, Simone Vannuccini. 2019. Replicator dynamics in value chains: explaining
some puzzles of market selection. Industrial and Corporate Change 28:3, 589-611. [Crossref]
102. JESS BENHABIB, XUEWEN LIU, PENGFEI WANG. 2019. Financial Markets, the Real Economy,
and Self‐Fulfilling Uncertainties. The Journal of Finance 74:3, 1503-1557. [Crossref]
103. Tewodros Ayenew Wassie. 2019. Revisiting the Causal Effects of Exporting on Productivity: Does
Price Heterogeneity Matter?. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 19:2, 185-210. [Crossref]
104. Andrzej Cieślik, Jan Jakub Michałek, Iryna Gauger. 2019. Regional dimension of firm level
productivity determinants: the case of manufacturing and service firms in Ukraine. Central European
Economic Journal 5:52, 81-95. [Crossref]
105. Nicholas Bloom, Erik Brynjolfsson, Lucia Foster, Ron Jarmin, Megha Patnaik, Itay Saporta-Eksten,
John Van Reenen. 2019. What Drives Differences in Management Practices?. American Economic
Review 109:5, 1648-1683. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
106. Paul Piveteau, Gabriel Smagghue. 2019. Estimating firm product quality using trade data. Journal of
International Economics 118, 217-232. [Crossref]
107. Antoine Gervais, J. Bradford Jensen. 2019. The tradability of services: Geographic concentration and
trade costs. Journal of International Economics 118, 331-350. [Crossref]
108. Alessandro Girardi, Marco Ventura. 2019. Measuring credit crunch in Italy: evidence from a survey-
based indicator. Annals of Operations Research 1. . [Crossref]
109. Md Takibur Rahman, Rasmus Nielsen, Md Akhtaruzzaman Khan. 2019. Agglomeration externalities
and technical efficiency: An empirical application to the pond aquaculture of Pangas and Tilapia in
Bangladesh. Aquaculture Economics & Management 23:2, 158-187. [Crossref]
110. Vasco M. Carvalho, Basile Grassi. 2019. Large Firm Dynamics and the Business Cycle. American
Economic Review 109:4, 1375-1425. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
111. John Asker, Allan Collard-Wexler, Jan De Loecker. 2019. (Mis)Allocation, Market Power, and Global
Oil Extraction. American Economic Review 109:4, 1568-1615. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF
with links]
112. Benjamin Bruns. 2019. Changes in Workplace Heterogeneity and How They Widen the Gender
Wage Gap. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 11:2, 74-113. [Abstract] [View PDF article]
[PDF with links]
113. Florian Kuhn, Chacko George. 2019. Business cycle implications of capacity constraints under demand
shocks. Review of Economic Dynamics 32, 94-121. [Crossref]
114. In Hwan Jo, Tatsuro Senga. 2019. Aggregate consequences of credit subsidy policies: Firm dynamics
and misallocation. Review of Economic Dynamics 32, 68-93. [Crossref]
115. Ardavan Yazdanbakhsh, Méryl Lagouin. 2019. The effect of geographic boundaries on the results of
a regional life cycle assessment of using recycled aggregate in concrete. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 143, 201-209. [Crossref]
116. Ilona Sergant, Patrick Van Cayseele. 2019. Financial Constraints: State Aid to the Rescue? Empirical
Evidence from Belgian Firm-Level Data. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 19:1, 33-67.
[Crossref]
117. Jianzhi Zhao. 2019. Chinese State-Owned Companies, Misallocation and the Reform Policy. Chinese
Political Science Review 4:1, 28-51. [Crossref]
118. Ina C. Jäkel. 2019. Product appeal, differences in tastes, and export performance: Evidence for Danish
chocolate and confectionery. International Journal of Industrial Organization 63, 417-459. [Crossref]
119. Andrew B Bernard, Emily J Blanchard, Ilke Van Beveren, Hylke Vandenbussche. 2019. Carry-Along
Trade. The Review of Economic Studies 86:2, 526-563. [Crossref]
120. Zheng Zhang, Yuping Deng, Sam Hak Kan Tang. 2019. Do Foreign Mergers and Acquisitions
Increase Acquired Firms’ Innovation? Evidence from Chinese Manufacturing Firms. Australian
Economic Review 52:1, 41-60. [Crossref]
121. Sasan Bakhtiari. 2019. Entrepreneurship Dynamics in Australia: Lessons from Micro‐data. Economic
Record 95:308, 114-140. [Crossref]
122. Antti Kauhanen, Mika Maliranta. 2019. The Roles of Job and Worker Restructuring in Aggregate
Wage Growth Dynamics 1. Review of Income and Wealth 65:1, 99-118. [Crossref]
123. Nicolas Berman, Vincent Rebeyrol, Vincent Vicard. 2019. Demand Learning and Firm Dynamics:
Evidence from Exporters. The Review of Economics and Statistics 101:1, 91-106. [Crossref]
124. Mark Chin, Thomas J. Kane, Whitney Kozakowski, Beth E. Schueler, Douglas O. Staiger. 2019.
School District Reform in Newark: Within- and Between-School Changes in Achievement Growth.
ILR Review 72:2, 323-354. [Crossref]
125. Arti Grover Goswami, Denis Medvedev, Ellen Olafsen. What Makes for High Growth? 67-115.
[Crossref]
126. Klaus Adam, Henning Weber. 2019. Optimal Trend Inflation. American Economic Review 109:2,
702-737. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
127. Pradeep Kumar, Hongsong Zhang. 2019. PRODUCTIVITY OR UNEXPECTED DEMAND
SHOCKS: WHAT DETERMINES FIRMS' INVESTMENT AND EXIT DECISIONS?.
International Economic Review 60:1, 303-327. [Crossref]
128. Guangyue Wei. 2019. A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF THE TOP FIVE ECONOMICS
JOURNALS DURING 2012-2016. Journal of Economic Surveys 33:1, 25-59. [Crossref]
129. Jennifer González-Blanco, Mercedes Vila-Alonso, Manuel Guisado-González. 2019. EXPLORING
THE COMPLEMENTARITY BETWEEN FOREIGN TECHNOLOGY, EMBEDDED
TECHNOLOGY AND INCREASE OF PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY. Technological and Economic
Development of Economy 25:1, 39-58. [Crossref]
130. Michela Giorcelli. 2019. The Long-Term Effects of Management and Technology Transfers.
American Economic Review 109:1, 121-152. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
131. Chris Vickers, Nicolas L. Ziebarth. The Census of Manufactures: An Overview 1697-1720. [Crossref]
132. Hyun Seok Lee, Saravanan Kesavan. Determinants of Excess Inventory Announcement and Stock
Market Reaction in the Retail Sector 197-233. [Crossref]
133. Chris Vickers, Nicolas L. Ziebarth. The Census of Manufactures: An Overview 1-24. [Crossref]
134. Julian Neira. 2019. Bankruptcy and cross-country differences in productivity. Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization 157, 359-381. [Crossref]
135. Çağatay Bircan. 2019. Ownership Structure and Productivity of Multinationals. Journal of
International Economics 116, 125-143. [Crossref]
136. Michael W.L. Elsby, Ryan Michaels. 2019. Fixed adjustment costs and aggregate fluctuations. Journal
of Monetary Economics 101, 128-147. [Crossref]
137. Pian Shu, Claudia Steinwender. 2019. The Impact of Trade Liberalization on Firm Productivity and
Innovation. Innovation Policy and the Economy 19, 39-68. [Crossref]
138. Lionel Fontagné, Gianluca Santoni. 2019. Agglomeration economies and firm-level labor
misallocation. Journal of Economic Geography 19:1, 251-272. [Crossref]
139. José Mata, Paulo Guimarães. 2019. Temporary investment incentives and divestment by foreign firms.
Oxford Economic Papers 71:1, 166-186. [Crossref]
140. Umut Kilinç. 2019. Export Destination Characteristics and Markups: The Role of Country Size.
Economica 86:341, 116-138. [Crossref]
141. Luca Mazzone. 2019. On the Solution of High-Dimensional Macro Models with Distributional
Channels. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
142. Jihong Lee, Hyunkyeong Lim. 2019. Broken Patent System? Evidence from the US, 1976-2017.
SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
143. Martin Gornig, Alexander Schiersch. 2019. Agglomeration Economies and the Firm TFP: Different
Effects Across Industries. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
144. Astrid Krenz. 2019. Firm Heterogeneity, Productivity, and the Extensive Margins of Trade –
Differences Between Manufacturing Firms in East and West Germany. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
145. Zach Flynn, Amit Gandhi, James Traina. 2019. Identifying Market Power in Production Data. SSRN
Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
146. Horng Chern Wong. 2019. Wage Determination Across Firms. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
147. Jeffrey Yi-Lin Forrest, Michael E. Trebing, Anindya Chatterjee, Joachim Wagner. 2019. Domestic
Firms, Exporters and Importers: A Systemic Perspective. Theoretical Economics Letters 09:04, 649-674.
[Crossref]
148. Simone Lenzu, David Rivers, Joris Tielens. 2019. Financial Shocks and Productivity: Pricing Response
and the TFPR-TFPQ Bifurcation. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
149. Michael Olabisi. 2019. Input-Output Linkages and Sectoral Volatility. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
150. Bruno Pellegrino. 2019. Product Differentiation, Market Power and Resource Allocation. SSRN
151. Devesh Raval. 2019. Testing the Production Approach to Markup Estimation. SSRN Electronic
Journal . [Crossref]
152. Mathieu Taschereau-Dumouchel. 2019. Cascades and Fluctuations in an Economy with an
Endogenous Production Network. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
153. Sabrina Howell, Filippo Mezzanotti. 2019. Financing Entrepreneurship through the Tax Code: Angel
Investor Tax Credits. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
154. Réka Juhász, Mara Squicciarini, Nico Voigtländer. 2019. Technology Adoption and Productivity
Growth During the Industrial Revolution: Evidence from France. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
155. Nicola Bianchi, Michela Giorcelli. 2019. Not All Management Training Is Created Equal: Evidence
from the Training Within Industry Program. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
156. Ana Paula Cusolito, William F. Maloney. Back Matter: Appendix A 147-172. [Crossref]
157. Michael A. Anderson, Martin H. Davies, José E. Signoret, Stephen L. S. Smith. 2018. Firm
Heterogeneity and Export Pricing in India. Southern Economic Journal 90. . [Crossref]
158. Joseph S. Shapiro, Reed Walker. 2018. Why Is Pollution from US Manufacturing Declining? The
Roles of Environmental Regulation, Productivity, and Trade. American Economic Review 108:12,
159. J. David Brown, Gustavo A. Crespi, Leonardo Iacovone, Luca Marcolin. 2018. Decomposing firm-
level productivity growth and assessing its determinants: evidence from the Americas. The Journal of
Technology Transfer 43:6, 1571-1606. [Crossref]
160. Zhao Rong, David C. Broadstock, Yuanyuan Peng. 2018. Initial submarket positioning and firm
survival: evidence from the British automobile industry, 1895–1970. Small Business Economics 51:4,
965-993. [Crossref]
161. Hyejin Jung, JungTae Hwang, Byung-Keun Kim. 2018. Does R&D investment increase SME survival
during a recession?. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 137, 190-198. [Crossref]
162. Daniel Schwab, Eric Werker. 2018. Are economic rents good for development? Evidence from the
manufacturing sector. World Development 112, 33-45. [Crossref]
163. Wiebke Bartz-Zuccala, Pierre Mohnen, Helena Schweiger. 2018. The Role of Innovation and
Management Practices in Determining Firm Productivity. Comparative Economic Studies 60:4,
502-530. [Crossref]
164. Vahagn Jerbashian. 2018. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND PRODUCT MARKET
COMPETITION REGULATIONS IN A MODEL WITH TWO R&D PERFORMING
SECTORS. Macroeconomic Dynamics 120, 1-22. [Crossref]
165. Daron Acemoglu, Ufuk Akcigit, Harun Alp, Nicholas Bloom, William Kerr. 2018. Innovation,
Reallocation, and Growth. American Economic Review 108:11, 3450-3491. [Abstract] [View PDF
166. Ari Hyytinen, Frode Steen, Otto Toivanen. 2018. Cartels Uncovered. American Economic Journal:
Microeconomics 10:4, 190-222. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
167. Umut Kılınç. 2018. Assessing Productivity Gains from International Trade in a Small Open Economy.
Open Economies Review 29:5, 953-980. [Crossref]
168. Shengyu Li. 2018. A structural model of productivity, uncertain demand, and export dynamics.
Journal of International Economics 115, 1-15. [Crossref]
169. Andrea L. Eisfeldt, Yu Shi. 2018. Capital Reallocation. Annual Review of Financial Economics 10:1,
361-386. [Crossref]
170. Laiqun Jin, Changwei Mo, Bochao Zhang, Bing Yu. 2018. What Is the Focus of Structural Reform
in China?—Comparison of the Factor Misallocation Degree within the Manufacturing Industry with
a Unified Model. Sustainability 10:11, 4051. [Crossref]
171. Florian Mayneris, Sandra Poncet, Tao Zhang. 2018. Improving or disappearing: Firm-level
adjustments to minimum wages in China. Journal of Development Economics 135, 20-42. [Crossref]
172. Roberto Álvarez, Rodrigo Fuentes. 2018. Minimum Wage and Productivity: Evidence from Chilean
Manufacturing Plants. Economic Development and Cultural Change 67:1, 193-224. [Crossref]
173. Sara Calligaris, Massimo Del Gatto, Fadi Hassan, Gianmarco I P Ottaviano, Fabiano Schivardi. 2018.
The productivity puzzle and misallocation: an Italian perspective. Economic Policy 33:96, 635-684.
[Crossref]
174. Mark J Roberts, Daniel Yi Xu, Xiaoyan Fan, Shengxing Zhang. 2018. The Role of Firm Factors in
Demand, Cost, and Export Market Selection for Chinese Footwear Producers. The Review of Economic
Studies 85:4, 2429-2461. [Crossref]
175. JOHAN HOMBERT, ADRIEN MATRAY. 2018. Can Innovation Help U.S. Manufacturing Firms
Escape Import Competition from China?. The Journal of Finance 73:5, 2003-2039. [Crossref]
176. Sai Ding, Minjoo Kim, Xiao Zhang. 2018. Do firms care about investment opportunities? Evidence
from China. Journal of Corporate Finance 52, 214-237. [Crossref]
177. Xiaoyong Dai, Liwei Cheng. 2018. The impact of product innovation on firm-level markup and
productivity: evidence from China. Applied Economics 50:42, 4570-4581. [Crossref]
178. Andrea Linarello. 2018. Direct and indirect effects of trade liberalization: Evidence from Chile. Journal
of Development Economics 134, 160-175. [Crossref]
179. Steffen Müller, Renate Neubaeumer. 2018. Size of training firms – the role of firms, luck, and ability
in young workers’ careers. International Journal of Manpower 39:5, 658-673. [Crossref]
180. Xiaoyong Dai, Zao Sun, Hang Liu. 2018. Disentangling the effects of endogenous export and
innovation on the performance of Chinese manufacturing firms. China Economic Review 50, 42-58.
[Crossref]
181. Thomas Y. To, Marco Navone, Eliza Wu. 2018. Analyst coverage and the quality of corporate
investment decisions. Journal of Corporate Finance 51, 164-181. [Crossref]
182. William F Maloney, Gaurav Nayyar. 2018. Industrial Policy, Information, and Government Capacity.
The World Bank Research Observer 33:2, 189-217. [Crossref]
183. Michael Amior, Alan Manning. 2018. The Persistence of Local Joblessness. American Economic
Review 108:7, 1942-1970. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
184. Emek Basker, Chris Vickers, Nicolas L. Ziebarth. 2018. Competition, productivity, and survival of
grocery stores in the Great Depression. International Journal of Industrial Organization 59, 282-315.
[Crossref]
185. Nicolas Crouzet. 2018. Aggregate Implications of Corporate Debt Choices. The Review of Economic
186. T. Kirk White, Jerome P. Reiter, Amil Petrin. 2018. Imputation in U.S. Manufacturing Data and
Its Implications for Productivity Dispersion. The Review of Economics and Statistics 100:3, 502-509.
[Crossref]
187. Rolf Golombek, Arvid Raknerud. 2018. Exit dynamics of start-up firms: Structural estimation using
indirect inference. Journal of Econometrics 205:1, 204-225. [Crossref]
188. Philip Ushchev, Yves Zenou. 2018. Price competition in product variety networks. Games and
Economic Behavior 110, 226-247. [Crossref]
189. Konstantins Benkovskis. 2018. Misallocation, productivity and fragmentation of production: the case
of Latvia. Journal of Productivity Analysis 49:2-3, 187-206. [Crossref]
190. Marc-Andreas Muendler, James E. Rauch. 2018. Do employee spinoffs learn markets from their
parents? Evidence from international trade. European Economic Review 105, 159-173. [Crossref]
191. Petr Wawrosz, Jiří Mihola, Jana Kotěšovcová. 2018. How to Express and to Measure Whether an
Economic System Develops Intensively. Systems 6:2, 24. [Crossref]
192. Ulf Lewrick, Lukas Mohler, Rolf Weder. 2018. Productivity growth from an international trade
perspective. Review of International Economics 26:2, 339-356. [Crossref]
193. Hua Shang, Teng Zhang, Puman Ouyang. 2018. Credit Allocation and Firm Productivity Under
Financial Imperfection: Evidence from Chinese Manufacturing Firms. Emerging Markets Finance and
Trade 54:5, 992-1010. [Crossref]
194. John C. Haltiwanger, Henry R. Hyatt, Lisa B. Kahn, Erika McEntarfer. 2018. Cyclical Job Ladders
by Firm Size and Firm Wage. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 10:2, 52-85. [Abstract]
[View PDF article] [PDF with links]
195. Hunt Allcott, Daniel Keniston. 2018. Dutch Disease or Agglomeration? The Local Economic Effects
of Natural Resource Booms in Modern America. The Review of Economic Studies 85:2, 695-731.
[Crossref]
196. Liliana Varela. 2018. Reallocation, Competition, and Productivity: Evidence from a Financial
Liberalization Episode. The Review of Economic Studies 85:2, 1279-1313. [Crossref]
197. Antoine Gervais. 2018. MULTIREGIONAL FIRMS AND REGION SWITCHING IN THE U.S.
MANUFACTURING SECTOR. Economic Inquiry 56:2, 955-982. [Crossref]
198. Marshall Reinsdorf, Robert Yuskavage. 2018. Offshoring, Sourcing Substitution Bias, and the
Measurement of Growth in U.S. Gross Domestic Product and Productivity. Review of Income and
Wealth 64:1, 127-146. [Crossref]
199. Geoffrey Barrows, Hélène Ollivier. 2018. Cleaner firms or cleaner products? How product mix shapes
emission intensity from manufacturing. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 88,
134-158. [Crossref]
200. Francesco Di Comite, Antonella Nocco, Gianluca Orefice. 2018. Trade liberalization and the wage
gap: the role of vertical linkages and fixed costs. Review of World Economics 154:1, 75-115. [Crossref]
201. Raffaele Brancati, Emanuela Marrocu, Manuel Romagnoli, Stefano Usai. 2018. Innovation activities
and learning processes in the crisis: evidence from Italian export in manufacturing and services.
Industrial and Corporate Change 27:1, 107-130. [Crossref]
202. Yusuf Emre Akgündüz, Marcel van den Berg, Wolter Hassink. 2018. The Impact of the Syrian Refugee
Crisis on Firm Entry and Performance in Turkey. The World Bank Economic Review 32:1, 19-40.
[Crossref]
203. Costas Arkolakis, Arnaud Costinot, Dave Donaldson, Andrés Rodríguez-Clare. 2018. The Elusive
Pro-Competitive Effects of Trade. The Review of Economic Studies 104. . [Crossref]
204. Hang J. Kim, Jerome P. Reiter, Alan F. Karr. 2018. Simultaneous edit-imputation and disclosure
limitation for business establishment data. Journal of Applied Statistics 45:1, 63-82. [Crossref]
205. David Card, Ana Rute Cardoso, Joerg Heining, Patrick Kline. 2018. Firms and Labor Market
Inequality: Evidence and Some Theory. Journal of Labor Economics 36:S1, S13-S70. [Crossref]
206. John Haltiwanger, Henry Hyatt, Erika McEntarfer. 2018. Who Moves Up the Job Ladder?. Journal
of Labor Economics 36:S1, S301-S336. [Crossref]
207. Edward P. Lazear, Kathryn L. Shaw. 2018. Introduction: Firms and the Distribution of Income: The
Roles of Productivity and Luck. Journal of Labor Economics 36:S1, S1-S12. [Crossref]
208. Aleksander Sładkowski, Maria Cieśla. Analysis and Development Perspective Scenarios of Transport
Corridors Supporting Eurasian Trade 71-119. [Crossref]
209. Christophre Georges. Product Innovation and Macroeconomic Dynamics 205-220. [Crossref]
210. Christopher J. O’Donnell. Overview 1-54. [Crossref]
211. Alex Coad. 2018. Firm age: a survey. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 28:1, 13-43. [Crossref]
212. Binlei Gong. 2018. The shale technical revolution – cheer or fear? Impact analysis on efficiency in
the global oilfield service market. Energy Policy 112, 162-172. [Crossref]
213. André Kurmann, Stanislav Rabinovich. 2018. Dynamic inefficiency in decentralized capital markets.
Journal of Economic Theory 173, 231-256. [Crossref]
214. Titan Alon, David Berger, Robert Dent, Benjamin Pugsley. 2018. Older and slower: The startup
deficit’s lasting effects on aggregate productivity growth. Journal of Monetary Economics 93, 68-85.
[Crossref]
215. David Argente, Munseob Lee, Sara Moreira. 2018. Innovation and product reallocation in the great
recession. Journal of Monetary Economics 93, 1-20. [Crossref]
216. Sibanjan Mishra, Soumya G. Deb, Damir Tokic. 2018. Predictors of firm growth in India: An
exploratory analysis using accounting information. Cogent Economics & Finance 6:1, 1553571.
[Crossref]
217. Dennis Becker. 2018. Heterogeneous firms and informality: the effects of trade liberalization on labour
markets. Oxford Economic Papers 70:1, 47-72. [Crossref]
218. Jung Ho Choi. 2018. Accrual Accounting and Resource Allocation: A General Equilibrium Analysis.
219. Nouri Najjar, Jevan Cherniwchan. 2018. Environmental Regulations and the Clean-Up of
Manufacturing: Plant-Level Evidence From Canada. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
220. Bee Yan Aw, Yi Lee, Hylke Vandenbussche. 2018. Decomposing Firm-Product Appeal: How
Important Is Consumer Taste?. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
221. Sharat Ganapati, Joseph S. Shapiro, Reed Walker. 2018. The Incidence of Carbon Taxes in U.S.
Manufacturing: Lessons from Energy Cost Pass-Through. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
222. Iris Mihai. 2018. Reconsidering Economic Productivity. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
223. Sergey Kichko, Pierre M. Picard. 2018. Heterogeneity in Conformism, Firm Selection, and Home
Bias. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
224. Joseph S. Shapiro, Reed Walker. 2018. Why is Pollution from U.S. Manufacturing Declining? The
Roles of Environmental Regulation, Productivity, and Trade. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
225. Adam B. Jaffe, Nathan Chappell. 2018. Worker Flows, Entry, and Productivity in New Zealand's
Construction Industry. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
226. Philip Ushchev, Yves Zenou. 2018. Price Competition in Product Variety Networks. SSRN Electronic
227. Chang-Chih Chen, Chih-Yuan Yang. 2018. Innovation Valuation, Human Capital Quality, and Firm
Leverage Puzzles. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
228. Marcos Dinerstein, Fausto Patiio Peea. 2018. Corporate Tax Rates, Allocative Efficiency, and
Aggregate Productivity. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
229. Doireann Fitzgerald, Anthony Priolo. 2018. How Do Firms Build Market Share?. SSRN Electronic
230. Till F. Hollstein, Kristian Estevez. 2018. Quality Polarization and International Trade. SSRN
231. Ana Maria Herrera, Steven Lugauer, Guowen Chen. 2018. Policy and Misallocation. SSRN Electronic
232. Rafael R. Guthmann. 2018. Price Dispersion in Dynamic Duopoly. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
233. Ryan A. Chahrour, Robert Ulbricht. 2018. Robust Predictions for DSGE Models with Incomplete
Information. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
234. Murray Z. Frank, Keer Yang. 2018. Does Finance Flow to High Productivity Firms?. SSRN Electronic
235. Michael A. Klein. 2018. Establishment Productivity Convergence and the Effect of Foreign Ownership
at the Frontier. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
236. Jasmine Xiao. 2018. Borrowing to Save and Investment Dynamics. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
237. Jose Maria Barrero. 2018. The Micro and Macro of Managerial Beliefs. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
238. Tania Babina, Sabrina Howell. 2018. Entrepreneurial Spillovers from Corporate R&D. SSRN
239. Rafael R. Guthmann. 2018. Price Dispersion in Dynamic Equilibrium. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
240. Eric Verhoogen, David Alfaro‐Serrano, Tanay Balantrapu, Ana Goicoechea. 2018. PROTOCOL:
Interventions to promote technology adoption in firms: a systematic review. Campbell Systematic
Reviews 14:1, 1-30. [Crossref]
241. Shigeru Fujita, Giuseppe Moscarini. 2017. Recall and Unemployment. American Economic Review
107:12, 3875-3916. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
242. Holger Görg, Philipp Henze, Viroj Jienwatcharamongkhol, Daniel Kopasker, Hassan Molana, Catia
Montagna, Fredrik Sjöholm. 2017. Firm size distribution and employment fluctuations: Theory and
evidence. Research in Economics 71:4, 690-703. [Crossref]
243. MIKAEL CARLSSON. 2017. Microdata Evidence on the Empirical Importance of Selection Effects
in Menu-Cost Models. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 49:8, 1803-1830. [Crossref]
244. Michael A. Clemens, Hannah Postel. 2017. Temporary work visas as US-Haiti development
cooperation: a preliminary impact evaluation. IZA Journal of Labor & Development 6:1. . [Crossref]
245. Meri Davlasheridze, Pinar C. Geylani. 2017. Small Business vulnerability to floods and the effects of
disaster loans. Small Business Economics 49:4, 865-888. [Crossref]
246. Zhongzhong Hu, Joel Rodrigue, Yong Tan, Chunhai Yu. 2017. Product churning, reallocation, and
Chinese export growth. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 143, 147-164. [Crossref]
247. Gita Gopinath, Şebnem Kalemli-Özcan, Loukas Karabarbounis, Carolina Villegas-Sanchez. 2017.
Capital Allocation and Productivity in South Europe*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 132:4,
1915-1967. [Crossref]
248. Bee Yan Aw, Yi Lee. 2017. Demand, costs and product scope in the export market. European Economic
Review 100, 28-49. [Crossref]
249. Enghin Atalay. 2017. How Important Are Sectoral Shocks?. American Economic Journal:
Macroeconomics 9:4, 254-280. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
250. Anna Bottasso, Maurizio Conti, Giovanni Sulis. 2017. Firm dynamics and employment protection:
Evidence from sectoral data. Labour Economics 48, 35-53. [Crossref]
251. Xiaolu Liu, Honglin Li. 2017. Financial constraints and the productivity–survival link: evidence from
China’s firm-level data. Industrial and Corporate Change 26:5, 763-779. [Crossref]
252. Ching-Fu Chang, Cherng-Shiun Lin. 2017. The Role of Human Capital in Manufacturing Plant
Growth: Evidence from Taiwan. Pacific Economic Review 22:4, 554-584. [Crossref]
253. JULIANA D. ARAUJO, POVILAS LASTAUSKAS, CHRIS PAPAGEORGIOU. 2017. Evolution
of Bilateral Capital Flows to Developing Countries at Intensive and Extensive Margins. Journal of
Money, Credit and Banking 49:7, 1517-1554. [Crossref]
254. Philipp M. Richter, Alexander Schiersch. 2017. CO 2 emission intensity and exporting: Evidence from
firm-level data. European Economic Review 98, 373-391. [Crossref]
255. L. An, C. Hu, Yong Tan. 2017. Regional effects of export tax rebate on exporting firms: Evidence
from China. Review of International Economics 25:4, 774-798. [Crossref]
256. Emek Basker, Lucia Foster, Shawn Klimek. 2017. Customer-employee substitution: Evidence from
gasoline stations. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 83. . [Crossref]
257. Jevan Cherniwchan, Brian R. Copeland, M. Scott Taylor. 2017. Trade and the Environment: New
Methods, Measurements, and Results. Annual Review of Economics 9:1, 59-85. [Crossref]
258. Diego Restuccia, Richard Rogerson. 2017. The Causes and Costs of Misallocation. Journal of Economic
Perspectives 31:3, 151-174. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
259. Gemechu Aga, David Francis. 2017. As the market churns: productivity and firm exit in developing
countries. Small Business Economics 49:2, 379-403. [Crossref]
260. Kim J. Ruhl, Jonathan L. Willis. 2017. NEW EXPORTER DYNAMICS. International Economic
Review 58:3, 703-726. [Crossref]
261. Catherine Buffington, Lucia Foster, Ron Jarmin, Scott Ohlmacher. 2017. The management and
organizational practices survey (MOPS): An overview1. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement
42:1, 1-26. [Crossref]
262. Eva Hagsten, Anna Sabadash. 2017. A neglected input to production: the role of ICT-schooled
employees in firm performance. International Journal of Manpower 38:3, 373-391. [Crossref]
263. Xiaodan Yu, Giovanni Dosi, Marco Grazzi, Jiasu Lei. 2017. Inside the virtuous circle between
productivity, profitability, investment and corporate growth: An anatomy of Chinese industrialization.
Research Policy 46:5, 1020-1038. [Crossref]
264. Sophie Osotimehin, Francesco Pappadà. 2017. Credit Frictions and The Cleansing Effect of
Recessions. The Economic Journal 127:602, 1153-1187. [Crossref]
265. Florin Maican, Matilda Orth. 2017. Productivity Dynamics and the Role of ‘Big-Box’ Entrants in
Retailing. The Journal of Industrial Economics 65:2, 397-438. [Crossref]
266. Pavel Ševčík. 2017. Do Multi-Plant Firms Reduce Misallocation? Evidence from Canadian
Manufacturing. The Journal of Industrial Economics 65:2, 275-308. [Crossref]
267. Jaakko Pehkonen, Sampo Pehkonen, Matthias Strifler, Mika Maliranta. 2017. Profit Sharing and the
Firm-Size Wage Premium. LABOUR 31:2, 153-173. [Crossref]
268. Lee,Jai-Min, Heeho Kim, 이이이. 2017. 이이이이 이이이이 이이이 이이이이이이이 이이이 이이. Productivity Review 31:2,
29-61. [Crossref]
269. Nkechi S. Owoo, Wim Naudé. 2017. Spatial proximity and firm performance: evidence from non-
farm rural enterprises in Ethiopia and Nigeria. Regional Studies 51:5, 688-700. [Crossref]
270. Jon D. Samuels. 2017. Assessing aggregate reallocation effects with heterogeneous inputs, and evidence
across countries. Review of World Economics 153:2, 385-410. [Crossref]
271. Sasan Bakhtiari. 2017. Corporate credit ratings: Selection on size or productivity?. International Review
of Economics & Finance 49, 84-101. [Crossref]
272. Bettina Peters, Mark J. Roberts, Van Anh Vuong, Helmut Fryges. 2017. Estimating dynamic R&D
choice: an analysis of costs and long-run benefits. The RAND Journal of Economics 48:2, 409-437.
[Crossref]
273. Bernardita Vial, Felipe Zurita. 2017. ENTRANTS' REPUTATION AND INDUSTRY
DYNAMICS. International Economic Review 58:2, 529-559. [Crossref]
274. David Atkin, Amit K. Khandelwal, Adam Osman. 2017. Exporting and Firm Performance: Evidence
from a Randomized Experiment*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 132:2, 551-615. [Crossref]
275. Pawel Krolikowski. 2017. Job Ladders and Earnings of Displaced Workers. American Economic Journal:
Macroeconomics 9:2, 1-31. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
276. Keith Barnatchez, Robert Lester. 2017. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ECONOMIC
FREEDOM AND ECONOMIC DYNAMISM. Contemporary Economic Policy 35:2, 358-372.
[Crossref]
277. Ramana Nanda, Matthew Rhodes-Kropf. 2017. Financing Risk and Innovation. Management Science
63:4, 901-918. [Crossref]
278. Huju Liu, Jianmin Tang. 2017. Age-productivity profiles of entrants and exits: evidence from
Canadian manufacturing. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 40, 26-36. [Crossref]
279. Paula Nagler, Wim Naudé. 2017. Non-farm entrepreneurship in rural sub-Saharan Africa: New
empirical evidence. Food Policy 67, 175-191. [Crossref]
280. William F. Maloney, Mauricio Sarrias. 2017. Convergence to the managerial frontier. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization 134, 284-306. [Crossref]
281. J. Anthony Cookson. 2017. Leverage and strategic preemption: Lessons from entry plans and
incumbent investments. Journal of Financial Economics 123:2, 292-312. [Crossref]
282. Yousef Daoud, Khalid Sekkat. 2017. Cross-country comparative analysis of SMEs’ TFP in MENA
region: A firm-level assessment. Middle East Development Journal 9:1, 55-83. [Crossref]
283. Guido Buenstorf. Schumpeterian Incumbents and Industry Evolution 283-297. [Crossref]
284. Hongsong Zhang. 2017. Static and dynamic gains from costly importing of intermediate inputs:
Evidence from Colombia. European Economic Review 91, 118-145. [Crossref]
285. Daniel Murphy. 2017. Excess capacity in a fixed-cost economy. European Economic Review 91,
245-260. [Crossref]
286. Bob Rijkers, Caroline Freund, Antonio Nucifora. 2017. All in the family: State capture in Tunisia.
Journal of Development Economics 124, 41-59. [Crossref]
287. Yu Sheng, Thomas Jackson, Peter Gooday. 2017. Resource reallocation and its contribution to
productivity growth in Australian broadacre agriculture. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource
288. 이이 이. 2017. The Influence on China Cement Industry Allocative Efficiency due to Eliminating
Inefficient Production Capacity. Sustainable Development 07:01, 23-31. [Crossref]
289. Minho Kim, Jiyoon Oh, Yongseok Shin. 2017. Misallocation and Manufacturing TFP in Korea,
1982-2007. Review 99:2, 233-244. [Crossref]
290. Sharat Ganapati, Joseph S. Shapiro. 2017. The Incidence of Carbon Taxes in U.S. Manufacturing:
Lessons from Energy Cost Pass-Through. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
291. Sonia Gilbukh. 2017. Firm Dynamics and Pricing Under Customer Capital Accumulation. SSRN
292. Chih-Sheng Hsieh, Michael KKnig. 2017. Network Formation with Local Complements and Global
Substitutes: The Case of R&D Networks. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
293. Christophre Georges. 2017. Innovation and Consumption Inequality in an Agent-Based
Macroeconomic Model. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
294. Tania Babina. 2017. Destructive Creation at Work: How Financial Distress Spurs Entrepreneurship.
295. Jess Benhabib, Xuewen Liu, Pengfei Wang. 2017. Financial Markets, the Real Economy, and Self-
Fulfilling Uncertainties. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
296. Chen Yeh. 2017. Are Firm-Level Idiosyncratic Shocks Important for U.S. Aggregate Volatility?.
297. Maximilian Todtenhaupt, Johannes Voget. 2017. International Taxation and Productivity Effects of
M&As. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
298. Eric J. Bartelsman, Zoltan Wolf. 2017. Measuring Productivity Dispersion. SSRN Electronic Journal
. [Crossref]
299. Sasan Bakhtiari. 2017. Entrepreneurship Dynamics in Australia: Lessons from Micro-Data. SSRN
300. Nuri Ersahin. 2017. Creditor Rights, Technology Adoption, and Productivity: Plant-Level Evidence.
301. Roberto Pinheiro, Murat Tasci. 2017. Organizations, Skills, and Wage Inequality. SSRN Electronic
302. Oleksandr Shepotylo, Volodymyr Vakhitov. 2017. Market Power, Productivity and Wage
Determination: Ukrainian Firm Level Evidence. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
303. Milenko Fadic. 2017. The Effects of Demand Shocks on the Growth of Small Firms. SSRN Electronic
304. Liliana Varela. 2017. Reallocation, Competition and Productivity: Evidence From a Financial
Liberalization Episode. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
305. Antonin Bergeaud, Simon Ray. 2017. Adjustment Costs and Factor Demand: New Evidence from
Firmss Real Estate. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
306. Fabiano Schivardi, Enrico Sette, Guido Tabellini. 2017. Credit Misallocation During the European
Financial Crisis. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
307. Alessandro Arrighetti, Eleonora Bartoloni, Fabio Landini. 2017. The Sources of Heterogeneity in
Firm Performance: Lessons from Italy. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
308. Sasan Bakhtiari. 2017. Do Manufacturing Entrepreneurs in Australia Have (or Develop) a Productivity
Advantage?. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
309. Milford Bateman. 2017. Local Finance for Sustainable Local Enterprise Development: The Role of
International Development Assistance in Identifying and Promoting Best Practice in a Post-Neoliberal
World. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
310. Daron Acemoglu, Ufuk Akcigit, Harun Alp, Nicholas Bloom, William Kerr. 2017. Innovation,
Reallocation, and Growth. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
311. Andreas Menzel. 2017. Knowledge Exchange and Productivity Spill-Overs in Bangladeshi Garment
Factories. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
312. Stephane Dupraz. 2017. A Kinked-Demand Theory of Price Rigidity. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
313. Thibault Libert. 2017. Misallocation Before, During and After the Great Recession. SSRN Electronic
314. Wang Jin, Kristina McElheran. 2017. Economies Before Scale: Survival and Performance of Young
Plants in the Age of Cloud Computing. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
315. Cagatay Bircan. 2017. Ownership Structure and Productivity of Multinationals. SSRN Electronic
316. Guido Franco. 2017. Misallocation and the Credit Cycle: Evidence from Europe. SSRN Electronic
317. Philippe Aghion, Cagatay Bircan. 2017. The Middle-Income Trap from a Schumpeterian Perspective.
318. Giovanni Dosi, Marcelo C. Pereira, Maria Enrica Virgillito. 2016. The footprint of evolutionary
processes of learning and selection upon the statistical properties of industrial dynamics. Industrial
and Corporate Change 355, dtw044. [Crossref]
319. Michel Dumont, Glenn Rayp, Marijn Verschelde, Bruno Merlevede. 2016. The contribution of
start-ups and young firms to industry-level efficiency growth. Applied Economics 48:59, 5786-5801.
[Crossref]
320. Nkechi Srodah Owoo. 2016. A spatio-temporal analysis of non-farm enterprise performance in
Uganda: 2010-2012. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies 7:4, 535-546. [Crossref]
321. Mehmet Ugur, Eshref Trushin, Edna Solomon, Francesco Guidi. 2016. R&D and productivity in
OECD firms and industries: A hierarchical meta-regression analysis. Research Policy 45:10, 2069-2086.
[Crossref]
322. Evsey Gurvich. 2016. Institutional constraints and economic development. Russian Journal of
323. Carlo Altomonte, Italo Colantone, Enrico Pennings. 2016. Heterogeneous Firms and Asymmetric
Product Differentiation. The Journal of Industrial Economics 64:4, 835-874. [Crossref]
324. Juan J. Dolado, Salvador Ortigueira, Rodolfo Stucchi. 2016. Does dual employment protection affect
TFP? Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. SERIEs 7:4, 421-459. [Crossref]
325. Rodney D. Ludema, Zhi Yu. 2016. Tariff pass-through, firm heterogeneity and product quality.
Journal of International Economics 103, 234-249. [Crossref]
326. Liangfeng Hao, Bin Qiu, Lisette Cervantes. 2016. Does Firms’ Innovation Promote Export Growth
Sustainably?—Evidence from Chinese Manufacturing Firms. Sustainability 8:11, 1173. [Crossref]
327. Guido Buenstorf. 2016. Schumpeterian incumbents and industry evolution. Journal of Evolutionary
328. Sai Ding, Wei Jiang, Puyang Sun. 2016. Import competition, dynamic resource allocation and
productivity dispersion: micro-level evidence from China. Oxford Economic Papers 68:4, 994-1015.
[Crossref]
329. C. A. K. Lovell. 2016. Recent Developments in Productivity Analysis. Pacific Economic Review 21:4,
417-444. [Crossref]
330. Mikael Carlsson, Julián Messina, Oskar Nordström Skans. 2016. Wage Adjustment and Productivity
Shocks. The Economic Journal 126:595, 1739-1773. [Crossref]
331. Doan Thi Thanh Ha, Kozo Kiyota, Kenta Yamanouchi. 2016. Misallocation and Productivity: The
Case of Vietnamese Manufacturing. Asian Development Review 33:2, 94-118. [Crossref]
332. Hyunbae Chun, Jung-Wook Kim, Randall Morck. 2016. Productivity growth and stock returns: firm-
and aggregate-level analyses. Applied Economics 48:38, 3644-3664. [Crossref]
333. Amitabh Chandra, Amy Finkelstein, Adam Sacarny, Chad Syverson. 2016. Health Care
Exceptionalism? Performance and Allocation in the US Health Care Sector. American Economic Review
106:8, 2110-2144. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
334. Pekka Ilmakunnas, Mika Maliranta. 2016. How does the age structure of worker flows affect firm
performance?. Journal of Productivity Analysis 46:1, 43-62. [Crossref]
335. Xiaoyong Dai, Liwei Cheng. 2016. Market distortions and aggregate productivity: Evidence from
Chinese energy enterprises. Energy Policy 95, 304-313. [Crossref]
336. Lucia Garcés-Galdeano, Carmen García-Olaverri, Emilio Huerta. 2016. Management capability and
performance in Spanish family firms. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración 29:3,
303-325. [Crossref]
337. Andrea Pozzi, Fabiano Schivardi. 2016. Demand or productivity: what determines firm growth?. The
RAND Journal of Economics 47:3, 608-630. [Crossref]
338. Colin J. Hottman, Stephen J. Redding, David E. Weinstein. 2016. Quantifying the Sources of Firm
Heterogeneity *. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 131:3, 1291-1364. [Crossref]
339. Arne Bigsten, Mulu Gebreeyesus, Måns Söderbom. 2016. Tariffs and Firm Performance in Ethiopia.
The Journal of Development Studies 52:7, 986-1001. [Crossref]
340. Justin R. Pierce, Peter K. Schott. 2016. The Surprisingly Swift Decline of US Manufacturing
Employment. American Economic Review 106:7, 1632-1662. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with
links]
341. Gian Luca Clementi, Berardino Palazzo. 2016. Entry, Exit, Firm Dynamics, and Aggregate
Fluctuations. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 8:3, 1-41. [Abstract] [View PDF article]
[PDF with links]
342. Johan M. Kuhn, Nikolaj Malchow-Møller, Anders Sørensen. 2016. Job creation and job types – New
evidence from Danish entrepreneurs. European Economic Review 86, 161-187. [Crossref]
343. Ryan A. Decker, John Haltiwanger, Ron S. Jarmin, Javier Miranda. 2016. Where has all the skewness
gone? The decline in high-growth (young) firms in the U.S. European Economic Review 86, 4-23.
[Crossref]
344. Yong Tan, Faqin Lin, Cui Hu. 2016. How continuing exporters set the price? Theory and empirical
evidence from China. International Review of Economics & Finance 44, 91-102. [Crossref]
345. Wen Chen, Robert Inklaar. 2016. Productivity spillovers of organization capital. Journal of Productivity
Analysis 45:3, 229-245. [Crossref]
346. Renu Agarwal, Roy Green, Neeru Agarwal, Krithika Randhawa. 2016. Management practices in
Australian healthcare: can NSW public hospitals do better?. Journal of Health Organization and
Management 30:3, 331-353. [Crossref]
347. Clemens Ohlert. 2016. Establishment heterogeneity, rent sharing and the rise of wage inequality in
Germany. International Journal of Manpower 37:2, 210-228. [Crossref]
348. Lucia Foster, Cheryl Grim, John Haltiwanger, Zoltan Wolf. 2016. Firm-Level Dispersion in
Productivity: Is the Devil in the Details?. American Economic Review 106:5, 95-98. [Abstract] [View
PDF article] [PDF with links]
349. Amitabh Chandra, Amy Finkelstein, Adam Sacarny, Chad Syverson. 2016. Productivity Dispersion
in Medicine and Manufacturing. American Economic Review 106:5, 99-103. [Abstract] [View PDF
350. Alan Spearot. 2016. Unpacking the Long-Run Effects of Tariff Shocks: New Structural Implications
from Firm Heterogeneity Models. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 8:2, 128-167.
[Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
351. Adelheid Holl. 2016. Highways and productivity in manufacturing firms. Journal of Urban Economics
93, 131-151. [Crossref]
352. Paul L. E. Grieco, Shengyu Li, Hongsong Zhang. 2016. PRODUCTION FUNCTION
ESTIMATION WITH UNOBSERVED INPUT PRICE DISPERSION. International Economic
Review 57:2, 665-690. [Crossref]
353. Wim Naudé. 2016. Entrepreneurship and the Reallocation of African Farmers. Agrekon 55:1-2, 1-33.
[Crossref]
354. Sai Ding, Alessandra Guariglia, Richard Harris. 2016. The determinants of productivity in Chinese
large and medium-sized industrial firms, 1998–2007. Journal of Productivity Analysis 45:2, 131-155.
[Crossref]
355. Zheng Jiang, Huimin Shi. 2016. The selection of firms based on productivity: different roles of entry
and overhead cost. Economic Modelling 54, 537-544. [Crossref]
356. Ruhul Salim, Shamsul Arifeen Khan Mamun, Kamrul Hassan. 2016. Role of communication
technologies in broadacre agriculture in Australia: an empirical analysis using panel data. Australian
Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 60:2, 243-264. [Crossref]
357. Cui Hu, Faqin Lin, Xiaosong Wang. 2016. Learning from exporting in China. Economics of Transition
24:2, 299-334. [Crossref]
358. J. David Brown, Gustavo A. Crespi, Leonardo Iacovone, Luca Marcolin. Productivity Convergence at
the Firm Level: New Evidence from the Americas 117-186. [Crossref]
359. Renu Agarwal, Roy Green, Neeru Agarwal, Krithika Randhawa. 2016. Benchmarking management
practices in Australian public healthcare. Journal of Health Organization and Management 30:1, 31-56.
[Crossref]
360. Denis Medvedev, Ana María Oviedo. 2016. Informality and Profitability: Evidence from a New Firm
Survey in Ecuador. The Journal of Development Studies 52:3, 412-427. [Crossref]
361. Ralf R. Meisenzahl. 2016. Can Financing Constraints Explain the Evolution of the Firm Size
Distribution?. Review of Industrial Organization 48:2, 123-147. [Crossref]
362. Robert M. Adams, Jacob Gramlich. 2016. Where Are All the New Banks? The Role of Regulatory
Burden in New Bank Formation. Review of Industrial Organization 48:2, 181-208. [Crossref]
363. Hirokazu Ishise. 2016. Capital heterogeneity as a source of comparative advantage: Putty-clay
technology in a ricardian model. Journal of International Economics 99, 223-236. [Crossref]
364. Ejaz Ghani, Arti Grover Goswami, William R. Kerr. 2016. Highway to Success: The Impact of
the Golden Quadrilateral Project for the Location and Performance of Indian Manufacturing. The
Economic Journal 126:591, 317-357. [Crossref]
365. Gabriel Natividad. 2016. Quotas, Productivity, and Prices: The Case of Anchovy Fishing. Journal of
Economics & Management Strategy 25:1, 220-257. [Crossref]
366. Marijn Verschelde, Michel Dumont, Glenn Rayp, Bruno Merlevede. 2016. Semiparametric stochastic
metafrontier efficiency of European manufacturing firms. Journal of Productivity Analysis 45:1, 53-69.
[Crossref]
367. Mykola Ryzhenkov. 2016. Resource misallocation and manufacturing productivity: The case of
Ukraine. Journal of Comparative Economics 44:1, 41-55. [Crossref]
368. Manuel Guisado-González, Mercedes Vila-Alonso, Manuel Guisado-Tato. 2016. Radical innovation,
incremental innovation and training: Analysis of complementarity. Technology in Society 44, 48-54.
[Crossref]
369. Costas Arkolakis. 2016. A Unified Theory of Firm Selection and Growth *. The Quarterly Journal
of Economics 131:1, 89-155. [Crossref]
370. Kim P. Huynh, Robert J. Petrunia. 2016. Post-Entry Struggle for Life and Pre-Exit Shadow of Death
from a Financial Perspective. International Journal of the Economics of Business 23:1, 1-18. [Crossref]
371. Bert M. Balk. The Dynamics of Productivity Change: A Review of the Bottom-Up Approach 15-49.
[Crossref]
372. C.I. Jones. The Facts of Economic Growth 3-69. [Crossref]
373. Lucia Foster, Cheryl Grim, John Haltiwanger. 2016. Reallocation in the Great Recession: Cleansing
or Not?. Journal of Labor Economics 34:S1, S293-S331. [Crossref]
374. Flora Bellone, Patrick Musso, Lionel Nesta, Frederic Warzynski. 2016. International trade and firm-
level markups when location and quality matter. Journal of Economic Geography 16:1, 67-91. [Crossref]
375. Lucia Foster, John Haltiwanger, Chad Syverson. 2016. The Slow Growth of New Plants: Learning
about Demand?. Economica 83:329, 91-129. [Crossref]
376. Matthias Kehrig, Nicolas Vincent. 2016. Do Firms Mitigate or Magnify Capital Misallocation?
Evidence from Plant-Level Data. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
377. Wei Gao, Matthias Kehrig. 2016. Returns to Scale, Productivity and Competition: Empirical Evidence
from U.S. Manufacturing and Construction Establishments. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
378. Ken Onishi. 2016. Quantity Discounts and Capital Misallocation in Vertical Relationships: The Case
of Aircraft and Airline Industries. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
379. Sophie Osotimehin, Francesco Pappadd. 2016. Credit Frictions and the Cleansing Effect of Recessions.
380. Antoine Gervais. 2016. Quantifying the Determinants of the Intensive Margin of Trade. SSRN
381. Mingkang Liu. 2016. (Total Factor Productivity in China Conditions, Questions, and Some
Solutions). SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
382. Sharat Ganapati, Joseph S. Shapiro, Reed Walker. 2016. Energy Prices, Pass-Through, and Incidence
in U.S. Manufacturing. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
383. Justin M. Rao. 2016. Firms' Reactions to Public Information on Business Practices: Case of Search
Advertising. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
384. Nicholas Bloom, John Van Reenen. 2016. Management as a Technology?. SSRN Electronic Journal
. [Crossref]
385. Catherine D. Buffington, Lucia Foster, Ron S. Jarmin, Scott Ohlmacher. 2016. The Management
and Organizational Practices Survey (MOPS): An Overview. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
386. Jacques-Frannois Thisse, Philip Ushchev. 2016. Monopolistic Competition Without Apology. SSRN
387. Miguel A. Leon-Ledesma. 2016. Potential Growth, Misallocation, and Institutional Obstacles: Firm-
Level Evidence. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
388. Philip Ushchev, Yves Zenou. 2016. Price Competition in Product Variety Networks. SSRN Electronic
389. Joseph S. Shapiro. 2016. Why is Pollution from U.S. Manufacturing Declining? The Roles of Trade,
Regulation, Productivity, and Preferences. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
390. Juliana Salomao, Liliana Varela. 2016. Exchange Rate Exposure and Firm Dynamics. SSRN Electronic
391. Bruce A. Blonigen, Justin R. Pierce. 2016. Evidence for the Effects of Mergers on Market Power and
Efficiency. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
392. Marco Cucculelli, Livio Romano. 2016. L'Imprenditoria Familiare: Punti Di Forza E Di Debolezza
(Strengths and Weaknesses of Family Entrepreneurship). SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
393. Chen Yeh. 2016. Are Firm-Level Idiosyncratic Shocks Important for U.S. Aggregate Volatility?.
394. Roni Kisin, Barton H. Hamilton. 2016. Labor Mobility and Productivity: Evidence from Finance.
395. Adrian Penalver. 2016. Optimal Monitoring of Long-Term Loan Contracts. SSRN Electronic Journal
. [Crossref]
396. Christoph Breunig, Michael E. Kummer, JJrg Ohnemus, Steffen Viete. 2016. IT Outsourcing and
Firm Productivity: Eliminating Bias from Selective Missingness in the Dependent Variable. SSRN
397. Wiebke Bartz, Pierre Mohnen, Helena Schweiger. 2016. The Role of Innovation and Management
Practices in Determining Firm Productivity in Developing Economies. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
398. Chandan Sharma. 2016. Does Importing More Inputs Raise Productivity and Exports? Some Evidence
from Indian Manufacturing. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
399. Peter Gal, Alexander Hijzen. 2016. The Short-Term Impact of Product Market Reforms: A cross-
country firm-level analysis. IMF Working Papers 16:116, 1. [Crossref]
400. Wouter Dessein, Tano Santos. 2016. Managerial Style and Attention. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
401. Faqin Lin. 2015. Learning by exporting effect in China revisited: An instrumental Approach. China
Economic Review 36, 1-13. [Crossref]
402. Peter Scott, Nicolas Ziebarth. 2015. The Determinants of Plant Survival in the U.S. Radio Equipment
Industry During the Great Depression. The Journal of Economic History 75:4, 1097-1127. [Crossref]
403. Mika Maliranta, Niku Määttänen. 2015. An Augmented Static Olley-Pakes Productivity
Decomposition with Entry and Exit: Measurement and Interpretation. Economica 82, 1372-1416.
[Crossref]
404. Sara Calligaris. 2015. Misallocation and Total Factor Productivity in Italy: Evidence from Firm-Level
Data. LABOUR 29:4, 367-393. [Crossref]
405. Young Hoon Lee, Hayley Jang, Sun Ho Hwang. 2015. Market Competition and Threshold Efficiency
in the Sports Industry. Journal of Sports Economics 16:8, 853-870. [Crossref]
406. Rita K Almeida, Reyes Aterido. 2015. Investing in formal on-the-job training: are SMEs lagging
much behind?. IZA Journal of Labor & Development 4:1. . [Crossref]
407. Yoonsoo Lee, Toshihiko Mukoyama. 2015. Productivity and employment dynamics of US
manufacturing plants. Economics Letters 136, 190-193. [Crossref]
408. Nicolas L. Ziebarth. 2015. The Great Depression Through the Eyes of the Census of Manufactures.
Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History 48:4, 185-194. [Crossref]
409. Cecília Hornok, Balázs Muraközy. 2015. Magyar vállalatok haszonkulcsai. Közgazdasági Szemle 62:10,
1048-1069. [Crossref]
410. Natina Yaduma, Allan Williams, Andrew Lockwood, Sangwon Park. 2015. Performance, labour
flexibility and migrant workers in hotels: An establishment and departmental level analysis.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 50, 94-104. [Crossref]
411. Atanas Hristov. 2015. The high sensitivity of employment to agency costs: The relevance of wage
rigidity. Journal of Macroeconomics 45, 137-154. [Crossref]
412. P.M. Picard. 2015. Trade, economic geography and the choice of product quality. Regional Science and
Urban Economics 54, 18-27. [Crossref]
413. Can Tian. 2015. Riskiness, endogenous productivity dispersion and business cycles. Journal of
Economic Dynamics and Control 57, 227-249. [Crossref]
414. Antoine Gervais. 2015. Product quality and firm heterogeneity in international trade. Canadian
Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique 48:3, 1152-1174. [Crossref]
415. XAVIER GIROUD, HOLGER M. MUELLER. 2015. Capital and Labor Reallocation within Firms.
The Journal of Finance 70:4, 1767-1804. [Crossref]
416. John Haltiwanger. 2015. Job Creation, Job Destruction, and Productivity Growth: The Role of Young
Businesses. Annual Review of Economics 7:1, 341-358. [Crossref]
417. Kim Jong-Il, 이이이. 2015. The Productivity Dispersion of the Korean Manufacturing Industry
and Macroeconomic Allocation Efficiency Measures. KDI Journal of Economic Policy 37:3, 31-53.
[Crossref]
418. Serguey Braguinsky, Atsushi Ohyama, Tetsuji Okazaki, Chad Syverson. 2015. Acquisitions,
Productivity, and Profitability: Evidence from the Japanese Cotton Spinning Industry. American
419. Yoonsoo Lee, Toshihiko Mukoyama. 2015. Entry and exit of manufacturing plants over the business
cycle. European Economic Review 77, 20-27. [Crossref]
420. Ying Ge, Huiwen Lai, Susan Chun Zhu. 2015. Multinational price premium. Journal of Development
Economics 115, 181-199. [Crossref]
421. Daniel P. Murphy. 2015. How can government spending stimulate consumption?. Review of Economic
Dynamics 18:3, 551-574. [Crossref]
422. Kaiji Chen, Alfonso Irarrazabal. 2015. The role of allocative efficiency in a decade of recovery. Review
of Economic Dynamics 18:3, 523-550. [Crossref]
423. X. Yu, G. Dosi, J. Lei, A. Nuvolari. 2015. Institutional change and productivity growth in
China's manufacturing: the microeconomics of knowledge accumulation and "creative restructuring".
424. Marc J. Melitz, Sašo Polanec. 2015. Dynamic Olley-Pakes productivity decomposition with entry and
exit. The RAND Journal of Economics 46:2, 362-375. [Crossref]
425. Miaojie Yu. 2015. Processing Trade, Tariff Reductions and Firm Productivity: Evidence from Chinese
Firms. The Economic Journal 125:585, 943-988. [Crossref]
426. Michele Battisti, Filippo Belloc, Massimo Del Gatto. 2015. Unbundling Technology Adoption and
tfp at the Firm Level: Do Intangibles Matter?. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 24:2,
390-414. [Crossref]
427. Guiying Laura Wu. 2015. Investment Frictions and the Aggregate Output Loss in China. Oxford
Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 77:3, 437-465. [Crossref]
428. Florin Maican, Matilda Orth. 2015. A dynamic analysis of entry regulations and productivity in retail
trade. International Journal of Industrial Organization 40, 67-80. [Crossref]
429. Sabien Dobbelaere, Kozo Kiyota, Jacques Mairesse. 2015. Product and labor market imperfections
and scale economies: Micro-evidence on France, Japan and the Netherlands. Journal of Comparative
430. Ivan Cherkashin, Svetlana Demidova, Hiau Looi Kee, Kala Krishna. 2015. Firm heterogeneity and
costly trade: A new estimation strategy and policy experiments. Journal of International Economics
96:1, 18-36. [Crossref]
431. Nicolas Petrosky-Nadeau, Etienne Wasmer. 2015. Macroeconomic dynamics in a model of goods,
labor, and credit market frictions. Journal of Monetary Economics 72, 97-113. [Crossref]
432. Iris Mihai. 2015. Economic Productivity Flip-Flop in the Danube Countries. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 183, 11-20. [Crossref]
433. Simon Board, Moritz Meyer-Ter-Vehn. 2015. Relational Contracts in Competitive Labour Markets.
The Review of Economic Studies 82:2, 490-534. [Crossref]
434. N. Bloom, C. Propper, S. Seiler, J. Van Reenen. 2015. The Impact of Competition on Management
Quality: Evidence from Public Hospitals. The Review of Economic Studies 82:2, 457-489. [Crossref]
435. Gustavo Lannelongue, Javier Gonzalez-Benito, Oscar Gonzalez-Benito. 2015. Input, Output, and
Environmental Management Productivity: Effects on Firm Performance. Business Strategy and the
Environment 24:3, 145-158. [Crossref]
436. Nune Hovhannisyan, Wolfgang Keller. 2015. International business travel: an engine of innovation?.
Journal of Economic Growth 20:1, 75-104. [Crossref]
437. Alexis Antoniades. 2015. Heterogeneous Firms, Quality, and Trade. Journal of International Economics
95:2, 263-273. [Crossref]
438. Olga A. Timoshenko. 2015. Product switching in a model of learning. Journal of International
439. Carlos Casacuberta, Néstor Gandelman. 2015. Productivity, Exit, and Crisis in the Manufacturing
and Service Sectors. The Developing Economies 53:1, 27-43. [Crossref]
440. Rui Castro, Gian Luca Clementi, Yoonsoo Lee. 2015. Cross Sectoral Variation in the Volatility of
Plant Level Idiosyncratic Shocks. The Journal of Industrial Economics 63:1, 1-29. [Crossref]
441. Tengying Weng, Tomislav Vukina, Xiaoyong Zheng. 2015. Productivity or Demand: Determinants
of Plant Survival and Ownership Change in the U.S. Poultry Industry. Applied Economic Perspectives
and Policy 37:1, 151-175. [Crossref]
442. Chia -Yen Lee, Andrew L. Johnson. 2015. Measuring Efficiency in Imperfectly Competitive Markets:
An Example of Rational Inefficiency. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 164:2, 702-722.
[Crossref]
443. Olivier Charlot, Franck Malherbet, Cristina Terra. 2015. Informality in developing economies:
Regulation and fiscal policies. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 51, 1-27. [Crossref]
444. G. Duranton. 2015. Growing through Cities in Developing Countries. The World Bank Research
Observer 30:1, 39-73. [Crossref]
445. Bert M. Balk. 2015. Measuring and relating aggregate and subaggregate total factor productivity
change without neoclassical assumptions. Statistica Neerlandica 69:1, 21-48. [Crossref]
446. Fariha Kamal. 2015. Origin of Foreign Direct Investment and Firm Performance: Evidence from
Foreign Acquisitions of Chinese Domestic Firms. The World Economy 38:2, 286-314. [Crossref]
447. Nicholas Bloom, James Liang, John Roberts, Zhichun Jenny Ying. 2015. Does Working from Home
Work? Evidence from a Chinese Experiment *. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 130:1, 165-218.
[Crossref]
448. Allan Collard-Wexler, Jan De Loecker. 2015. Reallocation and Technology: Evidence from the US
Steel Industry. American Economic Review 105:1, 131-171. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with
links]
449. Esben Sloth Andersen, Jacob Rubæk Holm. The Signs of Change in Economic Evolution 91-117.
[Crossref]
450. Fang Cai. Digging the Institutional Dividend 153-175. [Crossref]
451. Anna Belova, Wayne B. Gray, Joshua Linn, Richard D. Morgenstern, William Pizer. 2015. Estimating
the Job Impacts of Environmental Regulation. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis 6:2, 325-340. [Crossref]
452. Cosmin L. Ilut, Matthias Kehrig, Martin Schneider. 2015. Slow to Hire, Quick to Fire: Employment
Dynamics with Asymmetric Responses to News. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
453. Emin Dinlersoz, Henry R. Hyatt, Hubert P. Janicki. 2015. Who Works for Whom? Worker Sorting
in a Model of Entrepreneurship with Heterogeneous Labor Markets. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
454. Bert M. Balk. 2015. The Dynamics of Productivity Change: A Review of the Bottom-Up Approach.
455. Nicolas Berman, Vincent Rebeyrol, Vincent Vicard. 2015. Demand Learning and Firm Dynamics:
Evidence from Exporters. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
456. Xiodan Yu, Giovanni Dosi, Marco Grazzi, Jiasu Lei. 2015. Inside the Virtuous Cycle
between Productivity, Profitability, Investment and Corporate Growth: An Anatomy of China
Industrialization. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
457. Antoine Gervais. 2015. Multiregional Firms and Region Switching in the US Manufacturing Sector.
458. Antoine Gervais, J. Bradford Jensen. 2015. The Tradability of Services: Geographic Concentration
and Trade Costs. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
459. John T. Dalton, Tin Cheuk Leung. 2015. Being Bad by Being Good: Captains, Managerial Ability,
and the Slave Trade. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
460. Robert B. Kulick. 2015. Horizontal Mergers, Prices, and Productivity. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
461. Bernardo Morais. 2015. Risk, Financial Development and Firm Dynamics. SSRN Electronic Journal
. [Crossref]
462. Sara Calligaris. 2015. Misallocation and Total Factor Productivity in Italy: Evidence from Firm-Level
Data. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
463. Christophre Georges. 2015. Product Innovation and Macroeconomic Dynamics. SSRN Electronic
464. Colin Hottman, Stephen J. Redding, David E. Weinstein. 2015. Quantifying the Sources of Firm
Heterogeneity. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
465. Amitabh Chandra, Amy Finkelstein, Adam Sacarny, Chad Syverson. 2015. Healthcare
Exceptionalism? Performance and Allocation in the U.S. Healthcare Sector. SSRN Electronic Journal
. [Crossref]
466. Emek Basker, Lucia Foster, Shawn D. Klimek. 2015. Customer-Labor Substitution: Evidence from
Gasoline Stations. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
467. Giovanni Dosi, Marcelo C Pereira, Maria Enrica Virgillito. 2015. The Footprint of Evolutionary
Processes of Learning and Selection Upon the Statistical Properties of Industrial Dynamics. SSRN
468. Era Dabla-Norris, Si Guo, Vikram Haksar, Minsuk Kim, Kalpana Kochhar, Kevin Wiseman,
Aleksandra Zdzienicka. 2015. The New Normal: A Sector-level Perspective on Productivity Trends
in Advanced Economies. Staff Discussion Notes 15:3, 1. [Crossref]
469. Alessandro Peri. 2015. Bankruptcy Reforms When Workers Extract Rents. SSRN Electronic Journal
. [Crossref]
470. Yuyu Chen, Mitsuru Igami, Mo Xiao. 2015. Privatization and Innovation: Productivity, New Products,
and Patents in China. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
471. Margo Liik, Jaan Masso, Kadri Ukrainski. 2014. The contribution of R&D to production efficiency
in OECD countries: econometric analysis of industry-level panel data. Baltic Journal of Economics
14:1-2, 78-100. [Crossref]
472. Talan B. İşcan. 2014. Allocative inefficiency and sectoral allocation of labor: Evidence from U.S.
agriculture. Economic Modelling 43, 305-320. [Crossref]
473. Allan Collard-Wexler. 2014. Mergers and Sunk Costs: An Application to the Ready-Mix Concrete
Industry. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 6:4, 407-447. [Abstract] [View PDF article]
[PDF with links]
474. Jacob Rubæk Holm. 2014. The significance of structural transformation to productivity growth.
Journal of Evolutionary Economics 24:5, 1009-1036. [Crossref]
475. David Powell, Joachim Wagner. 2014. The exporter productivity premium along the productivity
distribution: evidence from quantile regression with nonadditive firm fixed effects. Review of World
476. Ina Charlotte Jäkel. 2014. Import-push or export-pull? An industry-level analysis of the impact of
trade on firm exit. Empirica 41:4, 747-775. [Crossref]
477. Bruce A. Blonigen, Lionel Fontagné, Nicholas Sly, Farid Toubal. 2014. Cherries for sale: The incidence
and timing of cross-border M&A. Journal of International Economics 94:2, 341-357. [Crossref]
478. Ann E. Harrison, Justin Yifu Lin, Lixin Colin Xu. 2014. Explaining Africa’s (Dis)advantage. World
Development 63, 59-77. [Crossref]
479. R. Basile, S. de Nardis, C. Pappalardo. 2014. Firm heterogeneity and regional business cycles
differentials. Journal of Economic Geography 14:6, 1087-1115. [Crossref]
480. Kristian Behrens, Giordano Mion, Yasusada Murata, Jens Südekum. 2014. TRADE, WAGES, AND
PRODUCTIVITY. International Economic Review 55:4, 1305-1348. [Crossref]
481. Mitsukuni Nishida, Amil Petrin, Sašo Polanec. 2014. Exploring reallocation’s apparent weak
contribution to growth. Journal of Productivity Analysis 42:2, 187-210. [Crossref]
482. Pilar Beneito, María Engracia Rochina-Barrachina, Amparo Sanchis. 2014. Learning through
experience in Research & Development: An empirical analysis with Spanish firms. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 88, 290-305. [Crossref]
483. Chris Vickers, Nicolas L. Ziebarth. 2014. Did the National Industrial Recovery Act Foster Collusion?
Evidence from the Macaroni Industry. The Journal of Economic History 74:3, 831-862. [Crossref]
484. Gaaitzen J. de Vries. 2014. Productivity in a Distorted Market: The Case of Brazil's Retail Sector.
Review of Income and Wealth 60:3, 499-524. [Crossref]
485. Dennis O. Kundisch, Neeraj Mittal, Barrie R. Nault. 2014. Research Commentary —Using Income
Accounting as the Theoretical Basis for Measuring IT Productivity. Information Systems Research
25:3, 449-467. [Crossref]
486. Ryan Decker, John Haltiwanger, Ron Jarmin, Javier Miranda. 2014. The Role of Entrepreneurship
in US Job Creation and Economic Dynamism. Journal of Economic Perspectives 28:3, 3-24. [Abstract]
487. Elena Golovko, Giovanni Valentini. 2014. Selective Learning-by-Exporting: Firm Size and Product
Versus Process Innovation. Global Strategy Journal 4:3, 161-180. [Crossref]
488. Sea-Jin Chang, Brian Wu. 2014. Institutional barriers and industry dynamics. Strategic Management
Journal 35:8, 1103-1123. [Crossref]
489. Nicholas Bloom, Renata Lemos, Raffaella Sadun, Daniela Scur, John Van Reenen. 2014. JEEA-
FBBVA LECTURE 2013 : THE NEW EMPIRICAL ECONOMICS OF MANAGEMENT. Journal
of the European Economic Association 12:4, 835-876. [Crossref]
490. Albert Guangzhou Hu, Zhengning Liu. 2014. Trade Liberalization and Firm Productivity: Evidence
from Chinese Manufacturing Industries. Review of International Economics 22:3, 488-512. [Crossref]
491. Jan De Loecker, Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg. 2014. Firm Performance in a Global Market. Annual
Review of Economics 6:1, 201-227. [Crossref]
492. Chang-Tai Hsieh, Peter J. Klenow. 2014. The Life Cycle of Plants in India and Mexico *. The
Quarterly Journal of Economics 129:3, 1035-1084. [Crossref]
493. Keith W. Glaister. 2014. The contribution of management to economic growth: a review. Prometheus
32:3, 227-244. [Crossref]
494. Joel Rodrigue, Omolola Soumonni. 2014. Deforestation, foreign demand and export dynamics in
Indonesia. Journal of International Economics 93:2, 316-338. [Crossref]
495. Umut Kılınç. 2014. How to measure competition in an economy in transition. Economics of Transition
22:3, 397-432. [Crossref]
496. Gabriel Natividad. 2014. Integration and Productivity: Satellite-Tracked Evidence. Management
Science 60:7, 1698-1718. [Crossref]
497. Francesco Lippi, Fabiano Schivardi. 2014. Corporate control and executive selection. Quantitative
498. Pierre Blanchard, Jean-Pierre Huiban, Claude Mathieu. 2014. The shadow of death model revisited
with an application to French firms. Applied Economics 46:16, 1883-1893. [Crossref]
499. Jens J. Krüger. 2014. Intrasectoral structural change and aggregate productivity development: robust
stochastic nonparametric frontier function estimates. Empirical Economics 46:4, 1545-1572. [Crossref]
500. John R. Baldwin, Amélie Lafrance. 2014. Firm Turnover and Productivity Growth in Canadian
Manufacturing and Services Industries, 2000 to 2007. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 14:2,
173-205. [Crossref]
501. Pekka Ilmakunnas, Hannu Piekkola. 2014. Intangible investment in people and productivity. Journal
of Productivity Analysis 41:3, 443-456. [Crossref]
502. Álvaro Escribano, Rodolfo Stucchi. 2014. Does recession drive convergence in firms’ productivity?
Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. Journal of Productivity Analysis 41:3, 339-349. [Crossref]
503. Enghin Atalay. 2014. Materials Prices and Productivity. Journal of the European Economic Association
12:3, 575-611. [Crossref]
504. Kristina McElheran. 2014. Delegation in Multi-Establishment Firms: Evidence from I.T. Purchasing.
Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 23:2, 225-258. [Crossref]
505. Marian Rizov, Xufei Zhang. 2014. Regional disparities and productivity in China: Evidence from
manufacturing micro data. Papers in Regional Science 93:2, 321-339. [Crossref]
506. Francesco Di Comite, Jacques-François Thisse, Hylke Vandenbussche. 2014. Verti-zontal
differentiation in export markets. Journal of International Economics 93:1, 50-66. [Crossref]
507. Julien Martin, Isabelle Mejean. 2014. Low-wage country competition and the quality content of high-
wage country exports. Journal of International Economics 93:1, 140-152. [Crossref]
508. Horst Raff, Joachim Wagner. 2014. Foreign Ownership and the Extensive Margins of Exports:
Evidence for Manufacturing Enterprises in Germany. The World Economy 37:5, 579-591. [Crossref]
509. Enghin Atalay, Ali Hortaçsu, Chad Syverson. 2014. Vertical Integration and Input Flows. American
510. Esben Sloth Andersen, Jacob Rubæk Holm. 2014. The signs of change in economic evolution. Journal
of Evolutionary Economics 24:2, 291-316. [Crossref]
511. Carl Gaigné, Léo Le Mener. 2014. Agricultural Prices, Selection, and the Evolution of the Food
Industry. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 96:3, 884-902. [Crossref]
512. Ferran Vendrell-Herrero, José L. González-Pernía, Iñaki Peña-Legazkue. 2014. “Do incentives matter
to promote high technology-driven entrepreneurial activity?”. International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal 10:1, 43-66. [Crossref]
513. Kristiaan Kerstens, Ignace Van de Woestyne. 2014. Comparing Malmquist and Hicks–Moorsteen
productivity indices: Exploring the impact of unbalanced vs. balanced panel data. European Journal
of Operational Research 233:3, 749-758. [Crossref]
514. Magnus Lofstrom, Timothy Bates, Simon C. Parker. 2014. Why are some people more likely to
become small-businesses owners than others: Entrepreneurship entry and industry-specific barriers.
Journal of Business Venturing 29:2, 232-251. [Crossref]
515. Bee Yan Aw, Yi Lee. 2014. A model of demand, productivity and foreign location decision among
Taiwanese firms. Journal of International Economics 92:2, 304-316. [Crossref]
516. B. S. Javorcik, Y. Li. 2014. Global Retail Chains and the Supplying Industries: Evidence from
Romania. CESifo Economic Studies 60:1, 107-134. [Crossref]
517. Umut Kılınç. 2014. Estimating entrants' productivity when prices are unobserved. Economic Modelling
38, 640-647. [Crossref]
518. Burak R. Uras. 2014. Corporate financial structure, misallocation and total factor productivity. Journal
of Banking & Finance 39, 177-191. [Crossref]
519. P. Nightingale, A. Coad. 2014. Muppets and gazelles: political and methodological biases in
entrepreneurship research. Industrial and Corporate Change 23:1, 113-143. [Crossref]
520. Joachim Wagner. 2014. Exports, foreign direct investments and productivity: are services firms
different?. The Service Industries Journal 34:1, 24-37. [Crossref]
521. Sascha Rexhäuser, Christian Rammer. 2014. Environmental Innovations and Firm Profitability:
Unmasking the Porter Hypothesis. Environmental and Resource Economics 57:1, 145-167. [Crossref]
522. Takahiro Fukunishi, Herinjatovo Aimé Ramiarison. The Export-Oriented Garment Industry in
Madagascar: Implications of Foreign Direct Investment for the Local Economy 135-173. [Crossref]
523. Susan N. Houseman, Timothy J. Bartik, Timothy Sturgeon. 2014. Measuring Manufacturing: How
the Computer and Semiconductor Industries Affect the Numbers and Perceptions. SSRN Electronic
524. Dan Schwab, Eric Werker. 2014. Profits and Economic Development. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
525. Nicholas Bloom, Max Floetotto, Nir Jaimovich, Itay Saporta Eksten, Stephen Terry. 2014. Really
Uncertain Business Cycles. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
526. Richard Kneller, Danny McGowan. 2014. Productivity-Enhancing Demand Shocks: Technology
Adoption During the U.S. Ethanol Boom. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
527. J. Anthony Cookson. 2014. Leverage and Strategic Preemption: Lessons from Entry Plans and
Incumbent Investments. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
528. William F. Maloney, Mauricio Sarrias. 2014. Convergence to the Managerial Frontier. SSRN Electronic
529. Adrian Saville, Dr. Lyal White. 2014. Ensuring that Africa Keeps Rising: The Economic Integration
Imperative. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
530. Michel Dumont, Bruno Merlevede, Glenn Rayp, Marijn Verschelde. 2014. European Competitiveness:
A Semi-Parametric Stochastic Metafrontier Analysis at the Firm Level. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
531. Colin Hottman, David E. Weinstein, Stephen J. Redding. 2014. What is Firm Heterogeneityy in
Trade Models? The Role of Quality, Scope, Markups, and Cost. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
532. Enghin Atalay. 2014. How Important are Sectoral Shocks?. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
533. Alice Orcutt Nakamura, W. Erwin Diewert, John Greenlees, Leonard I. Nakamura, Marshall B.
Reinsdorf. 2014. Sourcing Substitution and Related Price Index Biases. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
534. Kim Joseph Ruhl, Jonathan L. Willis. 2014. New Exporter Dynamics. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
535. Sasan Bakhtiari. 2014. Corporate Credit Ratings: Selection on Size or Productivity?. SSRN Electronic
536. Burak Uras, Ping Wang. 2014. Techniques Choice, Misallocation and Total Factor Productivity.
537. Robert M. Adams, Jacob Gramlich. 2014. Where are All the New Banks? The Role of Regulatory
Burden in New Charter Creation. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
538. Mikael Carlsson. 2014. Selection Effects in Producer-Price Setting. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
539. Andrea Linarello. 2014. Trade Liberalization and Domestic Suppliers: Evidence from Chile. SSRN
540. T. Kirk White. 2014. Recovering the Item-Level Edit and Imputation Flags in the 1977-1997
Censuses of Manufactures. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
541. Sara Amoroso, Bertrand Melenberg, Joseph Plasmans, Mark Vancauteren. 2014. Productivity, Price-
and Wage-Markups: An Empirical Analysis of the Dutch Manufacturing Industry. SSRN Electronic
542. Sanjay K. Chugh. 2013. Costly external finance and labor market dynamics. Journal of Economic
Dynamics and Control 37:12, 2882-2912. [Crossref]
543. F. Kamal, M. E. Lovely. 2013. Labor Allocation in China: Implicit Taxation of the Heterogeneous
Non-State Sector. CESifo Economic Studies 59:4, 731-758. [Crossref]
544. M. Vivarelli. 2013. Is entrepreneurship necessarily good? Microeconomic evidence from developed and
developing countries. Industrial and Corporate Change 22:6, 1453-1495. [Crossref]
545. Ramana Nanda, Matthew Rhodes-Kropf. 2013. Investment cycles and startup innovation. Journal of
Financial Economics 110:2, 403-418. [Crossref]
546. Matthias Bürker, Chiara Franco, G. Alfredo Minerva. 2013. Foreign ownership, firm performance,
and the geography of civic capital. Regional Science and Urban Economics 43:6, 964-984. [Crossref]
547. U. Doraszelski, J. Jaumandreu. 2013. R&D and Productivity: Estimating Endogenous Productivity.
The Review of Economic Studies 80:4, 1338-1383. [Crossref]
548. G. Moscarini, F. Postel-Vinay. 2013. Stochastic Search Equilibrium. The Review of Economic Studies
80:4, 1545-1581. [Crossref]
549. Juan Carlos Hallak, Jagadeesh Sivadasan. 2013. Product and process productivity: Implications for
quality choice and conditional exporter premia. Journal of International Economics 91:1, 53-67.
[Crossref]
550. Kaiji Chen, Zheng Song. 2013. Financial frictions on capital allocation: A transmission mechanism
of TFP fluctuations. Journal of Monetary Economics 60:6, 683-703. [Crossref]
551. Philipp Ehrl. 2013. Agglomeration economies with consistent productivity estimates. Regional Science
and Urban Economics 43:5, 751-763. [Crossref]
552. Metin Sengul, Javier Gimeno. 2013. Constrained Delegation. Administrative Science Quarterly 58:3,
420-471. [Crossref]
553. David Card, Jörg Heining, Patrick Kline. 2013. Workplace Heterogeneity and the Rise of West
German Wage Inequality*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 128:3, 967-1015. [Crossref]
554. Beata S. Javorcik, Yue Li. 2013. Do the biggest aisles serve a brighter future? Global retail chains and
their implications for Romania. Journal of International Economics 90:2, 348-363. [Crossref]
555. Valerie Smeets, Frederic Warzynski. 2013. Estimating productivity with multi-product firms, pricing
heterogeneity and the role of international trade. Journal of International Economics 90:2, 237-244.
[Crossref]
556. C. Bontemps, Z. Bouamra-Mechemache, M. Simioni. 2013. Quality labels and firm survival: some
first empirical evidence. European Review of Agricultural Economics 40:3, 413-439. [Crossref]
557. De-Chih Liu. 2013. The evolution of excess job reallocation in the U.S. Journal of Macroeconomics
36, 188-206. [Crossref]
558. Ari Hyytinen, Mika Maliranta. 2013. Firm lifecycles and evolution of industry productivity. Research
Policy 42:5, 1080-1098. [Crossref]
559. Masato Nishiwaki, Hyoeg Ug Kwon. 2013. Are Losers Picked? An Empirical Analysis of Capacity
Divestment and Production Reallocation in the Japanese Cement Industry. The Journal of Industrial
560. Richard Harris, John Moffat. 2013. The Direct Contribution of FDI to Productivity Growth in
Britain, 1997-2008. The World Economy 36:6, 713-736. [Crossref]
561. Alan C. Spearot. 2013. MARKET ACCESS, INVESTMENT, AND HETEROGENEOUS
FIRMS*. International Economic Review 54:2, 601-627. [Crossref]
562. Xavier Giroud. 2013. Proximity and Investment: Evidence from Plant-Level Data *. The Quarterly
Journal of Economics 128:2, 861-915. [Crossref]
563. Federico Cingano, Paolo Pinotti. 2013. POLITICIANS AT WORK: THE PRIVATE RETURNS
AND SOCIAL COSTS OF POLITICAL CONNECTIONS. Journal of the European Economic
Association 11:2, 433-465. [Crossref]
564. Jan Boone, Jan C. van Ours, Henry van der Wiel. 2013. When is the Price Cost Margin a Safe Way
to Measure Changes in Competition?. De Economist 161:1, 45-67. [Crossref]
565. Fang Cai, Yang Lu. 2013. Population Change and Resulting Slowdown in Potential GDP Growth in
China. China & World Economy 21:2, 1-14. [Crossref]
566. Eric Bartelsman,, John Haltiwanger,, Stefano Scarpetta. 2013. Cross-Country Differences in
Productivity: The Role of Allocation and Selection. American Economic Review 103:1, 305-334.
567. Nicholas Bloom, Benn Eifert, Aprajit Mahajan, David McKenzie, John Roberts. 2013. Does
Management Matter? Evidence from India *. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 128:1, 1-51.
[Crossref]
568. Dani Rodrik. 2013. Unconditional Convergence in Manufacturing *. The Quarterly Journal of
569. Nicolas L. Ziebarth. 2013. Identifying the Effects of Bank Failures from a Natural Experiment in
Mississippi during the Great Depression. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 5:1, 81-101.
570. Sabien Dobbelaere, Jacques Mairesse. 2013. Panel data estimates of the production function and
product and labor market imperfections. Journal of Applied Econometrics 28:1, 1-46. [Crossref]
571. Alan C. Spearot. 2013. Variable demand elasticities and tariff liberalization. Journal of International
572. Nicolas L. Ziebarth. 2013. Are China and India backward? Evidence from the 19th century U.S.
Census of Manufactures. Review of Economic Dynamics 16:1, 86-99. [Crossref]
573. Albert Bollard, Peter J. Klenow, Gunjan Sharma. 2013. Indiaʼs mysterious manufacturing miracle.
Review of Economic Dynamics 16:1, 59-85. [Crossref]
574. Marcela Eslava, John Haltiwanger, Adriana Kugler, Maurice Kugler. 2013. Trade and market selection:
Evidence from manufacturing plants in Colombia. Review of Economic Dynamics 16:1, 135-158.
[Crossref]
575. Diego Restuccia, Richard Rogerson. 2013. Misallocation and productivity. Review of Economic
Dynamics 16:1, 1-10. [Crossref]
576. Diego Restuccia. Factor Misallocation and Development 1-7. [Crossref]
577. Carol Newman, John Rand, Finn Tarp. 2013. Industry Switching in Developing Countries. The World
Bank Economic Review 27:2, 357-388. [Crossref]
578. Emin Dinlersoz, Henry R Hyatt, Sang V Nguyen. 2013. The plant life-cycle of the average wage of
employees in U.S. manufacturing. IZA Journal of Labor Economics 2:1, 7. [Crossref]
579. Sascha O. Becker, Hans K. Hvide. 2013. Do Entrepreneurs Matter?. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
580. Michele Battisti, Filippo Belloc, Massimo Del Gatto. 2013. Unbundling Technology Adoption and
TFP at the Firm Level - Do Intangibles Matter?. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
581. Julia Cage, Dorothee Rouzet. 2013. Improving 'National Brands': Reputation for Quality and Export
Promotion Strategies. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
582. Allan Collard-Wexler, Jan De Loecker. 2013. Reallocation and Technology: Evidence from the U.S.
Steel Industry. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
583. Daniel Cerquera, Gordon J. Klein. 2013. Intermediate Input Markets, ICT and Innovation in
Germany: A Firm Level Analysis. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
584. Xavier Giroud, Holger M. Mueller. 2013. Capital and Labor Reallocation Inside Firms. SSRN
585. Alvaro Garcia Marin, Nico Voigtländer. 2013. Exporting and Plant-Level Efficiency Gains: It's in the
Measure. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
586. Cosmin L. Ilut, Matthias Kehrig, Martin Schneider. 2013. Slow to Hire, Quick to Fire: Employment
Dynamics with Ambiguous Private Signals. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
587. Anna Belova, Wayne B. Gray, Joshua Linn, Richard Morgenstern. 2013. Environmental Regulation
and Industry Employment: A Reassessment. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
588. Michael Dotsey, Robert G. King, Alexander L. Wolman. 2013. Inflation and Real Activity with Firm-
Level Productivity Shocks. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
589. Daron Acemoglu, Ufuk Akcigit, Nicholas Bloom, William R. Kerr. 2013. Innovation, Reallocation
and Growth. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
590. Bettina Peters, Mark J. Roberts, Van Anh Vuong, Helmut Fryges. 2013. Estimating Dynamic R&D
Demand: An Analysis of Costs and Long-Run Benefits. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
591. Kaiji Chen, Alfonso Irarrazabal. 2013. The Role of Allocative Efficiency in a Decade of Recovery.
592. Dennis Becker. 2013. Heterogeneous Firms and Informality: The Effects of Trade Liberalization on
Labor Markets. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
593. Francesco Di Comite, Jacques-Frannois Thisse, Hylke Vandenbussche. 2013. Verti-Zontal
Differentiation in Export Markets. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
594. Bruno Cassiman, Stijn Vanormelingen. 2013. Profiting from Innovation: Firm Level Evidence on
Markups. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
595. Ari Hyytinen, Frode Steen, Otto Toivanen. 2013. Anatomy of Cartel Contracts. SSRN Electronic
596. Justin R. Pierce, Peter K. Schott. 2013. The Surprisingly Swift Decline of U.S. Manufacturing
Employment. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
597. Rui Silva. 2013. Internal Labor Markets and Investment in Conglomerates. SSRN Electronic Journal
. [Crossref]
598. Yi-Chen Lin, Tai-Hsin Huang. 2012. Creative destruction over the business cycle: a stochastic frontier
analysis. Journal of Productivity Analysis 38:3, 285-302. [Crossref]
599. Måns Söderbom, Qian Weng. 2012. Multi-product firms, product mix changes and upgrading:
Evidence from China's state-owned forest areas. China Economic Review 23:4, 801-818. [Crossref]
600. Giulio Bottazzi, Angelo Secchi. 2012. Productivity, profitability and growth: The empirics of firm
dynamics. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 23:4, 325-328. [Crossref]
601. Margaret C. Levenstein. 2012. Escape from Equilibrium: Thinking Historically about Firm
Responses to Competition. Enterprise & Society 13:4, 710-728. [Crossref]
602. M. C. Levenstein. 2012. Escape from Equilibrium: Thinking Historically about Firm Responses to
Competition. Enterprise and Society 13:4, 710-728. [Crossref]
603. Rosario Crinò, Paolo Epifani. 2012. Productivity, Quality and Export Behaviour. The Economic Journal
122:565, 1206-1243. [Crossref]
604. Joachim Wagner. 2012. Exports, Imports and Profitability: First Evidence for Manufacturing
Enterprises. Open Economies Review 23:5, 747-765. [Crossref]
605. Giovanni Dosi, Marco Grazzi, Chiara Tomasi, Alessandro Zeli. 2012. Turbulence underneath the
big calm? The micro-evidence behind Italian productivity dynamics. Small Business Economics 39:4,
1043-1067. [Crossref]
606. Pierre M. Picard, Toshihiro Okubo. 2012. Firms' locations under demand heterogeneity. Regional
Science and Urban Economics 42:6, 961-974. [Crossref]
607. N. Bloom, R. Sadun, J. Van Reenen. 2012. The Organization of Firms Across Countries. The
608. Jan De Loecker,, Frederic Warzynski. 2012. Markups and Firm-Level Export Status. American
609. Giuseppe Moscarini,, Fabien Postel-Vinay. 2012. The Contribution of Large and Small Employers
to Job Creation in Times of High and Low Unemployment. American Economic Review 102:6,
610. Cristina Arellano, Yan Bai, Jing Zhang. 2012. Firm dynamics and financial development. Journal of
Monetary Economics 59:6, 533-549. [Crossref]
611. Emek Basker, Shawn Klimek, Pham Hoang Van. 2012. Supersize It: The Growth of Retail Chains
and the Rise of the “Big-Box” Store. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 21:3, 541-582.
[Crossref]
612. Susanne Prantl. 2012. The impact of firm entry regulation on long-living entrants. Small Business
613. Svetlana Demidova, Hiau Looi Kee, Kala Krishna. 2012. Do trade policy differences induce sorting?
Theory and evidence from Bangladeshi apparel exporters. Journal of International Economics 87:2,
247-261. [Crossref]
614. Marian Rizov, Arie Oskam, Paul Walsh. 2012. Is there a limit to agglomeration? Evidence from
productivity of Dutch firms. Regional Science and Urban Economics 42:4, 595-606. [Crossref]
615. Aekapol Chongvilaivan. 2012. Learning by exporting and high-tech capital deepening in Singapore
manufacturing industries, 1974–2006. Applied Economics 44:20, 2551-2568. [Crossref]
616. Joachim Wagner. 2012. The Post-entry Performance of Cohorts of Export Starters in German
Manufacturing Industries이. International Journal of the Economics of Business 19:2, 169-193. [Crossref]
617. Joachim Wagner. 2012. International trade and firm performance: a survey of empirical studies since
2006. Review of World Economics 148:2, 235-267. [Crossref]
618. Vincenzo Verardi, Joachim Wagner. 2012. Productivity Premia for German Manufacturing Firms
Exporting to the Euro-Area and Beyond: First Evidence from Robust Fixed Effects Estimations. The
World Economy 35:6, 694-712. [Crossref]
619. Gregory Corcos, Massimo Del Gatto, Giordano Mion, Gianmarco I.P. Ottaviano. 2012. Productivity
and Firm Selection: Quantifying the ‘New’ Gains from Trade. The Economic Journal 122:561,
754-798. [Crossref]
620. Murat Şeker. 2012. Importing, Exporting, and Innovation in Developing Countries. Review of
International Economics 20:2, 299-314. [Crossref]
621. Matilde Bombardini, Christopher J. Kurz, Peter M. Morrow. 2012. Ricardian trade and the impact
of domestic competition on export performance. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne
d'économique 45:2, 585-612. [Crossref]
622. Emin M. Dinlersoz,, Mehmet Yorukoglu. 2012. Information and Industry Dynamics. American
623. George Kenyon, Brian D. Neureuther. 2012. An Adaptive Model for Assessing Supply Chain Risk.
Journal of Marketing Channels 19:2, 156-170. [Crossref]
624. M. Crozet, K. Head, T. Mayer. 2012. Quality Sorting and Trade: Firm-level Evidence for French
Wine. The Review of Economic Studies 79:2, 609-644. [Crossref]
625. A. Costinot, D. Donaldson, I. Komunjer. 2012. What Goods Do Countries Trade? A Quantitative
Exploration of Ricardo's Ideas. The Review of Economic Studies 79:2, 581-608. [Crossref]
626. Loren Brandt, Johannes Van Biesebroeck, Yifan Zhang. 2012. Creative accounting or creative
destruction? Firm-level productivity growth in Chinese manufacturing. Journal of Development
627. Alan C. Spearot. 2012. Firm Heterogeneity, New Investment and Acquisitions. The Journal of
Industrial Economics 60:1, 1-45. [Crossref]
628. Nicholas Bloom,, Raffaella Sadun,, John Van Reenen. 2012. Americans Do IT Better: US
Multinationals and the Productivity Miracle. American Economic Review 102:1, 167-201. [Abstract]
629. Ilke Van Beveren. 2012. TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY ESTIMATION: A PRACTICAL
REVIEW. Journal of Economic Surveys 26:1, 98-128. [Crossref]
630. Sasan Bakhtiari. 2012. Markets and the non‐monotonic relation between productivity and
establishment size. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique 45:1, 345-372.
[Crossref]
631. Nicholas Bloom, Christos Genakos, Raffaella Sadun, John Van Reenen. 2012. Management Practices
Across Firms and Countries. Academy of Management Perspectives 26:1, 12-33. [Crossref]
632. John Haltiwanger. 2012. Job Creation and Firm Dynamics in the United States. Innovation Policy
and the Economy 12, 17-38. [Crossref]
633. M. Kugler, E. Verhoogen. 2012. Prices, Plant Size, and Product Quality. The Review of Economic
634. Rosario Crino, Paolo Epifani. 2012. Productivity, Quality and Export Behavior. SSRN Electronic
635. Ramana Nanda, Matthew Rhodes-Kropf. 2012. Investment Cycles and Startup Innovation. SSRN
636. Ezra Oberfield, Devesh Raval. 2012. Micro Data and the Macro Elasticity of Substitution. SSRN
637. Lucia Foster, John C. Haltiwanger, Chad Syverson. 2012. The Slow Growth of New Plants: Learning
About Demand?. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
638. Enghin Atalay. 2012. Materials Prices and Productivity. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
639. Florin Maican, Matilda Orth. 2012. Productivity Dynamics and the Role of 'Big-Box' Entrants in
Retailing. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
640. Michael Greenstone, John A. List, Chad Syverson. 2012. The Effects of Environmental Regulation
on the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
641. Pawel Michal Krolikowski. 2012. Equilibrium Dynamics of Displaced Worker Earnings. SSRN
642. Ezra Oberfield, Devesh Raval. 2012. Micro Data and Macro Technology. SSRN Electronic Journal
. [Crossref]
643. Missaka Warusawitharana. 2012. Profitability and the Lifecycle of Firms. SSRN Electronic Journal
. [Crossref]
644. Chang-Tai Hsieh, Peter J. Klenow. 2012. The Life Cycle of Plants in India and Mexico. SSRN
645. Ari Hyytinen, Frode Steen, Otto Toivanen. 2012. Anatomy of Cartel Contracts. SSRN Electronic
646. Andrea Pozzi, Fabiano Schivardi. 2012. Demand or Productivity: What Determines Firms Growth?.
647. Henk LM Kox, George van Leeuwen. 2012. Dynamic Market Selection in EU Business Services.
648. Andrr van Hoorn. 2012. Individualism and the Cultural Roots of Management Practices. SSRN
649. Massimo Del Gatto, Adriana Di Liberto, Carmelo Petraglia. 2011. MEASURING
PRODUCTIVITY. Journal of Economic Surveys 25:5, 952-1008. [Crossref]
650. Justin R. Pierce. 2011. Plant-level responses to antidumping duties: Evidence from U.S.
manufacturers. Journal of International Economics 85:2, 222-233. [Crossref]
651. Jeremy T. Fox, Valérie Smeets. 2011. DOES INPUT QUALITY DRIVE MEASURED
DIFFERENCES IN FIRM PRODUCTIVITY?*. International Economic Review 52:4, 961-989.
[Crossref]
652. M. Joffe. 2011. The root cause of economic growth under capitalism. Cambridge Journal of Economics
35:5, 873-896. [Crossref]
653. A. B. Bernard, S. J. Redding, P. K. Schott. 2011. Multiproduct Firms and Trade Liberalization. The
654. ALEXANDRE JANIAK, PAULO SANTOS MONTEIRO. 2011. Inflation and Welfare in Long-
Run Equilibrium with Firm Dynamics. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 43:5, 795-834.
[Crossref]
655. Chad Syverson. 2011. What Determines Productivity?. Journal of Economic Literature 49:2, 326-365.
656. Pekka Ilmakunnas, Seija Ilmakunnas. 2011. Diversity at the Workplace: Whom Does it Benefit?. De
Economist 159:2, 223-255. [Crossref]
657. Shuyun May Li. 2011. Costly external finance, reallocation, and aggregate productivity. Journal of
Productivity Analysis 35:3, 181-195. [Crossref]
658. Chien-Ming Chen, Joe Zhu. 2011. Efficient Resource Allocation via Efficiency Bootstraps: An
Application to R&D Project Budgeting. Operations Research 59:3, 729-741. [Crossref]
659. Joachim Wagner. 2011. One-third Codetermination at Company Supervisory Boards and Firm
Performance in German Manufacturing Industries: First Direct Evidence from a New Type of
Enterprise Data. Schmollers Jahrbuch 131:1, 91-106. [Crossref]
660. Susan Houseman,, Christopher Kurz,, Paul Lengermann,, Benjamin Mandel. 2011. Offshoring Bias
in U.S. Manufacturing. Journal of Economic Perspectives 25:2, 111-132. [Abstract] [View PDF article]
[PDF with links]
661. John Van Reenen. 2011. Does competition raise productivity through improving management
quality?. International Journal of Industrial Organization 29:3, 306-316. [Crossref]
662. Krisztina Demeter, Attila Chikán, Zsolt Matyusz. 2011. Labour productivity change: Drivers, business
impact and macroeconomic moderators. International Journal of Production Economics 131:1, 215-223.
[Crossref]
663. Marian Rizov, Patrick Paul Walsh. 2011. Is There a Rural–Urban Divide? Location and Productivity
of UK Manufacturing. Regional Studies 45:5, 641-656. [Crossref]
664. Kyoji Fukao, Tomohiko Inui, Keiko Ito, Young Gak Kim, Tangjun Yuan. 2011. An international
comparison of the TFP levels and the productivity convergence of Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese and
Chinese listed firms. Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies 9:2, 127-150. [Crossref]
665. Max Kashefi. 2011. Structure and/or Culture: Explaining Racial Differences in Work Values. Journal
of Black Studies 42:4, 638-664. [Crossref]
666. J. R. Baldwin, W. Gu. 2011. Firm dynamics and productivity growth: a comparison of the retail trade
and manufacturing sectors. Industrial and Corporate Change 20:2, 367-395. [Crossref]
667. Joachim Wagner. 2011. Exports and Firm Characteristics in German Manufacturing Industries: New
Evidence from Representative Panel Data. Applied Economics Quarterly 57:2, 107-143. [Crossref]
668. Natarajan Balasubramanian. 2011. New Plant Venture Performance Differences Among Incumbent,
Diversifying, and Entrepreneurial Firms: The Impact of Industry Learning Intensity. Management
Science 57:3, 549-565. [Crossref]
669. Paula Bustos. 2011. Trade Liberalization, Exports, and Technology Upgrading: Evidence on the
Impact of MERCOSUR on Argentinian Firms. American Economic Review 101:1, 304-340. [Abstract]
670. Gunnar Breustedt, Hendrik Habermann. 2011. The Incidence of EU Per-Hectare Payments on
Farmland Rental Rates: A Spatial Econometric Analysis of German Farm-Level Data. Journal of
Agricultural Economics 62:1, 225-243. [Crossref]
671. Natarajan Balasubramanian, Jagadeesh Sivadasan. 2011. What Happens When Firms Patent? New
Evidence from U.S. Economic Census Data. Review of Economics and Statistics 93:1, 126-146.
[Crossref]
672. Masayuki Morikawa. 2011. Economies of Density and Productivity in Service Industries: An Analysis
of Personal Service Industries Based on Establishment-Level Data. Review of Economics and Statistics
93:1, 179-192. [Crossref]
673. Nicholas Bloom, John Van Reenen. Human Resource Management and Productivity 1697-1767.
[Crossref]
674. Bruno Cassiman, Elena Golovko. 2011. Innovation and internationalization through exports. Journal
of International Business Studies 42:1, 56-75. [Crossref]
675. Sea-Jin Chang, Brian Wu. 2011. Industry Dynamics and Institutional Frictions in Post-liberalization
China. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
676. Emek Basker, Shawn D. Klimek, Van H. Pham. 2011. Supersize It: The Growth of Retail Chains
and the Rise of the 'Big Box' Retail Format. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
677. Kirk White, Jerome Reiter, Amil Petrin. 2011. Plant-Level Productivity and Imputation of Missing
Data in the Census of Manufactures. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
678. Devesh Raval. 2011. Beyond Cobb-Douglas: Estimation of a CES Production Function with Factor
Augmenting Technology. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
679. Ayse Imrohoroglu, Selale Tuzel. 2011. Firm Level Productivity, Risk, and Return. SSRN Electronic
680. Matthias Kehrig. 2011. The Cyclicality of Productivity Dispersion. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
681. David Powell, Joachim Wagner. 2011. The Exporter Productivity Premium Along the Productivity
Distribution: Evidence from Unconditional Quantile Regression with Firm Fixed Effects. SSRN
682. Nicolas Petrosky-Nadeau, Etienne Wasmer. 2011. Macroeconomic Dynamics in a Model of Goods,
Labor and Credit Market Frictions. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
683. Murat Seker. 2011. Importing, Exporting, and Innovation in Developing Countries. SSRN Electronic
684. Kim P. Huynh, Robert J. Petrunia. 2011. Post-Entry Struggle for Life and Pre-Exit Shadow of Death
from a Financial Perspective. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
685. Emin Dinlersoz, Henry R. Hyatt, Sang V. Nguyen. 2011. Wage Dynamics Along the Life-Cycle of
Manufacturing Plants. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
686. Allan Collard-Wexler. 2011. Productivity Dispersion and Plant Selection in the Ready-Mix Concrete
Industry. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
687. Gregory Corcos, Massimo Del Gatto, Giordiano Mion, Gianmarco I.P. Ottaviano. 2011. Productivity
and Firm Selection: Quantifying the 'New' Gains from Trade. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
688. Antoine Gervais. 2011. Product Quality and Firm Heterogeneity in International Trade. SSRN
689. Ramana Nanda, Matthew Rhodes-Kropf. 2011. Investment Cycles and Startup Innovation. SSRN
690. Justin R. Pierce. 2011. Plant-Level Responses to Antidumping Duties: Evidence from U.S.
Manufacturers. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
691. Xavier Giroud. 2011. Proximity and Investment: Evidence from Plant-Level Data. SSRN Electronic
692. Mikael Carlsson, Julián Messina, Oskar Nordstrom Skans. 2011. Wage Adjustment and Productivity
Shocks. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
693. Mitsukuni Nishida, Amil Petrin, Saao Polanec. 2011. Explaining Reallocation's Apparent Negative
Contribution to Growth. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
694. Hylke Vandenbussche, Francesco Di Comite, Laura Rovegno, Christian Viegelahn. 2011. Moving Up
the Quality Ladder? Eu-China Trade Dynamics in Clothing. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
695. Francesco Di Comite, Jacques-François Thisse, Hylke Vandenbussche. 2011. Verti-Zontal
Differentiation in Monopolistic Competition. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
696. Helena Schweiger. 2011. The Impact of State Aid for Restructuring on the Allocation of Resources.
697. G. Faggio, K. G. Salvanes, J. Van Reenen. 2010. The evolution of inequality in productivity and wages:
panel data evidence. Industrial and Corporate Change 19:6, 1919-1951. [Crossref]
698. A. Bassanini. 2010. Inside the perpetual-motion machine: cross-country comparable evidence on job
and worker flows at the industry and firm level. Industrial and Corporate Change 19:6, 2097-2134.
[Crossref]
699. G. Dosi, S. Lechevalier, A. Secchi. 2010. Introduction: Interfirm heterogeneity--nature, sources and
consequences for industrial dynamics. Industrial and Corporate Change 19:6, 1867-1890. [Crossref]
700. G. Bottazzi, G. Dosi, N. Jacoby, A. Secchi, F. Tamagni. 2010. Corporate performances and market
selection: some comparative evidence. Industrial and Corporate Change 19:6, 1953-1996. [Crossref]
701. Toshihiro Okubo, Pierre M. Picard, Jacques-François Thisse. 2010. The spatial selection of
heterogeneous firms. Journal of International Economics 82:2, 230-237. [Crossref]
702. Jonathan Temple. 2010. Aggregate production functions, growth economics, and the part‐time
tyranny of the identity: a reply to Felipe and McCombie. International Review of Applied Economics
24:6, 685-692. [Crossref]
703. Nicholas Bloom, Raffaella Sadun, John Van Reenen. 2010. Recent Advances in the Empirics of
Organizational Economics. Annual Review of Economics 2:1, 105-137. [Crossref]
704. Alex Coad. 2010. Neoclassical vs evolutionary theories of financial constraints: Critique and
prospectus. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 21:3, 206-218. [Crossref]
705. Bruno Cassiman, Elena Golovko, Ester Martínez-Ros. 2010. Innovation, exports and productivity.
International Journal of Industrial Organization 28:4, 372-376. [Crossref]
706. EMI NAKAMURA, DAWIT ZEROM. 2010. Accounting for Incomplete Pass-Through. Review of
Economic Studies 77:3, 1192-1230. [Crossref]
707. Nicholas Bloom,, John Van Reenen. 2010. New Approaches to Surveying Organizations. American
Economic Review 100:2, 105-109. [Citation] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
708. Marcela Eslava, John Haltiwanger, Adriana Kugler, Maurice Kugler. 2010. Factor Adjustments after
Deregulation: Panel Evidence from Colombian Plants. Review of Economics and Statistics 92:2, 378-391.
[Crossref]
709. Andrew B. Bernard,, Stephen J. Redding,, Peter K. Schott. 2010. Multiple-Product Firms and Product
Switching. American Economic Review 100:1, 70-97. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
710. Naomi N. Griffin. 2010. Labor adjustment, productivity and output volatility: An evaluation of Japan’s
Employment Adjustment Subsidy. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies 24:1, 28-49.
[Crossref]
711. Helmut Fryges, Joachim Wagner. 2010. Exports and Profitability: First Evidence for German
Manufacturing Firms. World Economy 33:3, 399-423. [Crossref]
712. Nicholas Bloom,, John Van Reenen,. 2010. Why Do Management Practices Differ across Firms and
Countries?. Journal of Economic Perspectives 24:1, 203-224. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with
links]
713. Joachim Wagner. 2010. Entry, Exit and Productivity: Empirical Results for German Manufacturing
Industries. German Economic Review 11:1, 78-85. [Crossref]
714. Evan Rawley. 2010. Diversification, coordination costs, and organizational rigidity: evidence from
microdata. Strategic Management Journal 12, n/a-n/a. [Crossref]
715. Giovanni Dosi, Richard R. Nelson. Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary
Processes 51-127. [Crossref]
716. Wolfgang Keller. International Trade, Foreign Direct Investment, and Technology Spillovers 793-829.
[Crossref]
717. Charles R. Hulten. Growth Accounting* 987-1031. [Crossref]
718. Thibault Fally, Rodrigo Paillacar, Cristina Terra. 2010. Economic geography and wages in Brazil:
Evidence from micro-data. Journal of Development Economics 91:1, 155-168. [Crossref]
719. Emek Basker, Shawn D. Klimek, Van H. Pham. 2010. Supersize It: The Growth of Retail Chains
and the Rise of the 'Big Box' Retail Format. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
720. Nicholas Bloom, John Michael Van Reenen. 2010. Why Do Management Practices Differ Across
Firms and Countries?. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
721. Masato Nishiwaki. 2010. Are Losers Picked? An Empirical Analysis of Capacity Divestment and
Production Reallocation in the Japanese Cement Industry. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
722. Susanne Prantl. 2010. The Impact of Firm Entry Regulation on Long-Living Entrants. SSRN
723. Emin Dinlersoz, Mehmet Yorukoglu. 2010. Information and Industry Dynamics. SSRN Electronic
724. Mark Kutzbach. 2010. Access to Workers or Employers? An Intra-Urban Analysis of Plant Location
Decisions. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
725. Michel Dumont, Bruno Merlevede, Christophe Piette, Glenn Rayp. 2010. The Productivity and
Export Spillovers of the Internationalisation Behaviour of Belgian Firms. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
726. Emmanuel Dhyne, Catherine Fuss, Claude Mathieu. 2010. Labour Demand Adjustment: Does
Foreign Ownership Matter?. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
727. Kristina Steffenson McElheran. 2010. Delegation in Multi-Establishment Firms: The Organizational
Structure of I.T. Purchasing Authority. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
728. Xavier Giroud. 2010. Soft Information and Investment: Evidence from Plant-Level Data. SSRN
729. Marcela Eslava, Arturo Jos� Galindo, Marc Hofstetter, Alejandro Izquierdo. 2010. Scarring
Recessions and Credit Constraints: Evidence from Colombian Firm Dynamics. SSRN Electronic
730. Susan N. Houseman, Christopher Johann Kurz, Paul Lengermann, Benjamin R. Mandel. 2010.
Offshoring Bias in U.S. Manufacturing: Implications for Productivity and Value Added. SSRN
731. Adriana Camacho, Emily Conover. 2010. Misallocation and Productivity in Colombia’S
Manufacturing Industries. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
732. Alessandro Gavazza. 2010. Leasing and Secondary Markets: Theory and Evidence from Commercial
Aircraft. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
733. Kathryn Shaw. 2009. Insider econometrics: A roadmap with stops along the way. Labour Economics
16:6, 607-617. [Crossref]
734. Natalia Ramondo. 2009. Foreign Plants and Industry Productivity: Evidence from Chile. Scandinavian
Journal of Economics 111:4, 789-809. [Crossref]
735. Andrew B. Bernard, Stephen J. Redding, Peter K. Schott. 2009. Products and Productivity*.
Scandinavian Journal of Economics 111:4, 681-709. [Crossref]
736. Dongsoo Kim, Feng Liu, Anthony Yezer. 2009. Do inter-city differences in intra-city wage
differentials have any interesting implications?. Journal of Urban Economics 66:3, 203-209. [Crossref]
737. Emin M. Dinlersoz, Glenn MacDonald. 2009. The industry life-cycle of the size distribution of firms.
Review of Economic Dynamics 12:4, 648-667. [Crossref]
738. Hajime Katayama, Shihua Lu, James R. Tybout. 2009. Firm-level productivity studies: Illusions and
a solution. International Journal of Industrial Organization 27:3, 403-413. [Crossref]
739. Helen Simpson. 2009. PRODUCTIVITY IN PUBLIC SERVICES. Journal of Economic Surveys 23:2,
250-276. [Crossref]
740. David S. Kaplan. 2009. Job creation and labor reform in Latin America. Journal of Comparative
741. Min Ouyang. 2009. The scarring effect of recessions. Journal of Monetary Economics 56:2, 184-199.
[Crossref]
742. Nicolas Boccard. 2009. On Efficiency, Concentration and Welfare. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
743. Jan De Loecker, Frederic Warzynski. 2009. Markups and Firm-Level Export Status. SSRN Electronic
744. Chang-Tai Hsieh, Peter J. Klenow. 2009. Misallocation and Manufacturing TFP in China and India.
745. Juan Carlos Carlos Hallak, Jagadeesh Sivadasan. 2009. Firms' Exporting Behavior under Quality
Constraints. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
746. Andrew B. Bernard, Stephen J. Redding, Peter K. Schott. 2009. Multi-Product Firms and Trade
Liberalization. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
747. Federico Cingano, Paolo Pinotti. 2009. Politicians at Work: The Private Returns and Social Costs of
Political Connections. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
748. Ali Hortacsu, Chad Syverson. 2009. Why do Firms Own Production Chains?. SSRN Electronic Journal
. [Crossref]
749. Andrea Michaela Weber, Christine Zulehner. 2009. Competition and Gender Prejudice: Are
Discriminatory Employers Doomed to Fail?. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
750. Matteo Bugamelli, Fabiano Schivardi, Roberta Zizza. 2009. The Euro and Firm Restructuring. SSRN
751. Catherine Fuss, Ladislav Wintr. 2009. Rigid Labour Compensation and Flexible Employment ? Firm-
Level Evidence with Regard to Productivity for Belgium. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
752. Marcela Eslava, Marcela Meléndez. 2009. Politics, Policies and the Dynamics of Aggregate Productivity
in Colombia. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
753. Maria Callejon, Vicente Ortun. 2009. The Black Box of Business Dynamics. SSRN Electronic Journal
. [Crossref]
754. Helmut Fryges, Joachim Wagner. 2008. Exports and Productivity Growth: First Evidence from a
Continuous Treatment Approach. Review of World Economics 144:4, 695-722. [Crossref]
755. Joshua Linn. 2008. Energy Prices and the Adoption of Energy-Saving Technology*. The Economic
Journal 118:533, 1986-2012. [Crossref]
756. G. Bottazzi, A. Secchi, F. Tamagni. 2008. Productivity, profitability and financial performance.
757. Steven J. Davis, John C. Haltiwanger, Ron S. Jarmin. 2008. Turmoil and Growth: Young Businesses,
Economic Churning, and Productivity Gains. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
758. Kristian Behrens, Giordano Mion, Yasusada Murata, Jens Suedekum. 2008. Trade, Wages, and
Productivity. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
759. Florin Maican, Matilda Orth. 2008. Productivity Dynamics and the Role of Big-Box Entrants in
Retailing. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
760. Avi Goldfarb, Mo Xiao. 2008. Who Thinks about the Competition? Managerial Ability and Strategic
Entry in US Local Telephone Markets. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
761. Randy A. Becker, Ronald J. Shadbegian. 2008. The Green Industry: An Examination of
Environmental Products Manufacturing. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
762. Helmut Fryges, Joachim Wagner. 2008. Exports and Profitability - First Evidence for German
Manufacturing Firms. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
763. Rafael La Porta, Andrei Shleifer. 2008. The Unofficial Economy and Economic Development. SSRN
764. Steven J. Davis, Cheryl Grim, John C. Haltiwanger. 2008. Productivity Dispersion and Input Prices:
The Case of Electricity. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]

Teoria de Productividad PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teoria de Productividad PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

American Economic Review 2008, 98:1, 394–425

Reallocation, Firm Turnover, and Efficiency:

By Lucia Foster, John Haltiwanger, and Chad Syverson*

We investigate the nature of selection and productivity growth in industries

I. Theoretical Motivation

U 5 y 13 1a 1 di 2 qi di 2 h a3 qi dib 2 2 g3 q2i di

5 y 1 a3 qi di 2 ah 1 b a3 qi dib 2 1 3 di qi di 2 g3 1qi 2 qˉ 2 2 di,

where y is the quantity of a numeraire good, a . 0, h . 0, and g $ 0. The variable di is a

and maximized profits are

II. Data and Measurement Issues

We explore the demand-efficiency-survival links using establishment-level data for producers

(9) tfpit 5 yit 2 allit 2 akkit 2 ammit 2 aeeit ,

A. Rules for Inclusion in the Sample

Table 1—Summary Statistics for Output, Price, and Productivity Measures

Variables Trad’l. Revenue Physical Price Trad’l. Revenue Physical Capital

B. Properties of the Sample

C. Idiosyncratic Demand: Concept and Measurement

(10) ln qit 5 ao 1 a1 ln pit 1 a atYEARt 1 a2 ln 1INCOMEmt 2 1 hit ,

Table 2—Estimating Price Elasticities by Product

IV estimation OLS estimation

Our measure of producer-specific demand is positively correlated with revenue productivity

III. Basic Facts about Dynamics

Table 3—Persistence of Productivity, Prices and Demand Shocks

Five-year horizon Implied one-year persistence rates

IV. Selection Dynamics

A. Evolution of Key Distributions

Unweighted regression Weighted regression

Table 5—Evolution of Productivity, Price and Demand with Age Effects

Plant age dummies

(11) xit 5 bo 1 b1 Exitit 1 b2 Entryit 1 b3 Youngit 1 b4 Mediumit 1 a bIT IndYearIT 1 uit ,

Table 6—Selection on Productivity or Profitability?

Specification: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Traditional TFP 20.073

C. Implications for Aggregate Productivity Growth

(12) DTFPt 5 a uit21Dtfpit 1 a 1tfpit21 2 TFPt21 2Duit 1 a DtfpitDuit

1 a uit 1tfpit 2 TFPt21 2 2 a uit21 1tfpit21 2 TFPt21 2 ,

i[C i[C i[N i[X

Table 7—Decomposition of Industry Productivity Growth over Five-Year Horizons

Productivity Total Components of decomposition (BHC/FHK)

Components of decomposition (GR)

V. Robustness Checks

A. Quality Variation versus Spatial Differentiation

We focus on producers of physically homogeneous goods to make quantity comparisons

Table 8—Robustness Check: Local-Market Products Only

A. Selection on productivity or profitability?

B. Decomposition of industry productivity growth over five-year horizons

Productivity Total Components of decomposition (BHC/FHK)

Using a sample of approximately 18,000 establishment-level observations of producers of

Table 9—Robustness Check: Highly Specialized Producers Only

A. Selection on productivity or profitability?

B. Decomposition of industry productivity growth over five-year horizons

Productivity Total Components of decomposition (BHC/FHK)

You might also like