IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cen/wpaper/18-51.html

The Management and Organizational Practices Survey (MOPS): Collection and Processing

Author

Listed:
  • Catherine Buffington
  • Andrew Hennessy
  • Scott Ohlmacher

Abstract

The U.S. Census Bureau partnered with a team of external researchers to conduct the first-ever large-scale survey of management practices in the United States, the Management and Organizational Practices Survey (MOPS), for reference year 2010. With the help of the research team, the Census Bureau expanded and improved the survey for a second wave for reference year 2015. The MOPS is a supplement to the Annual Survey of Manufacturing (ASM), and so the collection and processing strategy for the MOPS built on the methodology for the ASM, while differing on key dimensions to address the unique nature of management relative to other business data. This paper provides detail on the mail strategy pursued for the MOPS, the collection methods for paper and electronic responses, the processing and estimation procedures, and the official Census Bureau data releases. This detail is useful for all those who have interest in using the MOPS for research purposes, those wishing to understand the MOPS data more deeply, and those with an interest in survey methodology.

Suggested Citation

  • Catherine Buffington & Andrew Hennessy & Scott Ohlmacher, 2018. "The Management and Organizational Practices Survey (MOPS): Collection and Processing," Working Papers 18-51, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    • Handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:18-51
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www2.census.gov/ces/wp/2018/CES-WP-18-51.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2018
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Catherine Buffington & Lucia Foster & Ron Jarmin & Scott Ohlmacher & Scott Ohlmacher, 2017. "The management and organizational practices survey (MOPS): An overview1," Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, IOS Press, issue 1, pages 1-26.
    2. Nicholas Bloom & Erik Brynjolfsson & Lucia Foster & Ron Jarmin & Megha Patnaik & Itay Saporta-Eksten & John Van Reenen, 2017. "What drives differences in management?," CEP Discussion Papers dp1470, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    3. Nicholas Bloom & Erik Brynjolfsson & Lucia Foster & Ron Jarmin & Itay Saporta-Eksten & John Van Reenen, 2013. "Management in America," Working Papers 13-01, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    4. Catherine Buffington & Kenny Herrell & Scott Ohlmacher, 2016. "The Management and Organizational Practices Survey (MOPS): Cognitive Testing," Working Papers 16-53, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    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. Bloom, Nicholas & Iacovone, Leonardo & Pereira-Lopez, Mariana & Van Reenen, John, 2022. "Management and Misallocation in Mexico," CEPR Discussion Papers 16979, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Alice Zawacki & Scott Ohlmacher & Struther Van Horn, 2021. "Developing Content for the Management and Organizational Practices Survey-Hospitals (MOPS-HP)," Working Papers 21-25, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    3. Nicholas Bloom & Stephen J. Davis & Lucia Foster & Brian Lucking & Scott Ohlmacher & Itay Saporta Eksten, 2020. "Business-Level Expectations and Uncertainty," Working Papers 2020-181, Becker Friedman Institute for Research In Economics.
    4. Masayuki MORIKAWA, 2019. "Firms' Subjective Uncertainty and Forecast Errors," Discussion papers 19055, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    5. Eva Labro & James D. Omartian, 2023. "Managing Employee Retention Concerns: Evidence from U.S. Census Data," Working Papers 23-07, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.

    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. Nicholas Bloom & Stephen J. Davis & Lucia Foster & Brian Lucking & Scott Ohlmacher & Itay Saporta Eksten, 2020. "Business-Level Expectations and Uncertainty," Working Papers 2020-181, Becker Friedman Institute for Research In Economics.
    2. Nicholas Bloom & Erik Brynjolfsson & Lucia Foster & Ron Jarmin & Megha Patnaik & Itay Saporta-Eksten & John Van Reenen, 2019. "What Drives Differences in Management Practices?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(5), pages 1648-1683, May.
    3. Nicholas Bloom & Erik Brynjolfsson & Lucia Foster & Ron Jarmin & Megha Patnaik & Itay Saporta-Eksten & John Van Reenen, 2017. "What drives differences in management?," CEP Discussion Papers dp1470, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    4. Alecos Papadopoulos, 2021. "Measuring the effect of management on production: a two-tier stochastic frontier approach," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 60(6), pages 3011-3041, June.
    5. Catherine Buffington & Lucia Foster & Ron Jarmin & Scott Ohlmacher, 2016. "The Management and Organizational Practices Survey (MOPS): An Overview," Working Papers 16-28, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    6. Vallés, Javier & Salas Fumás, Vicente & San Juan, Lucio, 2022. "Corporate economic profits in the euro area: The relevance of cost competitive advantage," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 569-585.
    7. John Van Reenen, 2018. "Increasing differences between firms: market power and the macro-economy," CEP Discussion Papers dp1576, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    8. Galina Besstremyannaya & Sergei Golovan, 2023. "Measuring heterogeneity in hospital productivity: a quantile regression approach," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 59(1), pages 15-43, February.
    9. Broszeit, Sandra & Laible, Marie-Christine, 2016. "German management and organizational practices survey (GMOP 0813) : Data documentation," FDZ Datenreport. Documentation on Labour Market Data 201609_en, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].
    10. Kambayashi, Ryo & Ohyama, Atsushi & Hori, Nobuko, 2021. "Management practices and productivity in Japan: Evidence from six industries in JP MOPS," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    11. Mario BENASSI & Matteo LANDONI & Francesco RENTOCCHINI, 2017. "University Management Practices and Academic Spin-offs," Departmental Working Papers 2017-11, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    12. Pierre Lortie, 2019. "Nurturing Global Growth Companies: Time For A New Policy Toolkit," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 12(27), September.
    13. Aki Tomizawa & Li Zhao & Geneviève Bassellier & David Ahlstrom, 2020. "Economic growth, innovation, institutions, and the Great Enrichment," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 7-31, March.
    14. Lucia Foster & Cheryl Grim & John Haltiwanger, 2016. "Reallocation in the Great Recession: Cleansing or Not?," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(S1), pages 293-331.
    15. Erik Brynjolfsson & Kristina McElheran, 2016. "Data in Action: Data-Driven Decision Making in U.S. Manufacturing," Working Papers 16-06, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    16. Erik Brynjolfsson & Wang Jin & Kristina McElheran, 2021. "The power of prediction: predictive analytics, workplace complements, and business performance," Business Economics, Palgrave Macmillan;National Association for Business Economics, vol. 56(4), pages 217-239, October.
    17. Jason J Sandvik & Richard E Saouma & Nathan T Seegert & Christopher T Stanton, 2020. "Workplace Knowledge Flows," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(3), pages 1635-1680.
    18. (Jianqiu) Bai, John & Mkrtchyan, Anahit, 2023. "What do outside CEOs really do? Evidence from plant-level data," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 27-48.
    19. Manav Raj & Robert Seamans, 2018. "Artificial Intelligence, Labor, Productivity, and the Need for Firm-Level Data," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda, pages 553-565, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Nicholas Bloom & Renata Lemos & Raffaella Sadun & Daniela Scur & John Van Reenen, 2014. "The New Empirical Economics of Management," NBER Working Papers 20102, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:cen:wpaper:18-51. 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: Dawn Anderson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesgvus.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.