IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prs/ecstat/estat_0336-1454_2008_num_419_1_7729.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Convergence de la productivité des entreprises, mondialisation, technologies de l’information et concurrence

Author

Listed:
  • Paul-Antoine Chevalier
  • Rémy Lecat
  • Nicholas Oulton

Abstract

[eng] The growth in studies on business data has revealed the wide differences in productivity between firms, sometimes even within narrowly defined activity sectors. The least productive firms therefore have ample margin for catching up. Their convergence towards the level of the most productive firms can be an important factor in productivity dynamics at macroeconomic level. Our article sheds light on this convergence in France in the 1990s and 2000s, and on some of its possible determinants. Convergence was greater for labour productivity than for total factor productivity. But, most importantly, the speed of convergence slowed in the 1990s, mainly because of an acceleration in the productivity of firms on the technological frontier, i. e., the firms that were already the most productive. We suggest three explanations for these stylized facts: (1) globalization and (2) information technologies, which seemingly benefited the most productive firms, and (3) increased competition, which stimulated the productivity of firms on the technological frontier while inhibiting convergence for the least productive firms. [fre] Le développement des études sur données d’entreprises a mis en évidence la forte dispersion de la productivité entre les entreprises, même dans des secteurs d’activité définis de façon étroite. Il existe donc des marges importantes de rattrapage pour les entreprises les moins productives. Leur convergence vers le niveau des firmes les plus productives peut constituer un élément important de la dynamique de la productivité au niveau macroéconomique. Cet article apporte un éclairage sur cette convergence, dans les années 1990 et 2000, en France et sur quelques-uns des facteurs qui pourraient l’expliquer. Ainsi, la convergence a été plus forte pour la productivité du travail que pour la productivité globale des facteurs. Mais surtout, la vitesse de convergence a diminué au cours des années 1990, ce qui s’explique principalement par une accélération de la productivité des firmes à la frontière technologique, c’est-à-dire de celles qui étaient déjà les plus productives. Trois facteurs d’explication sont avancés à ces faits stylisés: la mondialisation et les technologies de l’information auraient bénéficié davantage aux firmes les plus productives, tandis que l’accroissement de la concurrence aurait à la fois stimulé la productivité des firmes à la frontière et découragé la convergence des firmes les moins productives. [ger] Die diesbezüglichen Studien mittels Unternehmensdaten zeigen eine starke Streuung der Produktivität zwischen den Unternehmen, auch in Tätigkeitsbereichen, die eng definiert sind. Somit gibt es bedeutende Spielräume für die am wenigsten produktiven Unternehmen, ihren Rückstand aufzuholen. Ihre Konvergenz hin zum Niveau der produktivsten Unternehmen kann bei der Produktivitätsdynamik auf gesamtwirtschaftlicher Ebene ein wichtiger Faktor sein. Dieser Artikel gibt Aufschlüsse über diese Konvergenz in den 1990er Jahren und den Jahren von 2000 in Frankreich sowie über einige der Faktoren, die sie erklären könnten. So war die Konvergenz bei der Arbeitsproduktivität größer als bei der Gesamtproduktivität der Faktoren. Vor allem aber nahm die Geschwindigkeit der Konvergenz in den 1990er Jahren ab, was hauptsächlich mit einer Beschleunigung der Produktivität der Unternehmen an der technologischen Grenzen, d. h. derjenigen, die bereits am produktivsten waren, erklärt werden kann. Drei Erklärungen werden für diese Tatsachen angeführt: Die Globalisierung und die Informationstechnologien hätten den produktivsten Unternehmen mehr genutzt, während die Zunahme des Wettbewerbs zugleich die Produktivität der Unternehmen an der technologischen Grenze stimuliert und die Konvergenz der am wenigsten produktiven Unternehmen behindert hätte. [spa] El desarrollo de los estudios sobre datos de empresas ha puesto de manifiesto la fuerte dispersión de la productividad entre las empresas, incluso en sectores de actividad definidos de forma ajustada. Existen por lo tanto márgenes importantes de recuperación para las empresas menos productivas. Su convergencia hacia el nivel de las empresas más productivas puede constituir un importante elemento de la dinámica de la productividad a escala macroeconómica. Este artículo arroja luz sobre esta convergencia, en los años 1990 y 2000, en Francia y sobre algunos de los factores que podrían explicarla. De ese modo, la convergencia ha sido más fuerte para la productividad del trabajo que para la productividad global de los factores. Pero, sobre todo, la velocidad de convergencia ha disminuido en el transcurso de los años 1990, lo que se explica principalmente por una aceleración de la productividad de las empresas en la frontera tecnológica, es decir las que ya eran las más productivas. Se avanzan tres factores de explicación ante estos hechos esquematizados: la globalización y las tecnologías de la información habrían beneficiado más a las empresas más productivas, mientras que el crecimiento de la competencia habría al mismo tiempo estimulado la productividad de las empresas en la frontera y desanimado la convergencia de las empresas menos productivas.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul-Antoine Chevalier & Rémy Lecat & Nicholas Oulton, 2008. "Convergence de la productivité des entreprises, mondialisation, technologies de l’information et concurrence," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 419(1), pages 101-124.
  • Handle: RePEc:prs:ecstat:estat_0336-1454_2008_num_419_1_7729
    DOI: 10.3406/estat.2008.7729
    Note: DOI:10.3406/estat.2008.7729
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3406/estat.2008.7729
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.persee.fr/doc/estat_0336-1454_2008_num_419_1_7729
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3406/estat.2008.7729?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philippe Aghion & Nick Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2005. "Competition and Innovation: an Inverted-U Relationship," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(2), pages 701-728.
    2. Bernard, Andrew B. & Bradford Jensen, J., 1999. "Exceptional exporter performance: cause, effect, or both?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 1-25, February.
    3. Arellano, Manuel & Bover, Olympia, 1995. "Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 29-51, July.
    4. Bruno Crépon & Richard Duhautois, 2003. "Ralentissement de la productivité et réallocations d'emplois : deux régimes de croissance," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 367(1), pages 69-82.
    5. Sofronis K. Clerides & Saul Lach & James R. Tybout, 1998. "Is Learning by Exporting Important? Micro-Dynamic Evidence from Colombia, Mexico, and Morocco," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 113(3), pages 903-947.
    6. Griffith, Rachel & Redding, Stephen & Simpson, Helen, 2002. "Productivity Convergence and Foreign Ownership at the Establishment Level," CEPR Discussion Papers 3765, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Giuseppe Nicoletti & Stefano Scarpetta, 2005. "Product Market Reforms and Employment in OECD Countries," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 472, OECD Publishing.
    8. Alla Lileeva & Daniel Trefler, 2007. "Improved Access to Foreign Markets Raises Plant-Level Productivity ... for Some Plants," NBER Working Papers 13297, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. 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.
    10. Robert J. Barro, 1991. "Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(2), pages 407-443.
    11. David Scharfstein, 1988. "Product-Market Competition and Managerial Slack," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(1), pages 147-155, Spring.
    12. Robert D. Willig, 1987. "Corporate Governance and Market Structure," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Assaf Razin & Efraim Sadka (ed.), Economic Policy in Theory and Practice, chapter 13, pages 481-503, Palgrave Macmillan.
    13. Oulton, Nicholas, 1998. "Competition and the Dispersion of Labour Productivity amongst UK Companies," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 23-38, January.
    14. Baldwin, John R. Gu, Wulong, 2003. "Participation in Export Markets and Productivity Performance in Canadian Manufacturing," Economic Analysis (EA) Research Paper Series 2003011e, Statistics Canada, Analytical Studies Branch.
    15. Lucia Foster & John C. Haltiwanger & C. J. Krizan, 2001. "Aggregate Productivity Growth: Lessons from Microeconomic Evidence," NBER Chapters, in: New Developments in Productivity Analysis, pages 303-372, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Nickell, Stephen J, 1996. "Competition and Corporate Performance," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(4), pages 724-746, August.
    17. Kiyohiko G. Nishimura & Takanobu Nakajima & Kozo Kiyota, 2005. "Productivity Convergence at the Firm Level," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-341, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    18. Sanghoon Ahn, 2002. "Competition, Innovation and Productivity Growth: A Review of Theory and Evidence," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 317, OECD Publishing.
    19. Manuel Arellano & Stephen Bond, 1991. "Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 58(2), pages 277-297.
    20. Nickell, Stephen & Nicolitsas, Daphne & Dryden, Neil, 1997. "What makes firms perform well?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(3-5), pages 783-796, April.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. A. Berthou. & C. Sandoz., 2014. "Labour productivity in Europe: allocative efficiency of labour or performance of firms?," Quarterly selection of articles - Bulletin de la Banque de France, Banque de France, issue 34, pages 47-67, summer.
    2. Gilbert Cette & Simon Corde & Rémy Lecat, 2017. "Stagnation of productivity in France: A legacy of the crisis or a structural slowdown?," Economie et Statistique / Economics and Statistics, Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques (INSEE), issue 494-495-4, pages 11-36.
    3. Denis Carré & Nadine Levratto & Messaoud Zouikri, 2010. "Analyse comparée de la productivité des firmes européennes à partir de données comptables: L'effet pays en cause," EconomiX Working Papers 2010-11, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    4. Álvaro Escribano & Rodolfo Stucchi, 2014. "Does recession drive convergence in firms’ productivity? Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 339-349, June.

    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. Paul-Antoine Chevalier & Rémy Lecat & Nicholas Oulton, 2009. "Convergence of Firm-Level Productivity, Globalisation, Information Technology and Competition: Evidence from France," CEP Discussion Papers dp0916, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    2. Young Bong Chang & Vijay Gurbaxani, 2013. "An Empirical Analysis of Technical Efficiency: The Role of IT Intensity and Competition," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 561-578, September.
    3. Črt Kostevc, 2009. "Foreign Market Competition as a Determinant of Exporter Performance: Evidence from Slovenian Manufacturing Firms," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(6), pages 888-913, June.
    4. Martin Andersson & Hans Lööf, 2009. "Learning‐by‐Exporting Revisited: The Role of Intensity and Persistence," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 111(4), pages 893-916, December.
    5. Richard Dion & Robert Fay, 2008. "Understanding Productivity: A Review of Recent Technical Research," Discussion Papers 08-3, Bank of Canada.
    6. Schiantarelli, Fabio, 2005. "Product Market Regulation and Macroeconomic Performance: A Review of Cross Country Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 1791, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Schiffbauer, Marc, 2006. "Theoretical and methodological study on the role of public policies in fostering innovation and growth," Papers DYNREG04, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    8. Quang-Thanh Ngo & Canh Thi Nguyen, 2020. "Do export transitions differently affect firm productivity? Evidence across Vietnamese manufacturing sectors," Post-Communist Economies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(8), pages 1011-1037, November.
    9. Fritsch, Michael & Changoluisa, Javier, 2017. "New business formation and the productivity of manufacturing incumbents: Effects and mechanisms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 237-259.
    10. Rougier, Eric, 2016. "“Fire in Cairo”: Authoritarian–Redistributive Social Contracts, Structural Change, and the Arab Spring," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 148-171.
    11. T. Gries & R. Grundmann & I. Palnau & M. Redlin, 2017. "Innovations, growth and participation in advanced economies - a review of major concepts and findings," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 293-351, April.
    12. repec:lic:licosd:15905 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Chevalier, Paul-Antoine & Lecat, Rémy & Oulton, Nicholas, 2012. "Convergence of firm-level productivity, globalisation and information technology: Evidence from France," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 244-246.
    14. Bresnahan, Lauren & Coxhead, Ian & Foltz, Jeremy & Mogues, Tewodaj, 2016. "Does Freer Trade Really Lead to Productivity Growth? Evidence from Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 18-29.
    15. Ge, Ying, 2009. "Globalization and Industry Agglomeration in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 550-559, March.
    16. Rafiou Raphaël Bétila, 2021. "The impact of Ease of Doing Business on economic growth: a dynamic panel analysis for African countries," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 1(10), pages 1-34, October.
    17. Tjaša Bartolj, 2023. "Should Firms Strive for the Educational Diversity of the Workforce? Estimation of the Impact of Firms’ Educational Structure on Sales Growth and Exports," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(1), pages 21582440231, February.
    18. Masahito Ambashi, 2017. "Competition Effects and Industrial Productivity: Lessons from Japanese Industry," Asian Economic Papers, MIT Press, vol. 16(3), pages 212-249, Fall.
    19. Massimo Del Gatto & Adriana Di Liberto & Carmelo Petraglia, 2011. "Measuring Productivity," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(5), pages 952-1008, December.
    20. Koeke, J. & Renneboog, L.D.R., 2002. "Does Good Corporate Governance Lead to Stronger Productivity Growth?," Other publications TiSEM fd324cf7-56f6-45a2-a61e-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    21. Catherine J. Morrison Paul & Mahmut Yasar, 2009. "Outsourcing, productivity, and input composition at the plant level," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 42(2), pages 422-439, May.

    More about this item

    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:prs:ecstat:estat_0336-1454_2008_num_419_1_7729. 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: Equipe PERSEE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.persee.fr/collection/estat .

    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.