IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Structure and Behavior of Multi-product Firms: Evidence from India

  • Choi, Jangho
  • Gopinath, Munisamy

A central theme of international trade research has been the impact of trade liberalization on productivity. Early literature on this theme points out that trade liberalization brings resource/organizational adjustment across industries and this adjustment enhances productivity. A traditional comparative advantage or monopolistic competition model examines responses at the average, i.e. homogeneous firms. In recent years, heterogeneous firm models with a general equilibrium framework expand the debate to include organizational adjustment across firms. The productivity improvement in the heterogeneous-firms framework arises through organizational adjustments of industries or firms following trade liberalization. The exit of less efficient industries or firms and the transfer of their resources to more efficient industries or firms lead to improvements in industry or national productivity. A new strand of the heterogeneous firm literature is now considering explanations of productivity change arising from intra-firm resource reallocation in the presence of product heterogeneity. Under firm heterogeneity, a firm’s technology uses determine their productivity; technology usages include technologies adoption and efficient use of adopted technologies. However, recent literature points out that there is a possibility that intra-firm resource reallocation affect a firm’s productivity in addition to technology usages. The purpose of this study is to show whether intra-firm resource reallocation affects multi-product firms’ TFP. Intra-firm resource reallocation is made up of two components: the number of products a firm produces (product range), and the way a firm allocates input resource across products (skewness of production). For this study, TFP is measured using De Loecker’s (2011) approach adopting the Cobb-Douglas production and CES utility functions under multi-product firms and applying two-stage estimation procedure. The intra-firm resource reallocation and productivity link is examined through the testing of two hypotheses: (i) high productivity firms have larger revenue and larger product range than low productivity firms and (ii) discontinuing a product and (/or) skewing production toward a particular product increases TFP while adding a product and (/or) equalizing the production of all products decreases TFP. These hypotheses have three implications. First, TFP is positively correlated with both revenue and product range. However expanding product range decreases TFP due to increasing possibility of input resource misallocation. Second, a firm’s TFP depends not only on technology usages, but also on intra-firm resource reallocation. The product range and he way to allocate input resource across heterogeneous products also affect a firm’s TFP. In other words, aggregate TFP depends not only on organizational adjustment across industries or firms, but also on organizational adjustment within a firm. Finally, getting export status significantly increases multi-product firms’ productivity due to the relationship between intra-firm resource reallocation and productivity. For the empirical analysis, the production and finance accounts of the PROWESS database on Indian firms (31,100 firms with 213,134 observations; 3,844 products with 213,134 observations) are used. This unique database allows the study to focus on multi-product firms’ structure, productivity, product range, and skewness of production.

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: http://purl.umn.edu/149824
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Agricultural and Applied Economics Association in its series 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. with number 149824.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2013
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea13:149824
Contact details of provider: Postal: 555 East Wells Street, Suite 1100, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
Phone: (414) 918-3190
Fax: (414) 276-3349
Web page: http://www.aaea.org
Email:


More information through EDIRC

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. Andrew B. Bernard & Stephen Redding & Peter K. Schott, 2010. "Multiple-product firms and product switching," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 27861, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  2. James Levinsohn & Amil Petrin, 2000. "Estimating Production Functions Using Inputs to Control for Unobservables," NBER Working Papers 7819, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  3. Pinelopi K. Goldberg & Amit Khandelwal & Nina Pavcnik & Petia Topalova, 2008. "Multi-product Firms and Product Turnover in the Developing World: Evidence from India," NBER Working Papers 14127, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  4. Andrew Bernard & J. Bradford Jensen & Stephen Redding & Peter Schott, 2007. "Firms in International Trade," Working Papers 07-14, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
  5. Andrew B. Bernard & Stephen J. Redding & Peter K. Schott, 2006. "Multi-Product Firms and Trade Liberalization," NBER Working Papers 12782, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  6. Eckel, Carsten & Neary, J. P., 2010. "Multi-product firms and flexible manufacturing in the global economy," Munich Reprints in Economics 20525, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
  7. Marc J. Melitz & Gianmarco I.P. Ottaviano, 2005. "Market Size, Trade, and Productivity," NBER Working Papers 11393, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  8. Pinelopi K. Goldberg & Amit Khandelwal & Nina Pavcnik & Petia Topalova, 2008. "Imported Intermediate Inputs and Domestic Product Growth: Evidence from India," NBER Working Papers 14416, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  9. Andrew B. Bernard & J. Bradford Jensen, 2004. "Why Some Firms Export," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(2), pages 561-569, May.
  10. Melitz, Marc J, 2002. "The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity," CEPR Discussion Papers 3381, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  11. Pinelopi Goldberg & Amit Khandelwal & Nina Pavcnik & Petia Topalova, 2009. "Trade Liberalization and New Imported Inputs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(2), pages 494-500, May.
  12. Diego Restuccia & Richard Rogerson, 2013. "Misallocation and productivity," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 16(1), pages 1-10, January.
  13. Prescott, Edward C, 1998. "Needed: A Theory of Total Factor Productivity," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 39(3), pages 525-51, August.
  14. Goldberg, Pinelopi Koujianou, 1995. "Product Differentiation and Oligopoly in International Markets: The Case of the U.S. Automobile Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 891-951, July.
  15. James Levinsohn & Amil Petrin, 2003. "Estimating Production Functions Using Inputs to Control for Unobservables," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 70(2), pages 317-341.
  16. Feenstra, Robert & Kee, Hiau Looi, 2008. "Export variety and country productivity: Estimating the monopolistic competition model with endogenous productivity," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 500-518, March.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaea13:149824. 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: (AgEcon Search)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.