Inventory and the Shape of the Earth
How important are local country conditions to firms' operations performance, as revealed in their inventory levels? Under a “flat world” hypothesis, differences in firms' inventory levels are explained more by differences among industries and firms themselves, rather than differences among country conditions (e.g., institutions, infrastructure). In a “round earth” hypothesis, country factors out-weigh firm and industry factors. Using all COMPUSTAT observations for manufacturing firms in 70 countries, covering the years 1994 through 2004, we find little evidence for the “round earth” hypothesis. In our baseline model, country effects explain at most 12.7% of inventory variance, while firm differences explain 35.5%, and industry differences explain 28.5%. This finding is robust to a number of sensitivity tests. Apart from the empirical contribution, this finding can be a useful stylized fact for further theoretical development into the locus of inventory variance. It also has a practical implication - perhaps inventory practices are much more transportable across countries than we have known before.
|Date of creation:||19 Jul 2007|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
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.:
- Jonathan McCarthy & Egon Zakrajsek, 2003.
"Inventory dynamics and business cycles: what has changed?,"
Finance and Economics Discussion Series
2003-26, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
- JONATHAN McCARTHY & EGON ZAKRAJSEK, 2007. "Inventory Dynamics and Business Cycles: What Has Changed?," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 39(2-3), pages 591-613, 03.
- Jonathan McCarthy & Egon Zakrajsek, 2002. "Inventory dynamics and business cycles: what has changed?," Staff Reports 156, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
- Susanto Basu & David N. Weil, 1998.
"Appropriate Technology And Growth,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
MIT Press, vol. 113(4), pages 1025-1054, November.
- Kristin Forbes & Roberto Rigobon, 1999.
"No Contagion, Only Interdependence: Measuring Stock Market Co-movements,"
NBER Working Papers
7267, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Kristin J. Forbes & Roberto Rigobon, 2002. "No Contagion, Only Interdependence: Measuring Stock Market Comovements," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 57(5), pages 2223-2261, October.
- Gabriel Hawawini & Venkat Subramanian & Paul Verdin, 2003. "Is performance driven by industry or firm-specific factors? A new look at the evidence," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/14188, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Zeira, Joseph, 1995.
"Workers, Machines and Economic Growth,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
1139, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Hong Chen & Murray Z. Frank & Owen Q. Wu, 2005. "What Actually Happened to the Inventories of American Companies Between 1981 and 2000?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(7), pages 1015-1031, July.
- Dale W. Jorgenson, 1991. "Productivity and Economic Growth," NBER Chapters, in: Fifty Years of Economic Measurement: The Jubilee of the Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, pages 19-118 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:4754. 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: (Ekkehart Schlicht)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.