IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/red/sed015/1333.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Understanding the 30 year Decline in Business Dynamism: a General Equilibrium Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Benjamin Pugsley

    (Federal Reserve Bank of New York)

  • Aysegul Sahin

    (Federal Reserve Bank of New York)

  • Fatih Karahan

    (Federal Reserve Bank of New York)

Abstract

Recent empirical work has drawn attention to an unmistakable shift in U.S. firm dynamics since the late 1970s. Principally, the entry rate, measured as the share of new employer firms out of all employer firms, declined by nearly 40 percent from 1977 to 2007, even before the impact of the Great Recession. Remarkably, this steady decline occurred relatively uniformly within geographic areas and within relatively narrow industry aggregations. Taking this trend decline or startup deficit as given, Pugsley and Sahin (2014) show that both its direct effect on business formation and its indirect cumulative effect through a shift in the employer age distribution partly explain the emergence of slower employment recoveries with each business cycle. An important question is what explains this apparent decline in business dynamism? Understanding the source or sources of the decline are crucial to understand whether it is an efficient response to technological shifts or escalating misallocation from increases, for example, in the costs of starting or running a business. In this paper we provide the first, to our knowledge, quantitative analysis of the set of factors that may have affected business dynamism. Our results are surprising. Rather than signicant changes in fixed and entry costs on the firm side, we find that a shift in the growth rate of the working age population that begins in the late 1970s and its general equilibrium effect on labor supply drives the bulk of the declines along the entry margin. To reach this conclusion, we consider a variety of potential explanations in partial and general equilibrium. The first set of factors that might shift business formation are related to changes in barriers to entry and changes in fixed and variable operating costs. Changes in laws and regulations, market concentration, education and licensing requirements, and shifts in economies of scale might discourage firm entry by creating higher barriers to enter and/or a higher fixed cost of operating. The second set of factors we consider is related to demographic changes. There are various reasons through which the population growth rate can affect business formation. Most directly, an older population might be associated with a lower rate of business formation in the economy if younger workers are more likely to engage in entrepreneurial activity. Changes in population growth also affect the labor supply, which could have important effects on business formation through a general equilibrium channel. In all of these cases, but especially for the general equilibrium effects it is important to differentiate between the effects on incumbent firms and the effects on potential entrants. Shocks to the labor supply that put downward pressure on wages create incentives for incumbent firms to expand, but they also create opportunities for potential entrants. Any effect on the entrant share will depend on how the shocks to the labor supply are accommodated by expanding incumbents and new firms. We first evaluate the importance of these two sets of factors exploiting pooled cross-state variation in firm entry rates. In particular, we estimate a simple linear regression using OLS and document a strong correlation between the growth rate of working age population and changes in the firm entry rate at the state level, controlling for state and time fixed eects. We also instrument for the variation in the age composition with lagged birthrates and find a startup rate semi-elasticity of roughly 1 to 1.5. Given that the growth rate of working age population went down from around 2% in early 1980s to slightly above 1% by 1990s, this estimate suggests that more than half of the decline in the start-up rate can be explained by the decline in the growth rate of working age population. The second part of our empirical analysis focuses on various regulatory and policy changes, which is still in progress. While the regression based results are informative, they fail to provide us an internally consistent composition of the factors we considered. In addition, it is not possible to have aggregate time-consistent measures of the type of frictions that affect entry costs and fixed costs. To alleviate this problem, the second part of our analysis follows a more structural approach and estimate a variant of the Hopenhayn and Rogerson (1993) model with population growth to evaluate the quantitative importance of different sets of explanations. Since the model has implications for many other measures of firm dynamics, such as average firm size, survival rates, and employment growth rates, it allows for a more complete evaluation of alternative channels. Before we move on to estimating the model, we analyze the time variation along these additional dimensions. Interestingly, we find that despite the gradual decline in the firm entry rate, survival and employment growth rates by firm size remained stable since 1980s. These facts help us discipline the model and measure the contributions of various shifts in the economy to the decline in startup rates. The estimation of the model is still work in progress but we present comparative statics from the model. Our preliminary findings show that the measured declines in business formation are the optimal response to a shift in the growth rate of the population. Our paper is closely related to the emerging literature on the declining dynamism in the U.S. economy. Early work by Reedy and Strom (2012) first called attention to a decline in the aggregate entry rate of new employers. Using more disaggregated data, recent papers by Pugsley and Sahin (2014), Decker, Haltiwanger, Jarmin, and Miranda (2014a), Hathaway and Litan (2014), Gourio, Messer, and Siemer (2014) and Davis and Haltiwanger (2014) all document that these declines in the entry rate are pervasive within geographic areas and relatively narrow industry aggregations. All of these papers have also drawn attention to the relevance of this decline for the ongoing health in labor market. We are the first, to our knowledge, to provide cross-sectional and time-series evidence on the determinants of the declining entry rate. Specifically, we identify the principal role of shifting demographics on the equilibrium quanitity of startup activity, which is also consistent with the predictions of the workhorse model of industry dynamics.

Suggested Citation

  • Benjamin Pugsley & Aysegul Sahin & Fatih Karahan, 2015. "Understanding the 30 year Decline in Business Dynamism: a General Equilibrium Approach," 2015 Meeting Papers 1333, Society for Economic Dynamics.
  • Handle: RePEc:red:sed015:1333
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://red-files-public.s3.amazonaws.com/meetpapers/2015/paper_1333.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. E. J. Reedy & Robert J. Strom, 2012. "Starting Smaller; Staying Smaller: America’s Slow Leak in Job Creation," Contributions to Economics, in: Giorgio Calcagnini & Ilario Favaretto (ed.), Small Businesses in the Aftermath of the Crisis, edition 127, pages 71-85, Springer.
    2. Benjamin Wild Pugsley & Ay’egul ahin, 2019. "Grown-up Business Cycles," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 32(3), pages 1102-1147.
    3. Fatih Karahan & Serena Rhee, 2014. "Population aging, migration spillovers, and the decline in interstate migration," Staff Reports 699, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
    4. Robert Shimer, 2001. "The Impact of Young Workers on the Aggregate Labor Market," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(3), pages 969-1007.
    5. Ryan Decker & John Haltiwanger & Ron Jarmin & Javier Miranda, 2014. "The Role of Entrepreneurship in US Job Creation and Economic Dynamism," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 28(3), pages 3-24, Summer.
    6. Steven J. Davis & John Haltiwanger, 2014. "Labor Market Fluidity and Economic Performance," NBER Working Papers 20479, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Hopenhayn, Hugo & Rogerson, Richard, 1993. "Job Turnover and Policy Evaluation: A General Equilibrium Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(5), pages 915-938, October.
    8. Hopenhayn, Hugo A, 1992. "Entry, Exit, and Firm Dynamics in Long Run Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(5), pages 1127-1150, September.
    9. Daniel Aaronson & Jonathan Davis & Luojia Hu, 2012. "Explaining the decline in the U.S. labor force participation rate," Chicago Fed Letter, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, issue Mar.
    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. Steven J. Davis, 2015. "Regulatory Complexity and Policy Uncertainty: Headwinds of Our Own Making," Economics Working Papers 15118, Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
    2. Thorsten Drautzburg, 2016. "Just How Important Are New Businesses?," Economic Insights, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, vol. 1(4), pages 1-7, October.
    3. Miguel Casares & Hashmat Khan, 2016. "Business Dynamism and Economic Growth: U.S. Regional Evidence," Carleton Economic Papers 16-03, Carleton University, Department of Economics, revised 31 Oct 2016.
    4. Raven Molloy & Christopher L. Smith & Riccardo Trezzi & Abigail Wozniak, 2016. "Understanding Declining Fluidity in the U.S. Labor Market," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 47(1 (Spring), pages 183-259.
    5. Herkenhoff, Kyle F. & Ohanian, Lee E. & Prescott, Edward C., 2018. "Tarnishing the golden and empire states: Land-use restrictions and the U.S. economic slowdown," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 89-109.
    6. Gerald Carlino & Thorsten Drautzburg, 2020. "The role of startups for local labor markets," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(6), pages 751-775, September.
    7. François Gourio & Todd Messer & Michael Siemer, 2016. "Firm Entry and Macroeconomic Dynamics: A State-Level Analysis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(5), pages 214-218, May.
    8. Ryan A. Decker & John Haltiwanger & Ron S. Jarmin & Javier Miranda, 2018. "Changing Business Dynamism and Productivity : Shocks vs. Responsiveness," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2018-007, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    9. Germán Gutiérrez & Thomas Philippon, 2017. "Declining Competition and Investment in the U.S," NBER Working Papers 23583, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Julian Neira & Rish Singhania, 2022. "The role of corporate taxes in the decline of the startup rate," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(3), pages 1277-1295, July.
    11. Dmitriy Sergeyev & Neil Mehrotra, 2015. "Financial Shocks and Job Flows," 2015 Meeting Papers 520, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    12. Nathan Goldschlag & Alex Tabarrok, 2018. "Is regulation to blame for the decline in American entrepreneurship?," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 33(93), pages 5-44.
    13. Ursel Baumann & Melina Vasardani, 2016. "The slowdown in US productivity growth - what explains it and will it persist?," Working Papers 215, Bank of Greece.

    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. Fatih Karahan & Benjamin Pugsley & Aysegül Sahin, 2019. "Demographic Origins of the Startup Deficit," Working Papers 19-21, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    2. Alon, Titan & Berger, David & Dent, Robert & Pugsley, Benjamin, 2018. "Older and slower: The startup deficit’s lasting effects on aggregate productivity growth," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 68-85.
    3. Hugo Hopenhayn & Julian Neira & Rish Singhania, 2022. "From Population Growth to Firm Demographics: Implications for Concentration, Entrepreneurship and the Labor Share," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(4), pages 1879-1914, July.
    4. Julian Neira & Rish Singhania, 2022. "The role of corporate taxes in the decline of the startup rate," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(3), pages 1277-1295, July.
    5. Filippo Biondi & Sergio Inferrera & Matthias Mertens & Javier Miranda, 2023. "Declining Business Dynamism in Europe: The Role of Shocks, Market Power, and Technology," Jena Economics Research Papers 2023-011, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    6. Richard K. Crump & Stefano Eusepi & Marc Giannoni & Aysegul Sahin, 2019. "A Unified Approach to Measuring u," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 50(1 (Spring), pages 143-238.
    7. Naudé, Wim, 2020. "From the Entrepreneurial to the Ossified Economy: Evidence, Explanations and a New Perspective," GLO Discussion Paper Series 539, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    8. Cavallari, Lilia & Romano, Simone & Naticchioni, Paolo, 2021. "The original sin: Firms’ dynamics and the life-cycle consequences of economic conditions at birth," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    9. Benjamin Wild Pugsley & Ay’egul ahin, 2019. "Grown-up Business Cycles," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 32(3), pages 1102-1147.
    10. Ia Vardishvili, 2020. "Entry Decision, the Option to Delay Entry, and Business Cycles," Auburn Economics Working Paper Series auwp2020-07, Department of Economics, Auburn University.
    11. Ryan A. Decker & John Haltiwanger & Ron S. Jarmin & Javier Miranda, 2016. "Declining Business Dynamism: What We Know and the Way Forward," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(5), pages 203-207, May.
    12. Wim Naudé, 2022. "From the entrepreneurial to the ossified economy," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 105-131.
    13. Michael E. Waugh, 2017. "Firm Dynamics and Immigration: The Case of High-Skilled Immigration," NBER Chapters, in: High-Skilled Migration to the United States and Its Economic Consequences, pages 205-238, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Federico S. Mandelman & Mehra dup Mishita & Hewei Shen, 2024. "Skilled Immigration Frictions as a Barrier for Young Firms," FRB Atlanta Working Paper 2024-2, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
    16. Vincent Sterk & Petr Sedláček & Benjamin Pugsley, 2021. "The Nature of Firm Growth," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(2), pages 547-579, February.
    17. Drautzburg, Thorsten, 2019. "Entrepreneurial tail risk: Implications for employment dynamics," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 85-100.
    18. Leonardo Fabio Morales & Daniel Medina, 2016. "Labor Fluidity and Performance of Labor Outcomes in Colombia: Evidence from Employer-Employee Linked Panel," Borradores de Economia 14249, Banco de la Republica.
    19. John Haltiwanger & Henry Hyatt & Erika McEntarfer, 2018. "Who Moves Up the Job Ladder?," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(S1), pages 301-336.
    20. Sergio Salgado, 2019. "Technical Change and Entrepreneurship," 2019 Meeting Papers 634, Society for Economic Dynamics.

    More about this item

    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:sed015:1333. 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: Christian Zimmermann (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sedddea.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.