IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/red/sed014/302.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Margins of Global Sourcing: Theory and Evidence from U.S. Firms

Author

Listed:
  • Teresa Fort

    (Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth)

  • Felix Tintelnot

    (University of Chicago)

  • Pol Antras

    (Harvard University)

Abstract

This paper begins by unveiling a series of systematic patterns in the intensive and extensive margins of U.S. imports that suggests that selection into importing is potentially as important in explaining aggregate imports as selection into exporting is in explaining aggregate exports. Our empirical analysis makes use of firm-level import and production data from the U.S. Census Bureau for the year 2007. More specifically, we match detailed information on firm-level imports by country of origin with production and sales data for these firms. We first replicate standard results showing that U.S. firms that record a positive volume of imports appear to be more productive than U.S. firms that source inputs only domestically. We next follow the approach in Bernard et al. (2007, 2009) and decompose aggregate U.S. imports by country of origin into an extensive and intensive margin component, and explore the relative importance of these two margins in explaining the cross-section of U.S. import volumes. We also provide an `anatomy' of U.S. imports along the lines of Eaton et al. (2011). Overall, the results we find very much resonate with those obtained by other authors when studying the intensive and extensive margins of exports. These stylized facts motivate the development of a model in which relatively productive firms self-select into importing from particular markets based on their profitability and country-specific variables that do not affect firms differentially. Our theoretical framework is a quantifiable multi-country sourcing model in the spirit of Antras and Helpman (2004). In order to tractably handle multiple sourcing countries for a firm's importing decisions, we follow Tintelnot (2013) and embed the stochastic specification of technology of Eaton and Kortum (2002) inside each individual firm. In the model, an industry is populated by a continuum of heterogeneous firms each producing a differentiated final-good variety. Production requires combining intermediate inputs, which can be bought from any country in the world. Nevertheless, adding a country to the set of countries a firm is able to import from requires incurring a market-specific sunk cost. As a result, relatively unproductive firms naturally opt out of importing from certain countries that are not particularly attractive sources of inputs. Once a firm has determined the set of countries from which it has secured the ability to source inputs -- which we refer to as its global sourcing strategy -- it then learns the various firm-specific efficiency levels with which each input can be produced in each of these `active' countries. These efficiency levels are assumed to be drawn from an extreme-value Frechet distribution, as in Eaton and Kortum (2002). The model delivers a simple closed-form solution for the profits of the firm as a function of its sourcing potential, which in turn is a function of the set of countries from which a firm has invested in being able to import as well as of the characteristics (wages, trade costs, and average technology) of these countries. The sourcing potential of a firm is an increasing function of the number of countries from which it has gained the ability to source. Intuitively, by enlarging that set, the firm benefits from greater competition among suppliers, and thereby lowers the effective cost of its intermediate input bundle. The choice of a sourcing strategy therefore trades off lower variable cost of production against the greater fixed costs associated with a more complex global sourcing strategy. A key characteristic of the derived profit function is that the marginal gain in profits associated with adding a country to set of potential sources of inputs generally depends on the number and characteristics of the other countries in this set. This contrasts with standard models of selection into exporting featuring constant marginal costs, in which the decision to service a given market is independent of that same decision in other markets. Whether the decisions to source from different countries are complements or substitutes crucially depends on a parametric restriction involving the elasticity of demand faced by the final-good producer and the Frechet parameter governing the variance in the distribution of firm-specific input efficiencies across locations. Selection into importing features complementarity across markets, whenever demand is relatively elastic (so profits are particular responsive to variable cost reductions) and whenever input efficiency levels are relatively heterogeneous across markets (so that the reduction in expected costs achieved by adding an extra country in the set of active locations is relatively high). Conversely, when demand is inelastic or input efficiency draws are fairly homogeneous, the addition of country to a firm's global sourcing strategy instead reduces the marginal gain from adding other locations. In such a situation, the problem of the firm optimally choosing its sourcing strategy is extremely hard to characterize, both analytically as well as quantitatively, since it boils down to solving a combinatorial problem with $2^J$ elements with little guidance from the model. The case with complementary sourcing decisions turns out to be much more tractable and delivers sharp results reminiscent of the broad patterns discussed above. In particular, in that case, we can use standard tools from the monotone comparative statics literature to show that the sourcing strategies of firms follow a strict hierarchical structure in which the number of countries in a firm's sourcing strategy is (weakly) increasing in the firm's core productivity level. Furthermore, we can show that the number of firms sourcing from a particular country is (weakly) increasing in the cost attractiveness of that location, with that attractiveness being shaped by the wages, technology, transport costs and fixed costs of offshoring associated with that sourcing location. We are currently in the process of structurally estimating the model and performing counterfactual exercises.

Suggested Citation

  • Teresa Fort & Felix Tintelnot & Pol Antras, 2014. "The Margins of Global Sourcing: Theory and Evidence from U.S. Firms," 2014 Meeting Papers 302, Society for Economic Dynamics.
  • Handle: RePEc:red:sed014:302
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://economicdynamics.org/meetpapers/2014/paper_302.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Arendorf Bache & Anders Laugesen, 2013. "Monotone Comparative Statics for the Industry Composition," Economics Working Papers 2013-10, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    2. Christian Broda & David E. Weinstein, 2006. "Globalization and the Gains From Variety," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 121(2), pages 541-585.
    3. Pol Antràs & Luis Garicano & Esteban Rossi-Hansberg, 2006. "Offshoring in a Knowledge Economy," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 121(1), pages 31-77.
    4. Jonathan Eaton & Samuel Kortum & Francis Kramarz, 2011. "An Anatomy of International Trade: Evidence From French Firms," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 79(5), pages 1453-1498, September.
    5. Ryan Monarch, 2014. ""It's Not You, It's Me": Breakup In U.S.-China Trade Relationships," Working Papers 14-08, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    6. Natalia Ramondo & Andrés Rodríguez-Clare, 2013. "Trade, Multinational Production, and the Gains from Openness," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(2), pages 273-322.
    7. Bernard, Andrew B. & Fort, Teresa C, 2013. "Factoryless Goods Producers in the US," CEPR Discussion Papers 9644, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Andrew B. Bernard & Andreas Moxnes & Karen Helene Ulltveit-Moe, 2018. "Two-Sided Heterogeneity and Trade," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 100(3), pages 424-439, July.
    9. Mary Amiti & Jozef Konings, 2007. "Trade Liberalization, Intermediate Inputs, and Productivity: Evidence from Indonesia," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1611-1638, December.
    10. Robert C. Johnson & Guillermo Noguera, 2012. "Fragmentation and Trade in Value Added over Four Decades," NBER Working Papers 18186, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Felix Tintelnot, 2017. "Global Production with Export Platforms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 132(1), pages 157-209.
    12. Robert E. Hall & Charles I. Jones, 1999. "Why do Some Countries Produce So Much More Output Per Worker than Others?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 114(1), pages 83-116.
    13. Marcela Eslava & James Tybout & David Jinkins & C. Krizan & Jonathan Eaton, 2015. "A Search and Learning Model of Export Dynamics," 2015 Meeting Papers 1535, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    14. Barro, Robert J. & Lee, Jong Wha, 2013. "A new data set of educational attainment in the world, 1950–2010," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 184-198.
    15. 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.
    16. Elhanan Helpman & Marc Melitz & Yona Rubinstein, 2008. "Estimating Trade Flows: Trading Partners and Trading Volumes," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 123(2), pages 441-487.
    17. Marc J. Melitz, 2003. "The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(6), pages 1695-1725, November.
    18. Costas Arkolakis & Arnaud Costinot & Andres Rodriguez-Clare, 2012. "New Trade Models, Same Old Gains?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 94-130, February.
    19. Feenstra, Robert C. & Jensen, J. Bradford, 2012. "Evaluating estimates of materials offshoring from US manufacturing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 170-173.
    20. Stefania Garetto, 2013. "Input Sourcing and Multinational Production," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(2), pages 118-151, April.
    21. Panle Jia, 2008. "What Happens When Wal-Mart Comes to Town: An Empirical Analysis of the Discount Retailing Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(6), pages 1263-1316, November.
    22. Bernardo S. Blum & Sebastian Claro & Ignatius Horstmann, 2010. "Facts and Figures on Intermediated Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(2), pages 419-423, May.
    23. Ethier, Wilfred J, 1982. "National and International Returns to Scale in the Modern Theory of International Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 389-405, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C63 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computational Techniques
    • D21 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Theory
    • D22 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Empirical Analysis
    • F12 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Models of Trade with Imperfect Competition and Scale Economies; Fragmentation
    • F23 - International Economics - - International Factor Movements and International Business - - - Multinational Firms; International Business
    • F61 - International Economics - - Economic Impacts of Globalization - - - Microeconomic Impacts
    • L11 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Production, Pricing, and Market Structure; Size Distribution of Firms
    • L16 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Industrial Organization and Macroeconomics; Macroeconomic Industrial Structure
    • L23 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Organization of Production

    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:red:sed014:302. 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: (Christian Zimmermann). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/sedddea.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.