session 3: one-country evidence - european investment bank...2007 2010 2013 2016 domestic exporter...
TRANSCRIPT
-
WHAT HAPPENED TO BUSINESS DYNAMISM?
Session 3: One-country Evidence
Ufuk AkcigitUniversity of Chicago
March 19, 2019 - European Investment Bank
-
Paper #1
Figure 2: Aggregate markups in Poland
1.4
1.6
1.8
2004 2008 2012 2016
median average (weighted by sales) unweighted average
the nature of their economic activity. But technically it can lead to unwarranted variation
in real variables due to using sectoral deflators. Therefore, we consider the case in which
we keep NACE code constant at the most recent value.
A broad set of aggregate markups obtained under various empirical strategies is de-
picted on figure 3. Eyeballing the series and comparing with the baseline results one might
conclude that decline in markups is quite robust to the choice of empirical measurement.
In all cases the median markups have been systematically decreased over the considered
period and the overall fall in this period ranges from 8% to 25%. The dynamics of the
weighted average is slightly more heterogeneous across different measures of the markups
and in one case there is no change. 9 However, if we compare the peak of markups
around 2005 with the last value the decline in markups can be unquestionably observed,
irrespectively of the empirical strategy.
In the next step, we quantify the role of changes in the sectoral composition of the
economic activity in the markup change. One might suppose that the fall in markups has
been driven by a rising role of industries, in which the markups are substantially smaller.
This effect can be quantified by using the shift-share analysis. In general, the change in
the (weighted) average markups within any time period can be decomposed into three
components:
∆µt =∑
j
sj,t−1∆µj,t +∑
j
µj,t−1∆sj,t +∑
j
∆µj,t∆sj,t, (7)
where sj,t is the share in sales (weighting variable) of a sector j in period t. The first
component (within) captures the effects of changes in average markups at the industry
while the second term (between) arises when there is a substantial shift in composition.
The remaining component measures the joint effect of simultaneous changes in markups
9This refers to the case when the underlying parameters of the translog production function for output
were estimated at the WIOD industry level. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due
to large number of observations with negative implied output elasticities. Around 48.3% of observation
from the final sample were dropped because at least one estimated elasticity was below zero. It is an
extremely larger fraction of observations than in our baseline setting (< 1%) or other alternative strategies
(ca. 0.5%− 7.5%).
10
Figure 8: Dispersion and skewness of
markups (2002=1)
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
2004 2008 2012 2016
interquantile range (q90/q10) sd skewness
Figure 9: Evolution of markups in TFP
classes
1.2
1.6
2.0
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
Note: the firms are grouped based on deciles of
average level of the log TFP.
focus on Slovenian manufacturing firms between 1994 and 2002 and document that the
average export premium for markups is about 15%. As it can be seen from figure 10,
this difference is not stable over the time. Moreover, after 2005 the fall in markups was
more pronounced for the exporting enterprises and differences between these group has
become less systematic. In addition, the stronger fall in markups for exporters can be
unambiguously confirmed for alternative measures of the markups (see B.3 and B.4).
Figure 10: The average markups
for exporters and non-exporting firms
(weighted mean)
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2004 2008 2012 2016
exporter non−exporting
Figure 11: The average markups for ex-
porters, importers and domestic firms
(weighted mean)
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2007 2010 2013 2016
domestic exporter exporter and importer importer
Having in mind that the Polish firm have benefited from the trade liberalization and
international integration we also look at the markups in groups with different international
linkages. Given the data constrains11, our population is additionally splited into four
groups: (i) firms exporting and importing, (ii) enterprises reporting only exports, (iii) firms
with imports only, and (iv) enterprises without international trade linkages. Intuitively,
the most internationally integrated firms belong to the first group. A visual inspection
11Our database provides data on imports since 2005 and distinguishes only the imports of intermediates.
14
Gradzewiczy and Mućk (2018)
Interesting finding: Markups declined in Poland.Due to globalization (?)
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 2
-
10 Empirical Trends
(Mostly based on the US data)
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 3
-
Fact 1: Market concentration has risen.
Figure: MARKET CONCENTRATION IN MANUFACTURING
6870
7274
Top2
0 C
once
ntra
tion
3840
4244
Top4
Con
cent
ratio
n
1980 1990 2000 2010Year
Top4 CR with Sales Top20 CR with Sales
Source: Autor, Dorn, Katz, Patterson, and Van Reenen (2017).
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 4
-
Fact 2: Average markups have increased.
Figure: AVERAGE MARKUP OVER TIME
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
Mar
kup
1980 1990 2000 2010Year
Source: De Loecker and Eeckhout (2017).
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 5
-
Fact 3: Profit share of GDP has increased.
Figure: PROFITS AS A FRACTION OF GDP OVER TIME
.02
.12
.04
.06
.08
.1
Prof
it Sh
are
of G
DP,
Afte
r Tax
.02
.06
.1.1
4Pr
ofit
Shar
e of
GD
P, B
efor
e Ta
x
1980 1990 2000 2010Year
Before Tax After Tax
Source: Akcigit and Ates (2019), BEA NIPA Table 1.15.
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 6
-
Fact 4: The labor share of output has gone down.
Figure: LABOR SHARE
.6.6
2.6
4.6
6.6
8La
bor S
hare
of G
DP
1980 1990 2000 2010Year
Source: Karabarbounis and Neiman (2013).
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 7
-
Fact 5: Negative link b/w concentration and labor share
Figure: SECTOR-LEVEL CHANGES IN CONCENTRATION AND LABOR SHARE
−0.27
−0.13−0.12
−0.09 −0.09−0.09
−0.04−.4
−.3−.2
−.10
Finance Services Utils&Transport Manufacturing Retail Wholesale All
Source: Autor, Dorn, Katz, Patterson, and Van Reenen (2017).
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 8
-
Fact 6: Larger gap btw. frontier and laggards.
Figure: LABOR PRODUCTIVITY OF FRONTIER AND LAGGARD FIRMS
0.1
.2.3
Nor
mal
ized
Ave
rage
Pro
duct
ivity
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012Year
Frontier Firms Laggard Firms
Source: Andrews, Criscuolo, and Gal (2016).———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 9
-
Fact 7: Firm entry rate has declined.
Figure: FIRM AND ESTABLISHMENT ENTRY RATES IN THE UNITED STATES
810
1214
16Es
tabl
ishm
ent E
ntry
Rat
e
810
1214
Firm
Ent
ry R
ate
1980 1990 2000 2010Year
Firms Establishments
Source: Decker, Haltiwanger, Jarmin, and Miranda (2016a)
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 10
-
Fact 8: Employment share of young firms has fallen.
Figure: EMPLOYMENT SHARE OF < 5-YEAR OLD FIRMS
.08
.18
Empl
oym
ent S
hare
of <
5-Y
ear-O
ld F
irms
.1
.12
.14
.16
1980 1990 2000 2010Year
Source: Decker, Haltiwanger, Jarmin, and Miranda (2016a).
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 11
-
Fact 9: Job reallocation has slowed down.
Figure: GROSS JOB REALLOCATION
2628
3032
3436
Job
Rea
lloca
tion
Rat
e
1980 1990 2000 2010Year
Source: Decker, Haltiwanger, Jarmin, and Miranda (2016a).
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 12
-
Fact 10: Dispersion of firm growth has decreased.
Figure: GROWTH RATE DISPERSION HAS SHRUNK
.5.5
5.6
.65
.7St
anda
rd D
evia
tion
of E
stab
lishm
ent G
row
th
.4.4
5.5
.55
Stan
dard
Dev
iatio
n of
Firm
Gro
wth
1980 1990 2000 2010Year
Firms Establishments
Source: Decker, Haltiwanger, Jarmin, and Miranda (2016a).
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 13
-
Ten Facts about the U.S. Economy
1. Market concentration has risen.2. Average markups have increased.
3. Average profits have increased.
4. The labor share of output has gone down.
5. Market concentration and labor share are negatively associated.
6. Labor productivity gap between ”the best” and ”the rest” has widened.
7. Firm entry rate has declined.
8. The share of young firms in economic activity has declined.
9. Job reallocation has slowed down.
10. The dispersion of firm growth has decreased.
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 14
-
What Has Changed?
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 15
-
Many Things... Some Examples:EFFECTIVE CORPORATE TAX RATE
1020
3040
50C
orpo
rate
Tax
Rat
es
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010year
Statutory Effective Effective, capital income
WORKER/UNION POWER
R&D SUBSIDY
Make America Great Again!
MN MN MN MNIAIN
IA
WIWV
MN
IN
WIWVIN
MN
CA
IA
KS
IA
CA
ND
MN
WVIN
WICA
IN
OR
WI
MNIA
NDKS
WVIN
CA
IA
WV
KSND
MN
WI
ORIL
IN
CA
OR
IAMN
ND
WV
KS
MAIL
WI
KSCA
IN
WI
IA
IL
MN
WV
MA
ORND
IA
MA
MN
KS
ILOR
WV
CAWI
ND
CTNH
IN
MA
NJ
MO
KSCA
RI
IN
WI
MNIA
ND
IL
NH
OR
CT
WV
AZ
KS
WV
RI
WI
MNIA
OR
AZ
CTMA
ND
MO
NJ
IN
CA
IL
1 1 1
3
56
89
1011 11
13
1716
Introduction of R&Dtax credit (ERTA)
.55
.6
.65
.7
US Share in T
otal Patents (dashed).02
.025
.03
.035
.04
R&
D/S
ales
(so
lid)
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995Year
— R&D Intensity - - - Patenting Share of the U.S.INTEREST RATE
factors has operated to reduce natural or equilibriumreal interest rates.
What has the consequence been? Laubach andWilliams [2003] from the Federal Reserve establisheda methodology for estimating the natural rate of inter-est. Essentially, they looked at the size of the outputgap, and they looked at where the real interest rate was,and they calculated the real interest rate that went withno output gap over time. Their methodology has beenextended to this point, as shown in Figure 14, and itdemonstrates a very substantial and continuing declinein the real rate of interest.
One looks at a graph of the 10-year TIP and seesthe same picture. Mervyn King, the former governor of
the Bank of England, has recently constructed a timeseries on the long-term real interest rate on a globalbasis, which shows a similar broad pattern of continu-ing decline.
I would argue first that there is a continuingchallenge of how to achieve growth with financialstability. Second, this might be what you would expectif there had been a substantial decline in natural realrates of interest. And third, addressing these challengesrequires thoughtful consideration about what policyapproaches should be followed.
3. Addressing Today’s MacroeconomicChallenges
So, what is to be done if this view is accepted? As amatter of logic, there are three possible responses.
Stay patient
The first possible response is patience. These thingshappen. Policy has limited impact. Perhaps one isconfusing the long aftermath of an excessive debtbuildup with a new era. So, there are limits to whatcan feasibly be done.
I would suggest that this is the strategy that Japanpursued for many years, and it has been the strategythat the U.S. fiscal authorities have been pursuing forthe last three or four years. We are seeing very power-fully a kind of inverse Say’s Law. Say’s Law wasthe proposition that supply creates its own demand.Here, we are observing that lack of demand creates itsown lack of supply.
Figure 13. Central Bank Reserves
Notes: Total assets in USD, ratio to nominal GDP in USD. Advanced economies: Australia, Canada, Denmark, the Euro Area,Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Emerging economies:Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Chinese Taipei, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Hong Kong SAR, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Korea,Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand and Turkey. Sources: IMF,National Data, Haver Analytics & Fulerum Asset Management.
Source: Financial Times.
Figure 14. Natural Rate of Interest
0
2P
erc
en
t 4
6
1960q1 1970q1 1980q1 1990q1
Date
2000q1 2010q1
Natural Rate of Interest, from Laubach and Williams (2003)
Source: Updated estimates from www.frbsf.org/economic-research/economists/john-williams/.
U.S. ECONOMIC PROSPECTS
71
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 16
-
TheoryTheory
Akcigit and Ates (2019):”What Happened to U.S. Business Dynamism?”
I Endogenous mark-ups and market structure.
I Schumpeterian step-by-step innovation model
Explicit competition margin:=⇒ incumbents innovate to increase their markups.=⇒ followers innovate to catch-up and leapfrog the leader if
they have “hope”.
I Similarly, entrants enter if and only if they have the hope of takingdown the incumbents.
I Entrants are “forward looking”.
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 16
I Endogenous mark-ups and endogenous market structure.I Dynamic macro-growth model with strategic interaction.I Explicit focus on transitional dynamics.
Explicit competition margin:=⇒ incumbents innovate to increase their markups.=⇒ followers innovate to catch-up and leapfrog the leader if
they have “hope”.
I Similarly, entrants enter if and only if they have the hope of takingdown the incumbents.
I Entrants are “forward looking”.———————————————
Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 17
-
Horse Race Among Alternative Fundamentals:
1. Lower Effective Corporate Tax Rate.
2. Higher R&D Subsidies.
3. Higher Entry Costs.
4. Lower Knowledge Diffusion.
5. Declining Interest Rate.
6. Ideas Getting Harder.
7. Lower Worker Power.
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 18
-
Data vs Model Predictions
Experiment: Shock BGP through one channel at a time
Table: Qualitative experiment results
DataLower
corporatetax
HigherR&D
subsidies
Higherentrycost
Lowerknowledgediffusion
Declininginterest
rate
Ideasgettingharder
Weakerunionpower
Concentration ↑ ←→ ←→ ←→ ↑ ←→ ↓ ←→Markups ↑ ←→ ←→ ←→ ↑ ←→ ↓ ↑Profit share ↑ ←→ ↓ ←→ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑Labor share ↓ ←→ ↑ ←→ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓Frontier vs. laggard gap ↑ ←→ ←→ ←→ ↑ ←→ ←→ ↑Entry ↓ ↑ ←→ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑Young firms’ empl. share ↓ ←→ ↓ ↓ ↓ ←→ ↓ ←→Gross job reallocation ↓ ↑ ↑ ←→ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑Dispersion of firm growth ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 19
-
Data vs Model Predictions
Experiment: Shock BGP through one channel at a time
Table: Qualitative experiment results
DataLower
corporatetax
HigherR&D
subsidies
Higherentrycost
Lowerknowledgediffusion
Declininginterest
rate
Ideasgettingharder
Weakerunionpower
Concentration ↑ ←→ ←→ ←→ ↑ ←→ ↓ ←→Markups ↑ ←→ ←→ ←→ ↑ ←→ ↓ ↑Profit share ↑ ←→ ↓ ←→ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑Labor share ↓ ←→ ↑ ←→ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓Frontier vs. laggard gap ↑ ←→ ←→ ←→ ↑ ←→ ←→ ↑Entry ↓ ↑ ←→ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑Young firms’ empl. share ↓ ←→ ↓ ↓ ↓ ←→ ↓ ←→Gross job reallocation ↓ ↑ ↑ ←→ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑Dispersion of firm growth ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 19
-
Data vs Model Predictions
Experiment: Shock BGP through one channel at a time
Table: Qualitative experiment results
DataLower
corporatetax
HigherR&D
subsidies
Higherentrycost
Lowerknowledgediffusion
Declininginterest
rate
Ideasgettingharder
Weakerunionpower
Concentration ↑ ←→ ←→ ←→ ↑ ←→ ↓ ←→Markups ↑ ←→ ←→ ←→ ↑ ←→ ↓ ↑Profit share ↑ ←→ ↓ ←→ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑Labor share ↓ ←→ ↑ ←→ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓Frontier vs. laggard gap ↑ ←→ ←→ ←→ ↑ ←→ ←→ ↑Entry ↓ ↑ ←→ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑Young firms’ empl. share ↓ ←→ ↓ ↓ ↓ ←→ ↓ ←→Gross job reallocation ↓ ↑ ↑ ←→ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑Dispersion of firm growth ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 19
-
What about Welfare?
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 20
-
What Do These Trends Mean for Policy?
KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION AND WELFARE19802010
Source: Akcigit and Ates (2019)
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 21
-
Empirical Trendson IP and Innovation
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 22
-
Empirical Fact (1)→ Patenting by new entrants has declined.
PATENTING SHARE BY NEW ENTRANTS
.04
.05
.06
.07
.08
.09
Entra
nt S
hare
1980 1990 2000 2010year
Source: Akcigit and Ates (2019)
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 23
-
Empirical Fact (1)→ Patenting by new entrants has declined.
PATENTING SHARE BY NEW ENTRANTS
.04
.05
.06
.07
.08
.09
Entra
nt S
hare
1980 1990 2000 2010year
Source: Akcigit and Ates (2019)———————————————
Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 23
-
Empirical Fact (2)→ Patenting concentration has increased.
TOP-1% PATENTING SHARE
.35
.4.4
5.5
Shar
e of
Top
-1%
Inno
vatin
g Fi
rms
1980 1990 2000 2010year
Source: Akcigit and Ates (2019)
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 24
-
Empirical Fact (2)→ Patenting concentration has increased.
TOP-1% PATENTING SHARE
.35
.4.4
5.5
Shar
e of
Top
-1%
Inno
vatin
g Fi
rms
1980 1990 2000 2010year
Source: Akcigit and Ates (2019)———————————————
Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 24
-
Empirical Fact (3)→ Patents are bought by the largest firms.
SHARE OF TOP-1% BUYERS OVER TIME
.3.3
5.4
.45
.5.5
5Sh
are
of T
op-1
% B
uyer
Firm
s
1980 1990 2000 2010year
Source: Akcigit and Ates (2019)
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 25
-
Empirical Fact (3)→ Patents are bought by the largest firms.
SHARE OF TOP-1% BUYERS OVER TIME
.3.3
5.4
.45
.5.5
5Sh
are
of T
op-1
% B
uyer
Firm
s
1980 1990 2000 2010year
Source: Akcigit and Ates (2019)———————————————
Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 25
-
Back to Empirical Trends...
90-10 GROWTH RATE DIFFERENCE BY SECTOR
38
Figure 5: 90-10 Differential for Public, Private, and High Tech Firms
Note: Y axis does not begin at zero. The 90-10 differential is the difference between the 90th and the 10th percentile of the employment-weighted distribution of firm employment growth rates. Data are HP trends using parameter set to 100. High tech is defined as in Hecker (2005) (see Table A.1 in the web appendix). Data include all firms (new entrants, exiters, and continuers). Author calculations from Compustat and the Longitudinal Business Database.
20
40
50
60
70
80
90
All firms
High Tech
Source: Decker, Haltiwanger, Jarmin, and Miranda (2016b)
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 26
-
Empirical Fact (4)→ Patents have become less exploratory.
FRACTION OF SELF CITATIONS
.15
.2.2
5.3
.35
.4Sh
are
of S
elf C
itatio
ns
1980 1990 2000 2010year
Source: Akcigit and Ates (2019)
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 27
-
Empirical Fact (4)→ Patents have become less exploratory.
FRACTION OF SELF CITATIONS
.15
.2.2
5.3
.35
.4Sh
are
of S
elf C
itatio
ns
1980 1990 2000 2010year
Source: Akcigit and Ates (2019)———————————————
Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 27
-
Empirical Fact (5)→ Patents have become less exploratory.
AVERAGE CLAIM LENGTH OVER TIME
140
150
160
170
180
Mea
n C
laim
Len
gth
1980 1990 2000 2010year
Source: Akcigit and Ates (2019)
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 28
-
Empirical Fact (5)→ Patents have become less exploratory.
AVERAGE CLAIM LENGTH OVER TIME
140
150
160
170
180
Mea
n C
laim
Len
gth
1980 1990 2000 2010year
Source: Akcigit and Ates (2019)———————————————
Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 28
-
Paper #2Figure 1: Buyer Power Across Sectors
46
Morlacco (2018)
Interesting finding: Substantial buyer power in France.It correlates with the size and productivity of the firm.
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 29
-
Thank You...
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 30
-
Innovation Types
quality, q
productline, j
Leader
Follower
Neck&neck
line 1 line 2 line 3 line 4 line 5
δ
(1− φ) x−i
φx−i
entrants
φ̃x̃
(1− φ̃) x̃
exit
Figure: Evolution of product lines
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 31
-
Leader Innovation
quality, q
productline, jline 1 line 2 line 3 line 4 line 5
xi
Figure: Evolution of product lines
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 32
-
Follower Innovation: Slow Catch-up
quality, q
productline, jline 1 line 2 line 3 line 4 line 5
(1− φ) x−i
Figure: Evolution of product lines
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 33
-
Knowledge Diffusion
quality, q
productline, jline 1 line 2 line 3 line 4 line 5
δ
Figure: Evolution of product lines
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 34
-
Evaluation of Each Shock
contributioni =X42010 −X
4\i2010
X42010 −X41980.
Channel iLower
corporatetax
HigherR&D
subsidies
Higherentrycost
Lowerknowledgediffusion
Entry -8.2% -0.4% 17.9% 50.6%Labor -9.0% -7.7% 3.6% 78.7%Markup 7.6% 10.8% 3.6% 84.2%Profit -9.0% -7.7% 3.6% 78.7%Concentration 4.3% 7.1% -7.2% 96.2%Young -13.2% -7.7% -1.3% 71.2%Prod. gap 7.2% 10.5% 3.5% 83.8%Reallocation -6.9% 0.2% 13.6% 48.5%Dispersion 32.7% 29.2% -44.6% 136%Average 0.6% 3.8% -0.8% 80.9%
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 35
-
Evaluation of Each Shock
contributioni =X42010 −X
4\i2010
X42010 −X41980.
Channel iLower
corporatetax, τ
HigherR&D
subsidies, s
Higherentrycost, c
Lowerknowledgediffusion, δ
Entry -8.2% -0.4% 17.9% 50.6%Labor -9.0% -7.7% 3.6% 78.7%Markup 7.6% 10.8% 3.6% 84.2%Profit -9.0% -7.7% 3.6% 78.7%Concentration 4.3% 7.1% -7.2% 96.2%Young -13.2% -7.7% -1.3% 71.2%Prod. gap 7.2% 10.5% 3.5% 83.8%Reallocation -6.9% 0.2% 13.6% 48.5%Dispersion 32.7% 29.2% -44.6% 136%Average 0.6% 3.8% -0.8% 80.9%
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 36
-
References:ACEMOGLU, D., AND U. AKCIGIT (2012): “Intellectual Property Rights Policy,
Competition and Innovation,” Journal of the European Economic Association, 10(1),1–42.
AGHION, P., N. BLOOM, R. BLUNDELL, R. GRIFFITH, AND P. HOWITT (2005):“Competition and Innovation: An Inverted-U Relationship,” Quarterly Journal ofEconomics, 120(2), 701–728.
AKCIGIT, U., AND S. T. ATES (2018): “Declining Business Dynamism: Some Lessonsfrom Modern Growth Theory and Patent Data,” University of Chicago mimeo.
(2019): “What Happened to U.S. Business Dynamism?,” University of Chicagomimeo.
AKCIGIT, U., S. T. ATES, AND G. IMPULLITTI (2018): “Innovation and Trade Policy ina Globalized World,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 24543.
ANDREWS, D., C. CRISCUOLO, AND P. N. GAL (2016): “The Best versus the Rest: TheGlobal Productivity Slowdown, Divergence across Firms and the Role of PublicPolicy,” OECD Productivity Working Paper 5/2016.
AUTOR, D., D. DORN, L. F. KATZ, C. PATTERSON, AND J. VAN REENEN (2017): “TheFall of the Labor Share and the Rise of Superstar Firms,” National Bureau ofEconomic Research Working Paper 23396.
DE LOECKER, J., AND J. EECKHOUT (2017): “The Rise of Market Power and TheMacroeconomic Implications,” National Bureau of Economic Research WorkingPaper 23687.
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 36
-
DECKER, R. A., J. HALTIWANGER, R. S. JARMIN, AND J. MIRANDA (2016a):“Declining Business Dynamism: What We Know and the Way Forward,” AmericanEconomic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 106(5), 203–07.
(2016b): “Where Has All The Skewness Gone? The Decline in High-growth(Young) Firms in The US,” European Economic Review, 86, 4–23.
KARABARBOUNIS, L., AND B. NEIMAN (2013): “The Global Decline of the LaborShare,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(1), 61–103.
———————————————Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago) 36