Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

The Structure Of Production Technology Productivity And Aggregation Effects

Contents:

Author Info

  • Phoebus J Dhrymes
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    This is a sequel to an earlier paper by the author, Dhrymes (1990). Using the LRD sample, that paper examined the adequacy of the functional form specifications commonly employed in the literature of US Manufacturing production relations. The "universe" of the investigation was the three digit product group; the basic unit of observation was the plant; the sample consisted of all "large" plants, defined by the criterion that they employ 250 or more workers. The study encompassed three digit product groups in industries 35, 36 and 38, over the period 1972-1986, and reached one major conclusion: if one were to judge the adequacy of a given specification by the parametric compatibility of the estimates of the same parameters, as derived from the various implications of each specification, then the three most popular (production function) specifications, Cobb-Douglas, CES and Translog all fell very wide of the mark. The current paper focuses the investigation on two digit industries (but retains the plant as the basic unit of observation), i.e., our sample consists of all "large" manufacturing plants, in each of Industry 35, 36 and 38, over the period 1972-1986. It first replicates the approach of the earlier paper; the results are basically of the same genre, and for that reason are not reported herein. Second, it examines the extent to which increasing returns to scale characterize production at the two digit level; it is established that returns to scale at the mean, in the case of the translog production function are almost identical to those obtained with the Cobb-Douglas function.1 Finally, it examines the robustness and characteristics of measures of productivity, obtained in the context of an econometric formulation and those obtained by the method of what may be thought of as the "Solow Residual" and generally designated as Total Factor Productivity (TFP). The major finding here is that while there are some differences in productivity behavior as established by these two procedures, by far more important is the aggregation sensitivity of productivity measures. Thus, in the context of a pooled sample, introduction of time effects (generally thought to refer to productivity shifts) are of very marginal consequence. On the other hand, the introduction of four digit industry effects is of appreciable consequence, and this phenomenon is universal, i.e., it is present in industry 35, 36 as well as 38. The suggestion that aggregate productivity behavior may be largely, or partly, an aggregation phenomenon is certainly not a part of the established literature. Another persistent phenomenon uncovered is the extent to which productivity measures for individual plants are volatile, while two digit aggregate measures appear to be stable. These findings clearly calls for further investigation.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: ftp://ftp2.census.gov/ces/wp/1991/CES-WP-91-05.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau in its series Working Papers with number 91-5.

    as in new window
    Length:
    Date of creation: Aug 1991
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:91-5

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233
    Phone: (301) 763-6460
    Fax: (301) 763-5935
    Email:
    Web page: http://www.census.gov/ces
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: CES; economic; research; micro; data; microdata; chief; economist;

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Morrison, Catherine J., 1986. "Productivity measurement with non-static expectations and varying capacity utilization : An integrated approach," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1-2), pages 51-74.
    2. Berndt, Ernst R, 1976. "Reconciling Alternative Estimates of the Elasticity of Substitution," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 58(1), pages 59-68, February.
    3. Gallant, A. Ronald, 1982. "Unbiased determination of production technologies," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 285-323, November.
    4. Hanoch, Giora, 1975. "The Elasticity of Scale and the Shape of Average Costs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(3), pages 492-97, June.
    5. Fuss, Melvyn A. & Gupta, Vinod K., 1981. "A cost function approach to the estimation of minimum efficient scale, returns to scale, and suboptimal capacity : With an application to Canadian manufacturing," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 123-135.
    6. Fare, Rolf & Jansson, Leif, 1975. "On VES and WDI Production Functions," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 16(3), pages 745-50, October.
    7. Raymond J. Kopp & V. Kerry Smith, 1980. "Measuring Factor Substitution with Neoclassical Models: An Experimental Evaluation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 11(2), pages 631-655, Autumn.
    8. Guilkey, David K & Lovell, C A Knox & Sickles, Robin C, 1983. "A Comparison of the Performance of Three Flexible Functional Forms," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 24(3), pages 591-616, October.
    9. Berndt, Ernst R & Khaled, Mohammed S, 1979. "Parametric Productivity Measurement and Choice among Flexible Functional Forms," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 87(6), pages 1220-45, December.
    10. Christensen, Laurits R & Jorgenson, Dale W & Lau, Lawrence J, 1975. "Transcendental Logarithmic Utility Functions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(3), pages 367-83, June.
    11. Simmons, Peter & Weiserbs, Daniel, 1979. "Translog Flexible Functional Forms and Associated Demand Systems," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(5), pages 892-901, December.
    12. Friedman, James W, 1973. "Concavity of Production Functions and Non-Increasing Returns to Scale," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(5), pages 981-84, September.
    13. Malcomson, James M, 1977. "Capital Utilization and the Measurement of the Elasticity of Substitution," The Manchester School of Economic & Social Studies, University of Manchester, vol. 45(2), pages 103-11, June.
    14. David E. Rose & Spencer Star, 1978. "Homotheticity and the Relationship between Plant Output and Factor Prices under Perfect Competition," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 11(1), pages 92-97, February.
    15. Guilkey, David K & Lovell, C A Knox, 1980. "On the Flexibility of the Translog Approximation," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 21(1), pages 137-47, February.
    16. Sosin, Kim H & Fairchild, Loretta G, 1984. "Nonhomotheticity and Technological Bias in Production," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 66(1), pages 44-50, February.
    17. Clark, Peter K & Haltmaier, Jane T, 1985. "The Labor Productivity Slowdown in the United States: Evidence from Physical Output Measures," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 67(3), pages 504-08, August.
    18. Samuelson, Paul A, 1979. "Paul Douglas's Measurement of Production Functions and Marginal Productivities," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 87(5), pages 923-39, October.
    19. Razin, Assaf, 1974. "A Note on the Elasticity of Derived Demand Under Decreasing Returns," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(4), pages 697-700, September.
    20. Ringstad, Vidar, 1974. "Some Empirical Evidence on the Decreasing Scale Elasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 42(1), pages 87-101, January.
    21. Berndt, Ernst R. & Fuss, Melvyn A., 1986. "Productivity measurement with adjustments for variations in capacity utilization and other forms of temporary equilibrium," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1-2), pages 7-29.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Eric J. Bartelsman & Mark Doms, 2000. "Understanding productivity: lessons from longitudinal microdata," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2000-19, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    2. Pinar Celikkol & Spiro Stefanou, 2004. "Productivity Growth Patterns in U.S. Food Manufacturing: Case of Meat Products Industry," Working Papers 04-04, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    3. Douglas Dwyer, 1998. "Technology Locks, Creative Destruction, and Non-Convergence in Productivity Levels," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 1(2), pages 430-473, April.
    4. Pinar Celikkol & Spiro Stefanou, 2004. "Productivity Growth Patterns in U.S. Food Manufacturing: Case of Dairy Products Industry," Working Papers 04-08, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    5. Robert Breunig & Marn-Heong Wong, . "Australia's firm-level productivity -- a new perspective," Australasian Stata Users' Group Meetings 2004 2, Stata Users Group.
    6. John Thanassoulis, 2005. "List Prices, Bargaining and Resultant Productivity Diffusion Delay," Economics Series Working Papers 220, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    7. Peter Klenow, 1998. "Learning Curves and the Cyclical Behavior of Manufacturing Industries," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 1(2), pages 531-550, April.
    8. Stefanou, Spiro E., 2009. "A Dynamic Characterization of Efficiency," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 10(1), January.
    9. Douglas W Dwyer, 1995. "Technology Locks, Creative Destruction And Non-Convergence In Productivity Levels," Working Papers 95-6, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:91-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Fariha Kamal).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.