作为生产力增长来源的产业间和产业内转换：芬兰信息和通信技术产业的结构变化（英）-2023_市场营销策.docx

《作为生产力增长来源的产业间和产业内转换：芬兰信息和通信技术产业的结构变化（英）-2023_市场营销策.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《作为生产力增长来源的产业间和产业内转换：芬兰信息和通信技术产业的结构变化（英）-2023_市场营销策.docx（12页珍藏版）》请在第壹文秘上搜索。

1、Inter-industryandintra-industryswitchingassourcesofproductivitygrowth:structuralchangeofFinland,sICTindustriesNataliaKuosmanenG Timo KUoSmanen timo.kuosmanenutu.fl ETLA Economic Research, Helsinki, Finland Department of Economics, Turku School of Economics, University of Turku, Turku, FinlandPublish

2、ed online: 21 NCVemher 2023TimoKuosmanen?Accepted:2November2023TheAuthor(s)2023AbstractStructuralchangei$animportantdriverofproductivitygrowthattheaggregatelevel.WhilepreviousPrOdUCIiVitydecompositionsaccountforthecontributionsofmarketentryandexit,theyoverlookcontinuingfirmsthatswitchfromoneindustry

3、toanother.Wedevelopanimprovedproductivitydecompositionthataccountsforbothintra-industryandinterindustryswitching,isapplicabletobothstaticandinter-temporalsettings,andensuresconsistentaggregationoffirm-levelproductivitytotheindustrylevel.TheproposeddecompositionisappliedtoFinlandsinformationandcommun

4、icationtechnology(ICT)industryinthefirsttwodecadesofthe21stcentury.ThisindustryexperiencedmajorstructuralchangesduetotherapiddownfallofNokia,theworldslargestmobilephonemanufactureratthebeginningofourstudyperiod.Ourresultsrevealthatthesharpdeclineoflaborproductivitywasassociatedwithstructuralchanges,

5、whereasthesurvivingfirmsthatcontinuedinthesameindustrymanagedtoimprovetheirproductivity.Ourresultsindicatethatindustryswitchingcandampenorenhancetheproductivityimpactsofstructuralchange,especiallyduringtimesofcrisisandrecession.KeywordsEntryandexitLaborproductivity-ProductswitchingReallocationofreso

6、urcesJELclassificationD24L160471IntroductionSchumpeter(1939)coinedthetermwcreativedestructiontodescribehowmarketcompetitionleadstothecontinuousreplacementofinefficientproducerswithmoreproductiveones.Healsonotedthatduringrecessions,theleastproductiveandleastinnovativeunitsaremorelikelytobescrapped,wh

7、ichcanhelptoincreaseproductivityandfosternewgrowth.However,thetraditionalapproachofmeasuringproductivitygrowthusingbalancedpaneldataofcontinuingfirmsignorestheimpactofstructuralchangethroughentryandexitonproductivitygrowth(TheuseofbalancedpanelsoffirmsinMalmquistproductivitydecompositionsremainscomm

8、ontoday,withrecentexamplesincludingBansaletal.(2022),Laporseketal.(2022),andLiandGuan(2022),amongothers).Bailyetal.(1992)andGrilichesandRegev(1995)werethefirsttointroducestructuralchangedecompositionsofproductivitygrowththatconsiderednotonlythecontinuingfirmsbutalsothecontributionsoffirmentryandexit

9、.FollowingOlleyandPakes(1996),anotherlineofstudiesdistinguishesthecontributionofresourcereallocationacrossfirms,whichisalsorelatedtocreativedestruction.CompetitionfavorsHighproductivityfirms,whichtendtogrowlargerthanIowproductivityfirms.NotethatthemarketshareofaIowproductivityfirmmayinitiallyshrinka

10、ndeventuallyreachzero,resultinginamarketexit.Severalsubsequentstudies,suchasMaliranta(2003),BockermanandMaliranta(2(X)7),D沁WertandFox(20()9),HyytinenandMaliranta(2013),Holm(2014),MelitzandPolanec(2015),andMalirantaandMiiattanen(2015)haveextendedtheOlley-Pakesproductivitydecompositiontoincorporateent

11、ryandexit.Inpreviousproductivitydecompositionscitedabove,firmsareclassifiedintomutuallyexclusivegroupsofcontinuingfirms,exitingfirms,andnewentrants.ConventionaltheoreticalfoundationforthestructuralchangedecompositionsofproductivitytobeintroducedinSection3.Dynamicmodelsofoligopolythatincoratesunkentr

12、ycosts,stochastictechnologicalprogress,andendogenousexitdecision-makinghavegainedsignificantattentionintheliterature.Thesemodels,firstintroducedbyJovanovic(1982),Hopenhayn(1992),EricsonandPakes(1995),andOlleyandPakes(1996)(Forrecentdevelopments,seeAbbringetal.(2018)andreferencestherein),examinehowfi

13、rmsmaximizetheirexpectednetpresentvalueoffutureprofitsbycompetingwithincumbentfirmsandpotentialentrantsinthefuture.Theentryandexitdecisionsmadebyfirmsdependontheirperceptionsoffuturemarketstructures,whicharebasedoncurrentinformation.Thesedecisionsultimatelyshapethefuturemarketstructures.EricsonandPa

14、kes(1995)establishedaMarkovperfectNashequilibriuminwhichfirmsperceptionsofthedistributionoffuturemarketstructuresalignwiththeobjectivedistributionofmarketstructuresgeneratedbythefirmschoices.OHeyandPakes(1996)describetheendogenousexitruleimpliedbytheirdynamicoligopolymodelasfollows:uafirmcomparesthe

15、sell-offvalueofitsplanttotheexpecteddiscountedreturnsofstayinginbusiness.Ifthecurrentstatevariablesindicatecontinuinginoperationisnotworthwhile,thefirmclosesdowntheplant.(p.1273).Inotherwords,marketexitoccursasavoluntaryliquidationdecisionasthefirmupdatesitsperceptionsoffutureprofits.Inreality,marke

16、texitoftenoccursinvoluntarilythroughbankruptcy.MurtoandTervio(2014)addressthispossibilitybyintroducingamodelthatincludesforcedexitduetoliquidityconstraints.Inthismodel,firmsmaybeforcedtoexitthemarketduetoalackofliquidity,evenifitwouldstillbeprofitabletostayinbusiness.Therefore,thefirmmustoptimallymanageitscashreservestocopewiththeliquidityconstraint.Theyshowthattheequilibriumstateofthemarketmayresultineithertoomuchortoolittleexitdepen