Promoting Higher Productivity in China — Does Innovation Expenditure Really Matter?
Hoang Minh Duy, Filippo di Mauro, Jo Van Biesebroeck
Singapore Economic Review,
No. 5,
2020
Abstract
The slowing down of the global economy adds additional challenges to China? economic policies as the country orchestrates its transition to lower resource dependency and higher technology intensity of output. Are policies aimed at technologically advanced sectors the right answer? Drawing from a newly created dataset of firms? balance sheets over the period 1998?2013, matched with patents data until 2009, we uncover that expenditure in innovation had limited effect on boosting productivity, without generating a clear gain in overall productivity for the high-tech sector. As a matter of fact, there is a much higher dispersion in productivity outcomes in firms belonging to the low-technology sectors, which derives from a bunch of champions in those sectors scoring higher productivity dynamics than in the High-technology sectors. The paper finds those barriers to entry and in general, market power of incumbents in the high-tech generate less than optimal resource reallocation, which hampers the overall productivity. Policies should presumably aim at removing such obstacles rather than solely promote innovation expenditure.
Read article
The East-West German Gap in Revenue Productivity: Just a Tale of Output Prices?
Matthias Mertens, Steffen Müller
Abstract
East German manufacturers’ revenue productivity (value-added per worker) is some 8 (25) percent below West German levels, even three decades after German unification. Using firm-product-level data containing information on product quantities and prices, we analyse the role of product specialisation and reject the prominent ‚extended work bench hypothesis‘, stating a specialisation of Eastern firms in the intermediate input production as explanation for these sustained productivity differences. We decompose the East’s revenue productivity disadvantage into Eastern firms selling at lower prices and producing more physical output for given amounts of inputs within ten-digit product industries. This suggests that Eastern firms specialise vertically in simpler product varieties generating less consumer value but being manufactured with less or cheaper inputs. Vertical specialisation, however, does not explain the productivity gap as Eastern firms are physically less productive for given product prices, implying a genuine physical productivity disadvantage of Eastern compared to Western firms
Read article
The East-West German Gap in Revenue Productivity: Just a Tale of Output Prices?
Matthias Mertens, Steffen Müller
Abstract
East German manufacturers’ revenue productivity (value-added per worker) is some 8 (25) percent below West German levels, even three decades after German unification. Using firm-product-level data containing information on product quantities and prices, we analyse the role of product specialisation and reject the prominent ‚extended work bench hypothesis‘, stating a specialisation of Eastern firms in the intermediate input production as explanation for these sustained productivity differences. We decompose the East’s revenue productivity disadvantage into Eastern firms selling at lower prices and producing more physical output for given amounts of inputs within ten-digit product industries. This suggests that Eastern firms specialise vertically in simpler product varieties generating less consumer value but being manufactured with less or cheaper inputs. Vertical specialisation, however, does not explain the productivity gap as Eastern firms are physically less productive for given product prices, implying a genuine physical productivity disadvantage of Eastern compared to Western firms.
Read article
01.07.2020 • 11/2020
New Horizon 2020 project: The Challenge of the Social Impact of Energy Transitions
Funded by the European Commission’s Framework Programme Horizon 2020, the ENTRANCES project recently closed its kick-off meeting with a high scientific and institutional participation, and taking on the challenge of modeling the social impact of the energy transition.
Oliver Holtemöller
Read press release
Ostdeutscher Produktivitätsrückstand und Betriebsgröße
Steffen Müller, Georg Neuschäffer
Wirtschaft im Wandel,
No. 3,
2019
Abstract
Auch 30 Jahre nach dem Mauerfall ist die Produktivität der ostdeutschen Wirtschaft um 20% geringer als die der westdeutschen. Vielfach wird dies dadurch erklärt, dass westdeutsche Betriebe größer sind – denn größere Betriebe sind meist produktiver. Berechnungen auf Basis einzelbetrieblicher Daten bringen jedoch zum Vorschein, dass die Produktivitätslücke sich selbst dann nicht schließt, wenn Betriebe ähnlicher Größe verglichen werden, die zudem noch der gleichen Branche angehören und Ähnlichkeiten in weiteren für die Produktivität relevanten Merkmalen wie der Kapitalintensität, der Exporttätigkeit und dem Anteil qualifizierten Personals aufweisen.
Read article
Import Competition and Firm Productivity: Evidence from German Manufacturing
Richard Bräuer, Matthias Mertens, Viktor Slavtchev
Abstract
This study analyses empirically the effects of import competition on firm productivity (TFPQ) using administrative firm-level panel data from German manufacturing. We find that only import competition from high-income countries is associated with positive incentives for firms to invest in productivity improvement, whereas import competition from middle- and low-income countries is not. To rationalise these findings, we further look at the characteristics of imports from the two types of countries and the effects on R&D, employment and sales. We provide evidence that imports from high-income countries are relatively capital-intensive and technologically more sophisticated goods, at which German firms tend to be relatively good. Costly investment in productivity appears feasible reaction to such type of competition and we find no evidence for downscaling. Imports from middle- and low-wage countries are relatively labour-intensive and technologically less sophisticated goods, at which German firms tend to generally be at disadvantage. In this case, there are no incentives to invest in innovation and productivity and firms tend to decline in sales and employment.
Read article
Innovation, Reallocation, and Growth
Daron Acemoglu, Ufuk Akcigit, Harun Alp, Nicholas Bloom, William R. Kerr
American Economic Review,
No. 11,
2018
Abstract
We build a model of firm-level innovation, productivity growth, and reallocation featuring endogenous entry and exit. A new and central economic force is the selection between high- and low-type firms, which differ in terms of their innovative capacity. We estimate the parameters of the model using US Census microdata on firm-level output, R&D, and patenting. The model provides a good fit to the dynamics of firm entry and exit, output, and R&D. Taxing the continued operation of incumbents can lead to sizable gains (of the order of 1.4 percent improvement in welfare) by encouraging exit of less productive firms and freeing up skilled labor to be used for R&D by high-type incumbents. Subsidies to the R&D of incumbents do not achieve this objective because they encourage the survival and expansion of low-type firms.
Read article
Size of Training Firms and Cumulated Long-run Unemployment Exposure – The Role of Firms, Luck, and Ability in Young Workers’ Careers
Steffen Müller, Renate Neubäumer
International Journal of Manpower,
No. 5,
2018
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to analyze how long-run unemployment of former apprentices depends on the size of their training firm and their ability.
Read article
On the Returns to Invention within Firms: Evidence from Finland
Philippe Aghion, Ufuk Akcigit, Ari Hyytinen, Otto Toivanen
American Economic Association Papers and Proceedings,
2018
Abstract
In this paper we merge individual income data, firm-level data, patenting data, and IQ data in Finland over the period 1988–2012 to analyze the returns to invention for inventors and their coworkers or stakeholders within the same firm. We find that: (i) inventors collect only 8 percent of the total private return from invention; (ii) entrepreneurs get over 44 percent of the total gains; (iii) bluecollar workers get about 26 percent of the gains and the rest goes to white-collar workers. Moreover, entrepreneurs start with significant negative returns prior to the patent application, but their returns subsequently become highly positive.
Read article