Revisiting Some Productivity Debates / Johannes Van Biesebroeck.

By:

Van Biesebroeck, Johannes

Contributor(s):

National Bureau of Economic Research

Material type: Text

TextSeries: Working Paper Series (National Bureau of Economic Research) ; no. w10065.Publication details: Cambridge, Mass. National Bureau of Economic Research 2003.Description: 1 online resource: illustrations (black and white)Subject(s):

C3 - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models • Multiple Variables
O3 - Innovation • Research and Development • Technological Change • Intellectual Property Rights

Online resources:

Available additional physical forms:

Hardcopy version available to institutional subscribers

Abstract: Researchers interested in estimating productivity can choose from an array of methodologies, each with its strengths and weaknesses. Methods differ by the assumptions they rely on and imply very different calculations. I compare five widely used techniques: (a) index numbers, (b) data envelopment analysis, and three parametric methods, (c) instrumental variables estimation, (d) stochastic frontiers, and (e) semi-parametric estimation. I compare the estimates directly and evaluate three productivity debates using a panel of manufacturing plants in Colombia. The different methods generate surprisingly similar results. Correlations between alternative productivity estimates are invariably high. All methods confirm that exporters are more productive on average and that only a small portion of the productivity advantage is due to scale economies. Productivity growth is correlated more strongly with export status, frequent investments in capital equipment, and employment of managers than with the use of imported inputs or foreign ownership. On the debate whether aggregate productivity growth is driven by plant-level changes or output share relocation, all methods point to the the importance of plant-level changes, in contrast to results from the U.S.

Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.

Average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)

Holdings
Item type	Home library	Collection	Call number	Status	Date due	Barcode	Item holds
Working Paper	Biblioteca Digital	Colección NBER	nber w10065 (Browse shelf(Opens below))	Not For Loan

Total holds: 0

Collection: Colección NBER Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)

Previous	No cover image available	No cover image available	No cover image available	No cover image available	No cover image available	No cover image available	No cover image available	Next
Previous	nber w10062 Benefit Plan Design and Prescription Drug Utilization Among Asthmatics: Do Patient Copayments Matter? /	nber w10063 Consequences and Predictors of New Health Events /	nber w10064 Domestic Capital Market Reform and Access to Global Finance: Making Markets Work /	nber w10065 Revisiting Some Productivity Debates /	nber w10066 Why the Apple Doesn't Fall Far: Understanding Intergenerational Transmission of Human Capital /	nber w10067 Globalizing Activities and the Rate of Survival: Panel Data Analysis on Japanese Firms /	nber w10068 Labor Market Discrimination and Racial Differences in Premarket Factors /	Next

November 2003.

Researchers interested in estimating productivity can choose from an array of methodologies, each with its strengths and weaknesses. Methods differ by the assumptions they rely on and imply very different calculations. I compare five widely used techniques: (a) index numbers, (b) data envelopment analysis, and three parametric methods, (c) instrumental variables estimation, (d) stochastic frontiers, and (e) semi-parametric estimation. I compare the estimates directly and evaluate three productivity debates using a panel of manufacturing plants in Colombia. The different methods generate surprisingly similar results. Correlations between alternative productivity estimates are invariably high. All methods confirm that exporters are more productive on average and that only a small portion of the productivity advantage is due to scale economies. Productivity growth is correlated more strongly with export status, frequent investments in capital equipment, and employment of managers than with the use of imported inputs or foreign ownership. On the debate whether aggregate productivity growth is driven by plant-level changes or output share relocation, all methods point to the the importance of plant-level changes, in contrast to results from the U.S.