Plant-Level Prices, Productivity Measurement and Industry Dynamics

在最近的实证和理论文献中，理解微观生产率动态和总生产率动态之间的联系一直是一个关键主题。世界各地的纵向商业数据库的开发和可获得性迅速增加，从而能够在许多丰富的维度上研究工业动态。典型的纵向商业数据库(例如，美国制造业的LRD)的一个关键限制是，这些数据不提供工厂或公司级别的价格信息。因此，使用LRD这样的数据集来衡量工厂水平的产出、投入和生产率的典型指标，一直是基于工厂名义收入与部门水平平减指数的平减。只有当行业内存在价格同质性时，这一程序才是合适的。然而，开始出现的有限证据表明，行业内存在巨大的价格异质性。考虑到如此大的异质性，依赖行业层面价格平减指数的生产率衡量标准不仅反映了不同工厂之间的生产率差异，也反映了行业内不同工厂之间的价格差异。在过去的几年里，理论和实证研究人员已经认识到了这一局限性，并一直在开发间接方法来考虑部门内价格异质性的存在。虽然使用这些间接方法取得了相当大的进展，但这一贡献是直接评估使用工厂级投入和产出价格进行衡量的重要性，因为可以访问包括工厂级价格在内的纵向业务数据库。这个数据库提供了一个独特的实验室，用来探索植物一级价格的异质性在衡量、解释和分析工厂动态的产出和投入中的作用。广泛影响：部门内的产出价格异质性可能是由于加价不同、产品质量不同或部门内不同工厂的需求冲击不同造成的。通过衡量产出价格异质性以及衡量收入，可以将传统的“以收入为基础的生产率”指标的变动分解为与实物生产率变动和相对价格变动相关的组成部分。使用这样的分解可以解决一大堆研究问题。首先，我们有兴趣知道，当实物产出和相对价格变动分开衡量时，现有文献中关于植物动态的主要见解是否站得住脚。第二，探索工厂级价格异质性的来源是有意义的--特别是这种价格异质性是否反映了加价、产品质量或需求冲击的差异。第三，探索物理生产力差异和相对价格差异在解释观察到的植物动态中的相对作用是有意义的。例如，文献中的一个常见发现是，测量生产率较低的工厂更有可能退出。然而，考虑到目前可用的生产率衡量标准，一个悬而未决的问题是，现有工厂的生产率是否真的较低，或者它们只是收取更高的价格。最后，鉴于大多数数据集中没有植物水平的价格，有兴趣探索最近文献中开发的间接方法在多大程度上成功地控制了部门内的价格异质性。考虑到他们可以访问一个确实有直接价格衡量标准的纵向商业数据库，研究人员处于一个独特的位置来回答这个问题。就更广泛的影响而言，这项研究的发现和分析预计将有助于那些使用没有植物水平价格的数据集的人，在试图使用基于减缩收入的产出和生产率衡量标准得出推论时，可以而且应该使用哪些研究策略。由于现在有全球50多个国家的纵向商业数据集，而且几乎所有这些数据集都没有工厂级别的价格，潜在的更广泛的影响是巨大的。

Understanding the link between micro and aggregate productivity dynamics has been a key theme in the recent empirical and theoretical literature. There has been a rapid increase in the development and availability of longitudinal business databases around the world that permit studying industrial dynamics on many rich dimensions. One key limitation of the typical longitudinal business database (e.g., the LRD for the U.S. manufacturing sector) is that the data do not provide information on plant- or firm-level prices. As such, the typical measures of plant-level output, inputs and productivity, using datasets like the LRD, have been based upon deflating nominal revenue of the plant with a sectoral-level deflator. This procedure is appropriate only if there is price homogeneity within the sector. However, the limited evidence that is starting to emerge indicates that there is substantial within sector price heterogeneity. Given such large heterogeneity, productivity measures which rely on sector-level price deflators capture differences in productivity across plants but also differences in prices across plants within sectors. In the last several years, theoretical and empirical researchers have recognized this limitation and have been developing indirect methods to take into account the presence of within sector price heterogeneity. While considerable progress has been made using these indirect methods, this contribution is directly to assess the importance of using plant-level prices of inputs and outputs for measurement, given the access to a longitudinal business database that includes plant-level prices. This database provides a unique laboratory to explore the role of heterogeneity in plant-level prices in outputs and inputs for the measurement, interpretation and analysis of plant dynamics.Broader Impact: Output price heterogeneity within sectors may be due to differences in mark-ups, differences in product quality or differences in demand shocks across plants within sectors. Measurement of output price heterogeneity, along with measures of revenue, permits decomposing movements in the traditional "revenue-based productivity" measures into the component associated with movements in physical productivity and the movements due to relative prices. A whole host of research questions can be addressed using such decompositions. First, it is of interest to know whether the main insights from the existing literature on plant dynamics hold up when physical output and relative price movements are measured separately. Second, it is of interest to explore the sources of plant-level price heterogeneity--in particular, does such price heterogeneity reflect differences in mark-ups, product quality or demand shocks. Third, it is of interest to explore the relative role of physical productivity differences and relative price differences in accounting for the observed plant dynamics. For example, a common finding in the literature is that plants with lower measured productivity are more likely to exit. However, an open question, given the available productivity measures until now, is whether exiting plants indeed have lower productivity or whether they simply charge higher prices. Finally, given the absence of plant-level prices in most datasets, it is of interest to explore to what extent the indirect methods developed in the recent literature are successful in controlling for within sector price heterogeneity. The researchers are in a unique position to answer that question given their access to a longitudinal business database that does have direct measures of prices. In terms of broader impact, the findings and analysis in this study are expected to be helpful to those using datasets without plant-level prices on the research strategies that can and should be used when trying to draw inferences using deflated revenue-based measures of output and productivity. Since there are now longitudinal business datasets for more than 50 countries around the world and virtually all of them do not have plant-level prices, the potential broader impact is substantial.