Measuring aggregate productivity growth using plant‐level data

We define aggregate productivity growth (APG) as the change in aggregate final demand minus the change in the aggregate expenditures on labor and capital. We show how to aggregate plant‐level data to this quantity and how to decompose APG into technical efficiency and reallocation components. This requires us to confront the “non‐neoclassical” features that impact plant‐level data, including plant‐level heterogeneity, the entry and exit of goods, adjustment costs, fixed and sunk costs, and market power. The APG decomposition includes one term per plant related to technical efficiency and one term for each input at each plant that is a function of the value of marginal product ‐ input price gap and that relates the reallocation of inputs to growth. We compare APG to several competing variants of productivity growth that are based only on plant‐level technical efficiency. Two simple theoretical examples illustrate that technical‐efficiency reallocation can be negatively correlated with actual APG reallocation because technical efficiency is a production concept and need not have any relation with the APG reallocation gaps. We illustrate this point empirically using panel data from manufacturing industries in Chile, where we show technical‐efficiency reallocation differs substantially from measured reallocation based on our definition of APG.     

Exploring reallocation’s apparent weak contribution to growth

Two recent meta-analyses use variants of the Baily et al. (Brookings Papers Econ Act Microecon 1:187–267, 1992) (BHC) decompositions to ask whether recent robust growth in aggregate labor productivity (ALP) across 25 countries is due to lower barriers to input reallocation. They find weak gains from measured reallocation and strong within-plant productivity gains. We show these findings may be because BHC indices decompose ALP growth using plant-level output-per-labor (OL) as a proxy for the marginal product of labor and changes in OL as a proxy for changes in plant-level productivity. We provide simple examples to show that (1) reallocation growth from labor should track marginal changes in labor weighted by the marginal product of labor, (2) BHC reallocation growth can be positively correlated, negatively correlated, or uncorrelated with actual growth arising from the reallocation of inputs, and that (3) BHC indices can mistake growth from reallocation as growth from productivity, principally because OL is neither a perfect index of marginal products nor plant-level productivity. We then turn to micro-level data from Chile, Colombia, and Slovenia, and we find for the first two that BHC indices report weak or negative growth from labor reallocation. Using the reallocation definition based on marginal products we find a positive and robust role for labor reallocation in all three countries and a reduced role of plant-level technical efficiency in growth. We close by exploring potential corrections to the BHC decompositions but here we have limited success.     

Structural Applications of the Discrete Choice Model

A growing body of empirical literature uses structurally-derived economic models to study the nature of competition and to measure explicitly the economic impact of strategic policies. While several approaches have been proposed, the discrete choice demand system has experienced wide usage. The heterogeneous, or mixed, logit in particular has been widely applied due to its parsimonious structure and its ability to capture flexibly substitution patterns for a large number of differentiated products.We outline the derivation of the heterogeneous logit demand system. We then present a number of applications of such models to various data sources. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of directions for future research in this area.     

Estimating Production Functions Using Inputs to Control for Unobservables

We add to the methods for conditioning out serially correlated unobserved shocks to the production technology. We build on ideas first developed in Olley and Pakes (1996) . They show how to use investment to control for correlation between input levels and the unobserved firm-specific productivity process. We show that intermediate inputs (those inputs which are typically subtracted out in a value-added production function) can also solve this simultaneity problem. We discuss some theoretical benefits of extending the proxy choice set in this direction and our empirical results suggest these benefits can be important.     

Promoting entrepreneurship in Eastern Europe

The past decade has seen a revival of entrepreneurship in the modern industrial economies, characterized by a wave of enterprise restructuring and of new developments in business and technology. In this paper, we argue that market transitions of the post-socialist economies of Eastern Europe cannot be successful without similar entrepreneurial restructuring. To address the massive structural distortions that still plague the post-reform economies, the governments of the region must promote entrepreneurship through policies that: (1) make use of all possible sources of entrepreneurship, including in particular the former state and social sectors; and (2) establish a macroeconomic environment and property-rights framework conducive to entrepreneurship. A successful promotion strategy will need to operate on several fronts, by: (1) redirecting entrepreneurial activities into legal, productive activities, (2) increasing the supply and effectiveness of entrepreneurs, (3) developing markets for complementary inputs, and (4) increasing the demand for entrepreneurship. An unsuccessful approach, we argue, will be one that regards the pre-reform small private sector as the only source of entrepreneurship, and as the only arena for its productive use.Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers Professor of Economics and Business Administration University of California at Berkeley (on leave)Visiting Professor University of California at Berkeley Professor of Economics and Entrepreneurship Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana (on leave) Advisor to the Government of Slovenia on real sector restructuring, 1992–93