Concentration and Inefficiency in the Defense Sector: Policy Options

This article, which is a part of a larger comprehensive study of the effects of employee ownership and worker participation on productivity in the United States, focuses on and documents the lack of worker participation in employee-owned firms [Rooney 1987]. It is estimated that more than 7,000 U.S. firms covering some 10 million employees have some degree of employee ownership [Rosen, Klein and Young 1986, p. 15]. By employee ownership, we simply mean that most of the employees own some shares of stock in the company in which they work. While most employee-owned firms have less than a majority ownership stake, several hundred U.S. firms are majority emp10yeeowned, and are the target of this study.     

国企混改、高管薪酬激励与全要素生产率

基于我国国有企业混合所有制改革背景,以2004—2020年沪深A股国有上市公司为样本,实证检验混合所有制改革对国有企业全要素生产率的影响及其作用渠道。区别多数文献对混合所有制改革虚拟变量的处理,本文采用混合所有制改革程度（第一大非国有股东持股比例超过5%）进行量化。在作用渠道检验中,为了提高对中介效应的检验力和结果的解释性,使用非参数Bootstrapping方法调整估计偏差的结构方程模型进行多重中介效应检验。研究结果表明,混合所有制改革对国有企业全要素生产率具有显著的正向促进作用,在一系列稳健性检验后,结论依然成立;异质性检验发现,混合所有制改革对国有企业全要素生产率的积极作用在地方国有企业、引入的非国有资本为民营资本及混改后依然国有控股的样本企业中更为显著;高管的货币性薪酬和股权薪酬激励承担了大部分中介效应,其中货币性薪酬激励的作用更为突出,在使用与基准回归相似的稳健性检验后,中介效应依然显著成立。     

Public and private capital productivity in Russia: a non-parametric investigation

The productivity of public capital has been very popular research topic for US and other OECD countries, while studies using data from transitional countries are almost non-existent. In this paper, we analyze the productivity of public and private capital in Russia with parametric and non-parametric regression methods utilizing a unique regional level panel data from 2003 to 2007. More specifically, we assess public capital’s spillover effects, i.e., the productivity of public capital on private output, as well as the productivity of different capital ownership types on total output. We find that public capital has a clear positive effect on private output. However, our estimates and test statistics show that parametric methods are not able to grasp vast non-linearities and heterogeneity present among Russian regions, while the non-parametric approach can capture these important features of the data better. Furthermore, we find that multicollinearity is an important methodological problem which should be accounted for in analysis concerning capital data. Our results also suggest that the impact of public capital in Russia is heterogeneous in the sense that for some regions its contribution to private output is insignificant or even negative while it has a considerable positive role for most regions. Concerning the capital elasticities of total output, we find that public capital is less productive than private capital and roughly as productive as joint private-public capital.     

Economic transition, higher education and worker productivity in China

We investigate the role of education on worker productivity and firms' total factor productivity using a panel of firm-level data from China. We estimate the returns to education by calculating the marginal productivity of workers of different education levels based on estimates of the firm-level production function. We also estimate how the education level of workers and CEO contributes to firms' total factor productivity. Estimated marginal products are much higher than wages, and the gap is larger for highly educated workers. Our estimate shows that an additional year of schooling raises marginal product by 30.1%, and that CEO's education increases TFP for foreign-invested firms. Estimates vary substantially across ownership classes, the effect of schooling on productivity being highest in foreign-invested firms. We infer that market mechanisms contribute to a more efficient use of human capital within firms.     

UNDERSTANDING LABOUR MARKET FRICTIONS: AN ASSET PRICING APPROACH

Labour market friction is viewed in terms of the market value of an employed worker as opposed to the position of the Beveridge curve. This market value of an installed worker, which I call Tobin's  Q  of a worker, is inversely proportional to the average quality of the match between employers and workers. Based on this measure, I find that the labour market friction rises during a period of productivity boom. This phenomenon is indirectly supported by the data where it is found that the relative value of a worker with respect to tangible capital shows a positive association with the total factor productivity. The model suggests that firms may be compromising the quality of a skill match during a period of tight labour market conditions.     

Foreign ownership wage premia in emerging economies

In this article we examine the relationship between wages, labour productivity and ownership using a linked employer–employee dataset covering a large fraction of the Czech labour market in 2006. We distinguish between different origins of ownership and study wage and productivity differences. The raw wage differential between foreign and domestically‐owned firms is about 23 percent. The empirical analysis is carried out on both firm‐ and individual‐level data. A key finding is that industry, region and notably human capital explain only a small part of the foreign–domestic ownership wage differential. Both white and blue collar workers as well as skilled and unskilled employees obtain a foreign ownership wage premium. Foreign ownership premia are more prevalent in older and less technologically advanced firms. Joint estimation of productivity and wage equations show that, controlling for human capital, the difference in productivity is about twice as large as the wage differential. Overall, results indicate that the international firms share their rents with their employees.     

民营化改制对中国产业效率的效果分析--2001年全国普查工业数据的分析

本项研究利用了第二次全国基本单位普查数据 ( 2 0 0 1年 ) ,在全部工业产业的基础上 ,考察了最新的民营化发展的动态 ,考察 2 0多年来形成的改制面和所产生的相应绩效效果。按照现行的国家规定的企业产权注册的详细分类指标 ,我们得以将改制企业从一般公有企业或私有企业中加以分离 ,从而能够通过相应的实证模型 ,来检验不同所有权因素 ,尤其是改制形成的不同股权类型对于产业效率的影响及其程度。主要的发现如下 :( 1 )国有企业 (包括传统国有、国有独资企业 )对于效率具有明显的负作用 ,私营企业、股份企业和三资企业则都表现为积极的对于效率的正相关推动作用 ,其中 ,私营企业推动产业效率的作用最强 ,三资和股份合作企业其次 ,再次则是股份企业和集体企业。( 2 )对于改制企业的不同资本股权来说 ,个人资本普遍具有最显著的对于效率的正相关的积极效果 ,法人资本表现为显著性不稳定的正相关作用 ,集体资本表现出与效率不相关的结果 ,而国家资本则表现出十分显著的负相关的效果。 ( 3 )对于股份有限、有限责任和股份合作制企业这三种股份企业之间差异的分析表明 ,股份有限公司的规模效益作用明显小于股份合作制企业 ,这是较多的国有产权的消极作用抵销了规模效益的积极作用的结果。相对于股份有限公?     

Is Public Capital Productive in China? Evidence from a Panel of Chinese Provinces

In addition to the direct productivity effect, public capital also has an indirect effect on private capital stock and labor input. This paper offers an evaluation of both the direct and indirect effects of Chinese public capital by applying a trans-log aggregate production function including public capital stock to a panel of regional data from 1986–2009. Moreover, we calculate the impact of public capital on regional total factor productivity (TFP) performance by introducing a system GMM estimation. The results show that the output elasticity of Chinese public capital stock is significantly positive, but decreasing year on year, and public capital is found to be a substitute for labor but complementary to private capital input. Finally, public capital has a significant positive effect on regional TFP performance.     

The Productivity Effects of Worker Mobility Between Heterogeneous Firms

We analyze the effect of worker inflows on establishments’ productivity, using German data. Previous studies for other countries have found positive effects of hiring workers from superior (more productive or higher paying) firms. Ranking establishments by their median wage, we find that inflows from inferior establishments seem to increase hiring establishments’ productivity. Further empirical analyses suggest our findings are due to a positive selection of such inflows from their sending establishments. These workers might have to find a better job match in order to advance their careers, an interpretation supported by the finding that the effect is driven by workers with short tenure at their previous employer. Our findings reflect the increasingly assortative pattern of worker mobility in Germany found in a related strand of literature.     

R&D and productivity in Danish firms: some empirical evidence

The aim of the paper is to examine the relationship between R&D capital and productivity using microdata for Danish manufacturing firms. The influence of factors such as ownership, innovative characteristics and source of funding accounted for. The return to accumulated R&D capital is estimated to be in the neighbourhood of 9–12%, whereas the short-run effect of R&D is insignificant. Furthermore, the direct influence from foreign ownership, source of funding accounted for, innovative characteristics and ownership dispersion on productivity are analysed. However, none of the factors seem to have an impact on firm productivity. The same is the case for the indirect influence coming from interaction with accumulated R&D capital.     

Foreign Investment,Technology Transfer and Foreign Capital Impact Function

This paper analyzes the optimal capital accumulation of a small open economy by incorporating the impact of technology transfer that accompanies foriegn ivestment. Assuming that technology transfer depends on the extent of foreign ownership, it is shown that, whenever there is technology transfer through foreìgn participation, the optimal rule suggests that a host country maintain some foreign capital in the steady state. The concept of the foreign capital impact function is introduced to capture possible negative effects in addition to the positive effects of foreign investment. The impact of foreign investment is shown to involve an externality, calling for government intervention for a social optimum. [110]     

The effects of privatization on productive efficiency: evidence from the Baltic republics

By using new and unusual data sets for large samples of firms in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania we find that, since privatization, diverse patterns of enterprise ownership have emerged and ownership configurations are quite dynamic.   To test competing theories on the productivity effects of alternative ownership structures, identical cross sectional production functions specifications are estimated for each country for varying years during 1993 1996. While the effects of private ownership upon productivity are found to vary considerably over time and across countries, productivity effects are always found to be either zero or positive, thus providing partial support for the hypothesis that state ownership is less efficient than private ownership.   Findings are mixed concerning hypotheses on the effects of particular ownership structures. Often (e.g. for Lithuania) estimates indicate that all forms of private ownership have zero productivity effects. However, some estimates for Estonia provide support for the mainstream hypothesis that outside (and especially foreign) ownership is preferred to insider ownership. But in other estimates (again for Estonia) majority ownership by employees is found to deliver better business performance than majority ownership by managers (thus refuting the hypothesis that the preferred form of insider ownership is ownership by managers).     

Origin and concentration

We analyse the effects of different types and concentration of ownership on performance using a large population of firms in the Czech Republic after mass privatization. Specifications based on first‐differences combined with instrumental variables show that the performance effects of different types and concentration of ownership are limited when compared to earlier studies. Often, concentrated ownership has a positive effect, a finding that supports the agency theory. The positive effect of foreign ownership is detected primarily for majority ownership and for ownership by foreign industrial firms. The state as a holder of the golden share has a positive effect on employment and sometimes, also on output and profitability. Overall, our results highlight the benefits of strategic restructuring accompanied by an inflow of new capital and managerial culture.     

Economics,Democracy, and the Distribution of Capital Ownership

This article holds that widespread, practical access to capital acquisition is essential for sustainable widespread economic prosperity and democracy. The founders of the U.S.A. agreed that sustainable democracy required widespread ownership of land to provide a viable earning capacity sufficient to support robust participation in democratic government. The importance of widespread land ownership to individual prosperity and sustainable democracy was supported not only by the prevailing philosophical views of property, it was also apparent to the common man and woman. Compared to Europe, America offered widespread access to land ownership, higher wages, better work conditions, cheaper staples and greater individual freedom, equal opportunity, prosperity, and political participation. This conviction that widespread access to ownership is a necessary condition for widespread prosperity and sustainable democracy continued throughout most of the nineteenth century, but today public discourse reveals virtually no trace of this once universally held opinion. This article suggests that the disappearance of this conviction can be traced to an erroneous view shaped by neoclassical economics and Keynesian economics. According to this view, (1) the disappearance of the American frontier and industrialization made the goal of widespread capital ownership either impractical or of little or no economic significance and (2) by way of technological advance, sufficient earning capacity and consumer demand to promote growth and sustain democracy can be achieved, without widespread ownership, primarily through jobs and welfare. Although differing in many respects, both mainstream schools, along with Adam Smith’s classical economics, share one common but unstated economic assumption: the broader distribution of capital acquisition (in itself) has no fundamental relationship to the fuller employment of people and capital, the broader distribution of greater individual earning capacity, and growth. Contemporary thinking, shaped by these economic schools, also tacitly assumes that widespread capital ownership is not essential for the sustainable individual earning capacity needed to support robust democracy. This erroneous “ownership-neutrality assumption” (1) contradicts both the views of America’s founders and the colonial experience, and (2) provides theoretical justification for structuring capital markets and capital acquisition transactions to unfairly and dysfunctionally favor existing owners at the expense of broader ownership distribution, more widely shared prosperity, greater efficiency, ecologically friendly growth, and a vital democracy. America’s conscientious founders would be shocked by the diminished importance of the distribution of ownership in the mainstream analysis of prices, efficiency, production, growth, and democracy. Rather than enhancing democracy, they would view the “ownership-neutrality assumption” of mainstream economics as contributing to its deterioration and corruption. They would openly search for economic analysis built on an alternate assumption more consistent with their understanding of the requisite conditions for sustainable democracy. This article advances an economic analysis that suspends the ownership-neutrality assumption, replaces it with a “broader-ownership-growth assumption,” and suggests a voluntary market strategy for substantially broadening capital ownership, enhancing individual earning capacity, and providing the widespread economic prosperity needed for robust democracy.     

Public and private inputs in aggregate production and growth: a cross-country efficiency approach

In a cross section of OECD countries, we replace the macroeconomic production function by a production possibility frontier, total factor productivity being the composite effect of efficiency scores and possibility frontier changes. We consider, for the periods 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000 one output – GDP per worker – and three inputs – human capital, public physical capital per worker and private physical capital per worker. We use a semi-parametric analysis, computing Malmquist productivity indexes, and we also resort to stochastic frontier analysis. Results show that private capital is important for growth, although public and human capital also contribute positively. A governance indicator, a nondiscretionary input, explains inefficiency. Better governance helps countries to achieve a better performance. Nonparametric and parametric results coincide rather closely on the movements of the countries vis-à-vis the possibility frontier and on their relative distances to the frontier.     

Economics,Democracy, and the Distribution of Capital Ownership

This article holds that widespread, practical access to capital acquisition is essential for sustainable widespread economic prosperity and democracy. The founders of the U.S.A. agreed that sustainable democracy required widespread ownership of land to provide a viable earning capacity sufficient to support robust participation in democratic government. The importance of widespread land ownership to individual prosperity and sustainable democracy was supported not only by the prevailing philosophical views of property, it was also apparent to the common man and woman. Compared to Europe, America offered widespread access to land ownership, higher wages, better work conditions, cheaper staples and greater individual freedom, equal opportunity, prosperity, and political participation. This conviction that widespread access to ownership is a necessary condition for widespread prosperity and sustainable democracy continued throughout most of the nineteenth century, but today public discourse reveals virtually no trace of this once universally held opinion. This article suggests that the disappearance of this conviction can be traced to an erroneous view shaped by neoclassical economics and Keynesian economics. According to this view, (1) the disappearance of the American frontier and industrialization made the goal of widespread capital ownership either impractical or of little or no economic significance and (2) by way of technological advance, sufficient earning capacity and consumer demand to promote growth and sustain democracy can be achieved, without widespread ownership, primarily through jobs and welfare. Although differing in many respects, both mainstream schools, along with Adam Smith’s classical economics, share one common but unstated economic assumption: the broader distribution of capital acquisition (in itself) has no fundamental relationship to the fuller employment of people and capital, the broader distribution of greater individual earning capacity, and growth. Contemporary thinking, shaped by these economic schools, also tacitly assumes that widespread capital ownership is not essential for the sustainable individual earning capacity needed to support robust democracy. This erroneous “ownership-neutrality assumption” (1) contradicts both the views of America’s founders and the colonial experience, and (2) provides theoretical justification for structuring capital markets and capital acquisition transactions to unfairly and dysfunctionally favor existing owners at the expense of broader ownership distribution, more widely shared prosperity, greater efficiency, ecologically friendly growth, and a vital democracy. America’s conscientious founders would be shocked by the diminished importance of the distribution of ownership in the mainstream analysis of prices, efficiency, production, growth, and democracy. Rather than enhancing democracy, they would view the “ownership-neutrality assumption” of mainstream economics as contributing to its deterioration and corruption. They would openly search for economic analysis built on an alternate assumption more consistent with their understanding of the requisite conditions for sustainable democracy. This article advances an economic analysis that suspends the ownership-neutrality assumption, replaces it with a “broader-ownership-growth assumption,” and suggests a voluntary market strategy for substantially broadening capital ownership, enhancing individual earning capacity, and providing the widespread economic prosperity needed for robust democracy.     

The impact of vocational education on productivity in the United States

This paper examines the impact of vocational education on productivity in the United States. By using a cross-correlation test for directional causality, it is shown that vocational education has led to improvements in human capital that in turn increase productivity as measured by real private domestic product per worker hour in nonfarm business. The reverse is not true: that is, changes in productivity do not have a statistically identifiable impact on vocational education. Moreover, the time it takes for significant cross-correlations to appear suggests that the total effect of any vocational educational change takes at least 10 to 20 years to exhaust itself.When the manufacturing sector is studied separately, such positive results are not obtained. Only two out of seven vocational education measures appear to have a significant effect on productivity. For these two measures, the time for an identifiable impact to occur is also fairly long.     

Second thoughts on development accounting

The relative roles of factor inputs and productivity are estimated in explaining the level of economic development. For a large sample of countries, it is shown that international differences in factor inputs account for between two thirds and three quarters of international differences in output per worker if alternative identifying productivity assumptions and a quality-adjusted measure of human capital are employed. For a sample of OECD countries, it is found that all differences in output per worker can be attributed to differences in factor inputs, leaving no role for international productivity differences. This result supports the reasoning of a traditional neoclassical growth model.     

管理层持股的利益趋同效应研究——基于中国A股上市公司盈余持续性的检验

管理层持股对公司盈余影响有“利益趋同”和“壕沟防御”两种效应。本文采用股权分置改革后中国A股上市公司2007年至2010年样本,基于盈余持续性的视角,研究了管理层持股的利益趋同效应。研究发现管理层持股能显著提高上市公司的盈余持续性,进一步研究还发现董事会和高级管理人员的作用强于监事会。本文不仅丰富了管理层持股对盈余持续性影响的研究,而且获得了管理层持股“利益趋同”作用的支持性验证,说明股权分置改革后“内部人控制”不再是制约管理层持股的制度障碍。本文研究支持上市公司和监管层积极看待管理层持股,并建议上市公司区别制定有效股权激励计划,通过不断完善资本市场和公司治理结构,更好地发挥管理层持股的积极作用。     

Growth and risk at the industry level: The real effects of financial liberalization

This paper analyzes the effects of financial liberalization on growth and volatility at the industry level in a large sample of countries. We estimate the impact of liberalization on production, employment, firm entry, capital accumulation, and productivity. In order to overcome omitted variables concerns, we employ a number of alternative difference-in-differences estimation strategies. We implement a propensity score matching algorithm to find a control group for each liberalizing country. In addition, we exploit variation in industry characteristics to obtain an alternative set of difference-in-differences estimates. Financial liberalization is found to have a positive effect on both growth and volatility of production across industries. The positive growth effect comes from increased entry of firms, higher capital accumulation, and an expansion in total employment. By contrast, we do not detect any effect of financial liberalization on measured productivity. Finally, the growth effects of liberalization appear temporary rather than permanent.