IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cen/wpaper/22-13.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Has toughness of local competition declined?

Author

Listed:
  • Lan Dinh

Abstract

Recent evidence on rm-level markups and concentration raises a concern that market competition has declined in the U.S. over the last few decades. Since measuring competition is difficult, methodologies used to arrive at these findings have merits but also raise technical concerns which question the validity of these results. Given the significance of documenting how competition has changed, I contribute to this literature by studying a different measure of competition. Specifically, I estimate the toughness of local competition over time. To derive this estimate, I use a generalized monopolistic competition model with variable markups. This model generates insights that allows me to measure competition as the sensitivity of weighted-average markup to changes in the number of competitors using directly observable variables. Compared to firm-level markups estimation, this method relaxes the need to estimate production functions. I then use confidential Census data to estimate toughness of local competition from 1997 to 2016, which shows that local competition has decreased in non-tradable industries on average in the U.S. during this time period.

Suggested Citation

  • Lan Dinh, 2022. "Has toughness of local competition declined?," Working Papers 22-13, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
  • Handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:22-13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www2.census.gov/ces/wp/2022/CES-WP-22-13.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2022
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marcus Asplund & Volker Nocke, 2006. "Firm Turnover in Imperfectly Competitive Markets -super-1," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 73(2), pages 295-327.
    2. Gervais, Antoine & Jensen, J. Bradford, 2019. "The tradability of services: Geographic concentration and trade costs," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 331-350.
    3. Kimball, Miles S, 1995. "The Quantitative Analytics of the Basic Neomonetarist Model," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 27(4), pages 1241-1277, November.
    4. Gustavo Grullon & Yelena Larkin & Roni Michaely, 2019. "Are US Industries Becoming More Concentrated?," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 23(4), pages 697-743.
    5. Marc J. Melitz & Giancarlo I. P. Ottaviano, 2021. "Market Size, Trade, and Productivity," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Firms and Workers in a Globalized World Larger Markets, Tougher Competition, chapter 4, pages 87-108, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Jeffrey R. Campbell & Hugo A. Hopenhayn, 2005. "Market Size Matters," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(1), pages 1-25, March.
    7. Chad Syverson, 2004. "Market Structure and Productivity: A Concrete Example," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(6), pages 1181-1222, December.
    8. Peter J. Klenow & Jonathan L. Willis, 2016. "Real Rigidities and Nominal Price Changes," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 83(331), pages 443-472, July.
    9. Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2015. "Control Function Methods in Applied Econometrics," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 50(2), pages 420-445.
    10. Fabian Eckert & Andrés Gvirtz & Jack Liang & Michael Peters, 2020. "A Method to Construct Geographical Crosswalks with an Application to US Counties since 1790," NBER Working Papers 26770, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Chen Yeh, 2017. "Are firm-level idiosyncratic shocks important for U.S. aggregate volatility?," Working Papers 17-23, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    2. David Rezza Baqaee & Emmanuel Farhi & Kunal Sangani, 2024. "The Darwinian Returns to Scale," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 91(3), pages 1373-1405.
    3. Monika Mrázová & J. Peter Neary, 2017. "Not So Demanding: Demand Structure and Firm Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(12), pages 3835-3874, December.
    4. Giordano Mion & Paolo Naticchioni, 2009. "The spatial sorting and matching of skills and firms," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 28-55, February.
    5. Shon M. Ferguson, 2015. "Endogenous Product Differentiation, Market Size and Prices," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 45-61, February.
    6. Marc J. Melitz & Giancarlo I. P. Ottaviano, 2021. "Market Size, Trade, and Productivity," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Firms and Workers in a Globalized World Larger Markets, Tougher Competition, chapter 4, pages 87-108, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Swati Dhingra & John Morrow, 2019. "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity under Firm Heterogeneity," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(1), pages 196-232.
    8. G. Corcos & M. Del Gatto & G. Mion & GIP. Ottaviano, 2007. "Productivity and Firm Selection: Intra- vs International Trade," Working Paper CRENoS 200706, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    9. Auer, Raphael A. & Schoenle, Raphael S., 2016. "Market structure and exchange rate pass-through," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 60-77.
    10. Parente, Stephen & Desmet, Klaus, 2006. "Bigger is Better: Market Size, Demand Elasticity and Resistance to Technology Adoption," CEPR Discussion Papers 5825, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Laura Alfaro & Anusha Chari, 2014. "Deregulation, Misallocation, and Size: Evidence from India," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(4), pages 897-936.
    12. Parenti, Mathieu & Ushchev, Philip & Thisse, Jacques-François, 2017. "Toward a theory of monopolistic competition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 86-115.
    13. Matthias Bürker & G. Alfredo Minerva, 2014. "Civic capital and the size distribution of plants: short-run dynamics and long-run equilibrium," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(4), pages 797-847.
    14. Monika Mrázová & J. Peter Neary & Mathieu Parenti, 2021. "Sales and Markup Dispersion: Theory and Empirics," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(4), pages 1753-1788, July.
    15. Okubo, Toshihiro & Picard, Pierre M. & Thisse, Jacques-François, 2010. "The spatial selection of heterogeneous firms," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 230-237, November.
    16. M Amiti & O Istkhoki & Joep Konings, 2016. "International shocks and domestic prices: how large are strategic complementarities?," Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven 546424, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven.
    17. Swati Dhingra & John Morrow, 2012. "The Impact of Integration on Productivity and Welfare Distortions Under Monopolistic Competition," FIW Working Paper series 088, FIW.
    18. Melitz, Marc J. & Redding, Stephen J., 2014. "Heterogeneous Firms and Trade," Handbook of International Economics, in: Gopinath, G. & Helpman, . & Rogoff, K. (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 0, pages 1-54, Elsevier.
    19. Paolo Bertoletti & Federico Etro, 2022. "Monopolistic competition, as you like it," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(1), pages 293-319, January.
    20. Sasan Bakhtiari, 2012. "Markets and the non‐monotonic relation between productivity and establishment size," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(1), pages 345-372, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:cen:wpaper:22-13. 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.