Is the division of labor limited by the extent of the market?: evidence from the chemical industry
In the age of outsourcing, it is easy to forget that outsourcing is simply one manifestation of the division of labor. Adam Smith's dictum that the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market has created difficulties when applied to a division of labor among firms (rather than within a firm). The problems are both for analytical attempts to formalize it and for empirical attempts to test it. Bresnahan and Gambardella show that the Smith--Stigler theorem holds when the extent of the market is defined in terms of the number of users instead of simply the total size of demand; therefore, division of labor is increasing in the number of users and decreasing in the average size of users. This article provides an empirical test of Bresnahan and Gambardella's theoretical argument, using data from the chemical industry. The chemical industry shows systematic variation across technologies and countries in the extent of the division of labor in plant design and engineering. We develop an empirical model in which large firms decide whether to build plants using in-house resources or to contract out, and small chemical firms also decide whether to invest in a plant. The number of specialized suppliers of plant design and engineering services (SEFs) vary with the demand for their services. The empirical results support the predictions of Bresnahan and Gambardella. We find that the number of SEFs increases when the market expands through an increase in the number of potential buyers but not when the market expansion is due to an increase in the average size of buyers. Moreover, an increase in the share of large-firm investment decreases small-firm investment, which decreases the number of SEFs. In turn, this further depresses small firm investment. Copyright 2009 The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Associazione ICC. All rights reserved., Oxford University Press.
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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 18 (2009)
Issue (Month): 5 (October)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK|
Fax: 01865 267 985
Web page: https://academic.oup.com/icc
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.oup.co.uk/journals|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:18:y:2009:i:5:p:785-806. 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: (Oxford University Press)or (Christopher F. Baum)
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.