misallocation or mismeasurement?misallocation or mismeasurement? mark bils, university of rochester...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Misallocation or Mismeasurement?
Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBERPete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER
Cian Ruane, International Monetary Fund
January 2020
Any opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do notnecessarily represent the views of the U.S. Census Bureau. This research wasperformed at a Federal Statistical Research Data Center under FSRDC Project 1440.All results have been reviewed to ensure that no confidential information is disclosed.The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and should not be attributedto the International Monetary Fund, its Executive Board, or its management.
1 / 65
![Page 2: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Motivation
Widespread perception that resource misallocation an importantcause of low aggregate productivity (TFP) in EMDEs
Motivates structural reforms as a source of growth / convergence
Gains from resource reallocation are difficult to quantify, butgains are potentially huge
I Banerjee & Duflo (2005)I Restuccia & Rogerson (2008)I Hsieh & Klenow (2009, 2014)I Baqaee & Farhi (2019)
2 / 65
![Page 3: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Hsieh and Klenow (2009)
Large dispersion in revenue/inputs (TFPR) across plants in India,China and U.S.
Interpret dispersion in TFPR as dispersion in marginal products⇒ quantify misallocation
Reducing resource misallocation in India and China to U.S.levels⇒ increase TFP by 40% and 50%
But dispersion in measured average products need not reflectdispersion in true marginal products
3 / 65
![Page 4: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
U.S. manufacturing in recent decades
Kehrig (2015) noticed rising TFPR dispersion
I Suggests falling allocative efficiency
For 1978–2013 we find it would imply:
I A drag on TFP growth of 1.7 percentage points per year
I 45 percent lower TFP (cumulatively by 2013)
Has misallocation really increased dramatically?
Or has mismeasurement and/or misspecification worsened?
4 / 65
![Page 5: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
U.S. allocative efficiency
5 / 65
![Page 6: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
What we do
Propose a way to estimate misallocation allowing for:
I Measurement error in revenue and inputs
I Misspecification due to overhead costs
Apply to:
I manufacturing plants in the U.S. 1978–2013
I manufacturing plants in India 1985–2013
Preview of results:
I No longer a severe decline in U.S. allocative efficiency
I For U.S. potential gains ∼ 49% rather than ∼ 123%
I For India, potential gains ∼ 89% rather than ∼ 111%
6 / 65
![Page 7: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
U.S. vs India corrected allocative efficiency
7 / 65
![Page 8: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Others skeptical of misallocation
Adjustment costs
I Asker, Collard-Wexler and De Loecker (2014)
I Kehrig and Vincent (2019)
Overhead costs
I Bartelsman, Haltiwanger and Scarpetta (2013)
Variable production elasticities
I David and Venkateswaran (2019)
Measurement error and imputation
I Rotemberg and White (2019)
8 / 65
![Page 9: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Outline
1 Illustrative example
2 Full model
3 TFPR dispersion in U.S. and Indian data
4 Estimating measurement and specification error
5 Corrected measures of misallocation
9 / 65
![Page 10: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Simple model setup
Y =
(∑i Y
1− 1ε
i
) 1
1− 1ε , P =
(∑i P
1−εi
) 11−ε
Yi = Ai · Li
max(1− τYi
)PiYi − wLi
I Monopolistic competitor takes w, Y , and P as given
PiYi = PiYi + gi
Li = Li + fi
10 / 65
![Page 11: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Simple model TFPR
Pi =
(ε
ε− 1
)×(τi ·
w
Ai
), where τi ≡
1
1− τYi
PiYiLi
∝ τi
TFPRi ≡PiYi
Li∝ τi ·
PiYiPiYi
· LiLi
Let ∆Xt ≡Xt −Xt−1
Xt−1for variable X
11 / 65
![Page 12: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Identifying misallocation vs. dispersion in TFPR
∆P Y i = ∆Li ·τi
TFPRi
I assuming distortions and measurement error are fixed over time
I in which case ∆PiYi = ∆Li = (ε− 1) ∆Ai
We will generalize to allow:
I Sales R and a composite input I
I Shocks to distortions and to measurement errors
And regress ∆R on ∆I in different deciles of TFPR
I Measurement error should make coefficients fall with TFPR
I Will use this to estimate E (ln τi | ln TFPRi)
I Validate approach using simulations
12 / 65
![Page 13: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Outline
1 Illustrative example
2 Full model
3 TFPR dispersion in U.S. and Indian data
4 Identifying measurement and specification error
5 Corrected misallocation
13 / 65
![Page 14: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Full Model (Setup)
Closed economy, S sectors, Ns firms, L workers, K capital
Q =∏Ss=1Q
θss , Qs =
(∑Nsi Q
1− 1ε
si
) 1
1− 1ε
Qsi = Asi(Kαssi L
1−αssi )γsX1−γs
si
max Rsi − (1 + τLsi)wLsi − (1 + τKsi )rKsi − (1 + τXsi )Xsi
I Rsi ≡ PsiQsiI Monopolistic competitor takes input prices as given
C = Q−X , X =∑S
s
∑Nsi Xsi
14 / 65
![Page 15: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Model (Aggregate TFP)
TFP ≡ C
L1−αKα
I where α ≡∑Ss=1 αsγsθs∑Ss=1 γsθs
TFP = T ×S∏s=1
TFP
θs∑Ss=1 γsθs
s
I TFPs ≡Qs
(Kαss L1−αs
s )γsX1−γss
I T = reflects sectoral distortions (set aside)
15 / 65
![Page 16: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Model (Sectoral TFP)
Suppressing s here and whenever possible:
TFP =
[N∑i
Aε−1i
(τiτ
)1−ε] 1ε−1
τi ≡[(
1 + τLi)1−α (
1 + τKi)α]γ (
1 + τXi)1−γ
τ ≡[(
1 + τL)1−α (
1 + τK)α]γ (
1 + τX)1−γ
where 1 + τL ≡[∑N
i=1RiR
11+τLi
]−1and so on
16 / 65
![Page 17: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Model (Sectoral TFP Decomposition)
TFP = AE · PD ·A ·N1ε−1
AE ≡ Allocative Efficiency
PD ≡ Productivity Dispersion
A ≡ Average productivity
N1ε−1 ≡ Variety
17 / 65
![Page 18: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Model (Sectoral TFP Decomposition)
TFP =
[1
N
N∑i
(Ai
A
)ε−1 (τiτ
)1−ε] 1ε−1
︸ ︷︷ ︸AE=Allocative Efficiency
×
[1
N
N∑i
(Ai
A
)ε−1] 1ε−1
︸ ︷︷ ︸PD=Productivity Dispersion
×N1ε−1︸ ︷︷ ︸
Variety
× A︸︷︷︸Average Productivity
A =[
1N
∑Ni (Ai)
ε−1] 1ε−1 (power mean)
A =∏Ni=1A
1Ni (geometric mean)
18 / 65
![Page 19: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Full Model (Sectoral TFP Decomposition)
TFP ≡ Q
(L1−αKα)γX1−γ
=
[1
N
N∑i
(Ai
A
)ε−1 (τiτ
)1−ε] 1ε−1
︸ ︷︷ ︸AE=Allocative Efficiency
×
[N∑i
(Ai)ε−1
] 1ε−1
︸ ︷︷ ︸Residual Productivity
τi ≡[(
1 + τLi)1−α (
1 + τKi)α]γ (
1 + τXi)1−γ
19 / 65
![Page 20: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Aside: Intuition in a special case
If Ai and τi are jointly lognormal and τLi = τKi = τXi then
AE =ε
2· Var [ln(τi)]
20 / 65
![Page 21: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Outline
1 Illustrative example
2 Full model
3 TFPR dispersion in U.S. and Indian data
4 Identifying measurement and specification error
5 Corrected misallocation
21 / 65
![Page 22: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Indian Annual Survey of Industries (ASI)
Survey of Indian manufacturing plants
I Long panel 1985–2013
I Used in Hsieh and Klenow (2009, 2014)
Sampling frame
I All plants > 100 or 200 workers (45% of plant-years)
I Probabilistic if > 10 or 20 workers (55% of plant-years)
I ≈ 43,000 plants per year
Variables used
I Gross output (Ri), intermediate inputs (Xi), labor (Li), wage bill(wLi), and capital (Ki)
22 / 65
![Page 23: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
U.S. Longitudinal Research Database (LRD)
U.S. Census Bureau data on manufacturing plants
I Long panel, 1978–2013
I Used in Hsieh and Klenow (2009, 2014)
Sampling frame
I Annual Survey of Manufacturing (ASM) plants
I ∼ 50k plants per year with at least one employee
I Quinquennial sample for ∼ 34k plants, certainty for other ∼ 16k
Variables used
I Gross output (Ri), intermediate inputs (Xi), labor (Li), wage bill(wLi), and capital (Ki)
23 / 65
![Page 24: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Data cleaning steps
Step Cleaning
1 Starting sample of plant-years2 Missing no key variables3 Common sector concordance4 Trim 1% of each left and right TFPR and TFPQ tail
1,806,000 plant-years for U.S. LRD
943,186 plant-years for Indian ASI
24 / 65
![Page 25: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Inferring allocative efficiency a la Hsieh & Klenow (2009)
AE =
[N∑i
(TFPQi
TFPQ
)ε−1(TFPRiTFPR
)1−ε] 1ε−1
Ai = TFPQi =(Ri)
εε−1
(Kαi L
1−αi )γX1−γ
i
TFPRi =Ri
(Kαi L
1−αi )γX1−γ
i
25 / 65
![Page 26: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Inferring allocative efficiency as in Hsieh & Klenow (2009)
AE =
[N∑i
(TFPQi
TFPQ
)ε−1(TFPRiTFPR
)1−ε] 1ε−1
TFPQ =[∑N
i TFPQε−1i
] 1ε−1
TFPR =(
εε−1
) [MRPL
(1−α)γ
](1−α)γ [MRPKαγ
]αγ [MRPX1−γ
]1−γ
I MRPK =
[∑i
RiR
1
MRPKi
]−1
and so on
I MRPKi =
(ε− 1
ε
)αγ
RiKi
and so on
26 / 65
![Page 27: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Inferring aggregate AE
Aggregating within-sector allocative efficiencies:
AEt =
S∏s=1
AE
θst∑Ss=1 γsθst
st
Parameterization:
ε = 4 based on Redding and Weinstein (2016)
αs and γs inferred from sectoral cost-shares (r = .2)
θst inferred from sectoral shares of aggregate output
27 / 65
![Page 28: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Indian allocative efficiency
28 / 65
![Page 29: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
U.S. allocative efficiency
29 / 65
![Page 30: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Allocative efficiency in the U.S. relative to India
30 / 65
![Page 31: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
TFPR Dispersion in the U.S. and India over time
31 / 65
![Page 32: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
TFPQ Dispersion in the U.S. and India over time
32 / 65
![Page 33: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Elasticity of TFPR wrt TFPQ in the U.S and India
33 / 65
![Page 34: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Outline
1 Illustrative example
2 Full model
3 TFPR dispersion in U.S. and Indian data
4 Identifying measurement and specification error
5 Corrected misallocation
34 / 65
![Page 35: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Measurement error and ∆TFPR
Recall TFPRi = τi ·RiRi· IiIi
∆TFPRi = ∆τi + ∆
(RiRi
)− ∆
(IiIi
)
∆ is the growth rate of a variable relative to the sector s mean.
Increases in Ri and Ii reduce the role of additive measurement error
But have no impact on the role of multiplicative measurement error
35 / 65
![Page 36: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Previewing our empirical specification
We will regress revenue growth on input growth for a panel of plants:
∆Ri = λk + βk∆Ii + ei
i denotes plant
k denotes one of K bins of TFPR
∆ is the growth rate of a variable relative to the sector s mean.
Additive measurement error shows up as lower βk at higher TFPR’s
36 / 65
![Page 37: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Measurement error: key assumptions
Only additive measurement error
Ii = Ii + fi; Ri = Ri + gi
I Conservative, as multiplicative also overstates TFPR differences
I Analogous to heterogeneous overhead costs
Common measurement error across inputs
Zero covariance between ln (τi) and ln
(RiRi· IiIi
)
37 / 65
![Page 38: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Look at elasticity of revenue wrt inputs
Defineβk ≡
Covk
(∆R,∆I
)V ark
(∆I)
k indexes the level of TFPR (plant index i implicit)
βk is the population projection of ∆R on ∆I , at k–level TFPR
38 / 65
![Page 39: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
βk in the absence of measurement error
If f = 0 and g = 0, then:
∆I = ∆I = (ε− 1) ∆A − ε∆τ
∆R = ∆R = (ε− 1)(
∆A−∆τ)
βk = 1 + φk
where φk ≡Covk (∆τ,∆I)
V ark (∆I)
=−εV ark (∆τ) + (ε− 1)Covk (∆τ,∆A)
V ark (∆I)
39 / 65
![Page 40: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
βk in the absence of measurement error cont.
βk = 1 + φk
φk = elasticity of ∆τ wrt ∆I
If ∆τ is i.i.d., then does not project on TFPR
I ⇒ φk = φ
I ⇒ βk = β
If τ is stationary, then V ark (∆τ) larger at both high and lowvalues of ln(TFPR) = ln(τ), so smaller βk at TFPR extremes
40 / 65
![Page 41: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
βk in the presence of measurement error
βk ≈ Ek
(RI
R I
)(1 + φk) + ψk
≈ reflects for “small” changes: ∆A, ∆τ ,df
I,dg
R
Recall TFPR = τ · RR· II
Ek
(RI
R I
)captures role of both measurement errors in TFPR
Ek (τ) = Ek
(RI
R I
)· TFPRk
41 / 65
![Page 42: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Measurement error in revenue and inputs, cont.
Now φk reflects elasticities of ∆τ and df
Iwrt ∆I
φk ≡Covk
(I
I∆τ − f ′−f
I, ∆I
)V ark
(∆I)
Added term ψk
ψk =1
V ark
(∆I)(Covk(RI
R I, ∆I
(∆I +
I
I∆τ − f ′ − f
I
))−
Ek
(∆I)Covk
(RI
RI,(
∆I +I
I∆τ − f ′ − f
I
))+ Covk
(g′ − gR
, ∆I
))
42 / 65
![Page 43: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Recovering Ek (τ)
Ek (τ) = Ek
(RI
R I
)· TFPRk =
(βk − ψk1 + φk
)· TFPRk
If ∆τ , ∆A,df
Iand
dg
Rare i.i.d. =⇒ ψk = 0, φk = φ
Ek (τ) ∝ βk · TFPRk
Model simulations to correct for large shocks and φk, ψk
43 / 65
![Page 44: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Getting dispersion in τ
Ek (τ) ∝ βk · TFPRk is τ dispersion that projects on TFPR
With measurement error, also τ dispersion ⊥ to TFPR
“Add back” dispersion, call term ε, in ln τ
I ε ⊥ ln TFPR
I ε ∼ N(0, σ2)
I σ2 chosen to hit var[ln(τ)] assuming ln(R I
R I
)⊥ ln τ
44 / 65
![Page 45: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Dispersion in τ , continued
ln TFPR = ln τ − ln(R I
R I
)V ar
(ln τ
)=
V ar(
ln TFPR)− V ar
(ln
(RI
RI
))+ 2Cov
(ln τ, ln
(RI
RI
))
Assuming Cov(
ln τ, ln
(RI
RI
))= 0
I Eliminates last term in V ar(
ln τ)
I −V ar
(ln
(R I
R I
))= Cov
(ln TFPRk, Ek
(ln
(R I
R I
)))
45 / 65
![Page 46: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Dispersion in τ , continued
As a result:
V ar
(ln τ
)=
V ar
(ln TFPR
)+ Cov
(ln TFPRk, Ek
(ln
(R I
R I
)))
I First term is data
I Second reflects how our βk estimates covary with TFPR
46 / 65
![Page 47: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
TFPR correction implementation
Regress revenue growth on input growth by decile of TFPR:I Divide 25+ year samples into 5/6-year windowsI Unbalanced panel of Indian and U.S. plantsI ≈ 28,000 / 6,000 plants per decile-window in U.S. / India
∆Ri = λk + βk∆Ii + ei
i denotes plant, k denotes decileI ∆Ri, ∆Ii and TFPR are deviations from sector-year averageI Use Tornqvist average of TFPR for constructing decilesI Regressions are cost-share weightedI Trim observations where TFPR changes by factor > 5
Merge βk estimates into non-panel sample by decile-window:
ln (τi) = ln(TFPRi) + ln(βk) + εi
47 / 65
![Page 48: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
βk’s wrt TFPRk, India and U.S.
Table: Coefficients βk for revenue growth on input growth by TFPR decile
k→ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
India 1.09 1.04 1.03 1.00 1.01 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.95 0.88
U.S. 1.05 1.00 0.97 0.96 0.93 0.90 0.86 0.84 0.70 0.54
Source: Indian ASI 1985–2013 and U.S. LRD 1978–2013. TFPR deciles are constructed asTornqvist deviations from the (cost-weighted) sector-year average. Regressions weight by plant’sinput costs. Standard errors are clustered at the industry level, and are uniformly below 0.02.
48 / 65
![Page 49: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Indian βk slopes wrt TFPRk
49 / 65
![Page 50: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
U.S. βk slopes wrt TFPRk
50 / 65
![Page 51: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
τ dispersion vs. TFPR dispersion
India
1985–1991 1992–1996 1997–2001 2002–2007 2008–2013
σ2τ/σ
2TFPR 0.68 0.76 0.74 0.69 0.71
U.S.
1978–1984 1985–1991 1992–1998 1999–2005 2006–2013
σ2τ/σ
2TFPR 0.40 0.43 0.38 0.32 0.28
51 / 65
![Page 52: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Allocative efficiency in India
52 / 65
![Page 53: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Allocative efficiency in the U.S.
53 / 65
![Page 54: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Uncorrected vs. corrected gains from reallocation
INDIA1985–2013
Mean S.D.
Uncorrected gains 110.9% 17.3%
Corrected gains (estimates) 87.8% 13.8%
Shrinkage 21% 20%
54 / 65
![Page 55: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Uncorrected vs. corrected gains from reallocation
U.S.1978–2013
Mean S.D.
Uncorrected gains 123.2% 59.7%
Corrected gains (estimates) 49.1% 12.2%
Shrinkage 60% 80%
55 / 65
![Page 56: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Cumulative change in AE
U.S. INDIA1978–2013 1985–2013
Uncorrected -45% -1.5%
Corrected -16% -0.8%
56 / 65
![Page 57: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Allocative efficiency: U.S. relative to India
57 / 65
![Page 58: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Dispersion of U.S. TFPR
58 / 65
![Page 59: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Elasticity of TFPR wrt TFPQ in the U.S.
59 / 65
![Page 60: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Dispersion of TFPQ in the U.S.
60 / 65
![Page 61: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Simulations to test the validity of our strategy
Ait = Ai · ait where ln(Ai) ∼ N(0, σ2A)
ait and τit follow
ln(xit) = ρx · ln(xit−1) + ηxit where ηxit ∼ N(0, σ2x)
fit follows
fit = ρf · fit−1 + ηfit · Iit where ηfit ∼ N(0, σ2f )
Use ε = 4, ρa = ρτ = ρf = 0.9
Estimate {σA, σa, στ , σf} by window to fit{σTFPR, σTFPQ, σ∆I
, projection of ln(βk) on ln(TFPRk)}
61 / 65
![Page 62: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Simulation Results
India
1985–1991 1992–1996 1997–2001 2002–2007 2008–2013
σ2τ/σ
2TFPR (our correction) 0.64 0.76 0.76 0.68 0.71
σ2τ/σ
2TFPR (truth) 0.60 0.80 0.82 0.68 0.71
U.S.
1978–1984 1985–1991 1992–1998 1999–2005 2006–2013
σ2τ/σ
2TFPR (our correction) 0.36 0.41 0.34 0.32 0.25
σ2τ/σ
2TFPR (truth) 0.17 0.29 0.17 0.13 0.02
62 / 65
![Page 63: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Takeaways from simulations
ln(β) vs. ln(TFPR) approach:
Does well at correcting for additive measurement error
I similar results when measurement error is in revenues
I tends to undercorrect when there is lots of measurement error
And further simulations show:
Does not correct at all for multiplicative measurement error
Does not correct at all for adjustment costs
63 / 65
![Page 64: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
Conclusion
Proposed a way to estimate true dispersion of marginal products
I Revenue growth is less sensitive to input growth when averageproducts overstate marginal products
I Requires measurement error be additive and ⊥ to distortions
Implemented on Indian ASI
I Potential gains from reallocation reduced by 15
I Time-series volatility reduced by 15
Implemented on U.S. LRD
I Potential gains from reallocation reduced by 35
I Time-series volatility reduced by 45
I No longer a sharp downward trend in allocative efficiency
I U.S. allocative efficiency predominantly higher than in India
64 / 65
![Page 65: Misallocation or Mismeasurement?Misallocation or Mismeasurement? Mark Bils, University of Rochester and NBER Pete Klenow, Stanford University and NBER Cian Ruane, International Monetary](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022041719/5e4d4e74de3df567a8265003/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
Should the U.S. Census Bureau have noticed?
Arguably hard to see:
Variance of ln R and ln I rose 7.2% and 7.3% (1978–2013)
Correlation of ln R and ln I fell from 0.993 to 0.979
22–58 times higher variance for ln R and ln I than for ln TFPR
65 / 65