IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/10303.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Robustness of Productivity Estimates

Author

Listed:
  • Johannes Van Biesebroeck

Abstract

Researchers interested in estimating productivity can choose from an array of methodologies, each with its strengths and weaknesses. Many methodologies are not very robust to measurement error in inputs. This is particularly troublesome, because fundamentally the objective of productivity measurement is to identify output differences that cannot be explained by input differences. Two other sources of error are misspecifications in the deterministic portion of the production technology and erroneous assumptions on the evolution of unobserved productivity. Techniques to control for the endogeneity of productivity in the firm's input choice decision risk exacerbating these problems. I compare the robustness of five widely used techniques: (a) index numbers, (b) data envelopment analysis, and three parametric methods: (c) instrumental variables estimation, (d) stochastic frontiers, and (e) semiparametric estimation. The sensitivity of each method to a variety of measurement and specification errors is evaluated using Monte Carlo simulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Johannes Van Biesebroeck, 2004. "Robustness of Productivity Estimates," NBER Working Papers 10303, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:10303
    Note: PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w10303.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Van Biesebroeck, Johannes, 2008. "The Sensitivity of Productivity Estimates," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 26, pages 311-328.
    2. Stephen Bond & Måns Söderbom, 2005. "Adjustment Costs and the Identification of Cobb Douglas Production Functions," Economics Papers 2005-W04, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    3. Richard Blundell & Stephen Bond, 2000. "GMM Estimation with persistent panel data: an application to production functions," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(3), pages 321-340.
    4. Johannes Van Biesebroeck, 2007. "Robustness Of Productivity Estimates," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(3), pages 529-569, September.
    5. Blundell, Richard & Bond, Stephen, 1998. "Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 115-143, August.
    6. Aigner, Dennis & Lovell, C. A. Knox & Schmidt, Peter, 1977. "Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 21-37, July.
    7. Stephen Bond & Måns Söderbom, 2005. "Adjustment Costs and the Identification of Cobb Douglas Production Functions," Economics Series Working Papers 2005-W04, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Petrick, Martin & Kloss, Mathias, 2013. "Identifying Factor Productivity from Micro-data: The case of EU agriculture," Working papers 144004, Factor Markets, Centre for European Policy Studies.
    2. repec:zbw:iamodp:271870 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Dobbelaere, Sabien & Kiyota, Kozo & Mairesse, Jacques, 2015. "Product and labor market imperfections and scale economies: Micro-evidence on France, Japan and the Netherlands," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 290-322.
    4. Marion Dovis, 2009. "Formulation et estimation des modèles de mesure de la productivité totale des facteurs : une étude sur un panel d'entreprises turques," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 119(6), pages 945-982.
    5. Göbel, Christian & Zwick, Thomas, 2009. "Age and productivity: evidence from linked employer employee data," ZEW Discussion Papers 09-020, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    6. Simon Pröll & Giannis Karagiannis & Klaus Salhofer, 2019. "Advertising and Markups: The Case of the German Brewing Industry," Working Papers 732019, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Institute for Sustainable Economic Development.
    7. Jinhyung Lee & Jeffrey S. McCullough & Robert J. Town, 2013. "The impact of health information technology on hospital productivity," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 44(3), pages 545-568, September.
    8. Baptist, Simon & Teal, Francis J., 2015. "Why Do South Korean Firms Produce So Much More Output per Worker than Ghanaian Ones?," IZA Discussion Papers 9157, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Aguirregabiria, Victor, 2009. "Econometric Issues and Methods in the Estimation of Production Functions," MPRA Paper 15973, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Almeida, Rita & Carneiro, Pedro, 2009. "The return to firm investments in human capital," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 97-106, January.
    11. Yuriy Gorodnichenko, 2007. "Using Firm Optimization to Evaluate and Estimate Returns to Scale," NBER Working Papers 13666, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Markus Eberhardt & Christian Helmers, 2010. "Untested Assumptions and Data Slicing: A Critical Review of Firm-Level Production Function Estimators," Economics Series Working Papers 513, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    13. Bruno Merlevede & Angelos Theodorakopoulos, 2018. "Productivity Effects of Internationalisation Through the Domestic Supply Chain: Evidence from Europe," Working Papers of VIVES - Research Centre for Regional Economics 627689, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), VIVES - Research Centre for Regional Economics.
    14. Bournakis, Ioannis & Mallick, Sushanta, 2018. "TFP estimation at firm level: The fiscal aspect of productivity convergence in the UK," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 579-590.
    15. Mirko Draca & Raffaella Sadun & John Van Reenen, 2006. "Productivity and ICT: A Review of the Evidence," CEP Discussion Papers dp0749, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    16. repec:zbw:inwedp:732019 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Bruno Merlevede & Angelos Theodorakopoulos, 2016. "Productivity effects from inter-industry offshoring and inshoring: Firm-level evidence from Belgium," FIW Working Paper series 165, FIW.
    18. Nikita Céspedes & María E. Aquije & Alan Sánchez & Rafael Vera Tudela, 2016. "Productividad sectorial en el Perú: un análisis a nivel de firmas," Chapters of Books, in: Nikita Céspedes & Pablo Lavado & Nelson Ramírez Rondán (ed.), Productividad en el Perú: medición, determinantes e implicancias, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 3, pages 70-92, Fondo Editorial, Universidad del Pacífico.
    19. Benoît Mahy & François Rycx & Guillaume Vermeylen & Mélanie Volral, 2022. "Productivity and wage effects of firm‐level upstreamness: Evidence from Belgian linked panel data," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(7), pages 2222-2250, July.
    20. Anna Giunta & Domenico Scalera & Francesco Trivieri & Jeffrey B. Nugent & Mariarosaria Agostino, 2011. "Firm Productivity, Organizational Choice and Global Value Chain," Working Papers 2011R09, Orkestra - Basque Institute of Competitiveness.
    21. Coviello, Decio & Islam, Roumeen, 2006. "Does aid help improve economic institutions ?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3990, The World Bank.
    22. Benoit Dostie, 2011. "Wages, Productivity and Aging," De Economist, Springer, vol. 159(2), pages 139-158, June.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D24 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
    • C13 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Estimation: General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:10303. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.