IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cen/wpaper/97-2.html

Productivity Races I: Are Some Productivuty Measures Better Than Others?

Author

Listed:
  • Douglas W Dwyer

Abstract

In this study we construct twelve different measures of productivity at the plant level and test which measures of productivity are most closely associated with direct measures of economic performance. We first examine how closely correlated these measures are with various measures of profits. We then evaluate the extent to which each productivity measure is associated with lower rates of plant closure and faster plant growth (growth in employment, output, and capital). All measures of productivity considered are credible in the sense that highly productive plants, regardless of measure, are clearly more profitable, less likely to close, and grow faster. Nevertheless, labor productivity and measures of total factor productivity that are based on regression estimates of production functions are better predictors of plant growth and survival than factor share-based measures of total factor productivity (TFP). Measures of productivity that are based on several years of data appear to outperform measures of productivity that are based solely on data from the most recent year.

Suggested Citation

  • Douglas W Dwyer, 1997. "Productivity Races I: Are Some Productivuty Measures Better Than Others?," Working Papers 97-2, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    • Handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:97-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www2.census.gov/ces/wp/1997/CES-WP-97-02.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zvi Griliches & Jacques Mairesse, 1995. "Production Functions: The Search for Identification," NBER Working Papers 5067, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Martin Neil Baily & Charles Hulten & David Campbell, 1992. "Productivity Dynamics in Manufacturing Plants," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 23(1992 Micr), pages 187-267.
    3. Douglas W Dwyer, 1995. "Technology Locks, Creative Destruction And Non-Convergence In Productivity Levels," Working Papers 95-6, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    4. Olley, G Steven & Pakes, Ariel, 1996. "The Dynamics of Productivity in the Telecommunications Equipment Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(6), pages 1263-1297, November.
    5. Douglas W Dwyer, 1995. "Whittling Away At Productivity Dispersion," Working Papers 95-5, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    6. Douglas W Dwyer, 1996. "ARE FIXED EFFECTS FIXED? Persistence in Plant Level Productivity," Working Papers 96-3, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    7. Robert H Mcguckin & George A Pascoe, 1988. "The Longitudinal Research Database (LRD): Status And Research Possibilities," Working Papers 88-2, 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. 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.
    2. C.J. Krizan & John Haltiwanger & Lucia Foster, 2002. "The Link Between Aggregate and Micro Productivity Growth: Evidence from Retail Trade," Working Papers 02-18, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    3. John Haltiwanger, 2002. "Understanding aggregate growth: The need for microeconomic evidence," New Zealand Economic Papers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 33-58.
    4. Douglas Dwyer, 1998. "Technology Locks, Creative Destruction, and Non-Convergence in Productivity Levels," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 1(2), pages 430-473, April.
    5. Asma Raies & Mohamed Ben Mimoun, 2009. "Le mécanisme de sélection des firmes est-il efficace? Une approche en termes de coût d’opportunité," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 85(2), pages 183-207.

    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. Robert Mcguckin & Mary Streitwieser & Mark Doms, 1998. "The Effect Of Technology Use On Productivity Growth," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 1-26.
    2. Douglas Dwyer, 1998. "Technology Locks, Creative Destruction, and Non-Convergence in Productivity Levels," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 1(2), pages 430-473, April.
    3. Judith K. Hellerstein & David Neumark, 2007. "Production Function and Wage Equation Estimation with Heterogeneous Labor: Evidence from a New Matched Employer-Employee Data Set," NBER Chapters, in: Hard-to-Measure Goods and Services: Essays in Honor of Zvi Griliches, pages 31-71, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. 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.
    5. Jensen, J Bradford & McGuckin, Robert H, 1997. "Firm Performance and Evolution: Empirical Regularities in the US Microdata," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 6(1), pages 25-47.
    6. David Rigby & Jurgen Essletzbichler, 2000. "Impacts of Industry Mix, Technological Change, Selection and Plant Entry/Exit on Regional Productivity Growth," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(4), pages 333-342.
    7. Kasahara, Hiroyuki & Rodrigue, Joel, 2008. "Does the use of imported intermediates increase productivity? Plant-level evidence," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 106-118, August.
    8. Susanto Basu & John Fernald, 2001. "Why Is Productivity Procyclical? Why Do We Care?," NBER Chapters, in: New Developments in Productivity Analysis, pages 225-302, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Fox, Jeremy T. & Smeets, Valérie, 2007. "Do Input Quality and Structural Productivity Estimates Drive Measured Differences in Firm Productivity?," Working Papers 07-2, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Economics.
    10. Douglas W Dwyer, 1997. "Productivity Races II: The Issue of Capital Measurement," Working Papers 97-3, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    11. Shadbegian, Ronald J. & Gray, Wayne B., 2005. "Pollution abatement expenditures and plant-level productivity: A production function approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 196-208, August.
    12. Philippe Martin & Thierry Mayer & Florian Mayneris, 2008. "Spatial Concentration and Firm-Level Productivity in France," Sciences Po publications 6858, Sciences Po.
    13. Amitabh Chandra & Amy Finkelstein & Adam Sacarny & Chad Syverson, 2016. "Health Care Exceptionalism? Performance and Allocation in the US Health Care Sector," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(8), pages 2110-2144, August.
    14. J. David Brown & John S. Earle, 2002. "Job Reallocation and Productivity Growth under Alternative Economic Systems and Policies: Evidence from the Soviet Transition," CERT Discussion Papers 0208, Centre for Economic Reform and Transformation, Heriot Watt University.
    15. Sanjaya Malik, 2015. "Conditional technology spillovers from foreign direct investment: evidence from Indian manufacturing industries," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 183-198, April.
    16. Ahn, JaeBin & Choi, Moon Jung, 2020. "From firm-level imports to aggregate productivity: Evidence from Korean manufacturing firm data," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    17. Boyan Jovanovic, 1998. "Michael Gort's Contribution to Economics," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 1(2), pages 327-337, April.
    18. Ollinger, Michael & Nguyen, Sang V., 2003. "Empirical Evidence On The Motives For Mergers And Acquisitions In Eight Food Industries," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22176, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Doraszelski, Ulrich & Jaumandreu, Jordi, 2006. "R&D and productivity: Estimating production functions when productivity is endogenous," MPRA Paper 1246, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Umut Kılınç, 2018. "Assessing Productivity Gains from International Trade in a Small Open Economy," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 953-980, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:97-2. 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.