Plant-Level Prices, Productivity Measurement and Industry Dynamics

理解微观和总体生产率动态之间的联系是最近实证和理论文献中的一个关键主题。世界各地的纵向商业数据库的开发和可用性迅速增加，这些数据库允许在许多丰富的维度上研究工业动态。典型的纵向业务数据库（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层面的价格信息。因此，使用像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方法，是基于用部门水平的平减指数来衡量工厂的名义收入。这一程序只有在行业内价格同质化的情况下才适用。然而，开始出现的有限证据表明，行业内部存在很大的价格异质性。考虑到如此巨大的异质性，依赖于部门层面价格平减指数的生产率指标既能捕捉到工厂之间的生产率差异，也能捕捉到部门内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这一局限性，并一直在开发间接方法来考虑部门内部价格异质性的存在。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投入和产出的工厂一级价格进行衡量的重要性，因为可以访问包括工厂一级价格在内的纵向商业数据库。该数据库为植物动态的测量、解释和分析提供了一个独特的实验室，以探索植物水平价格在产出和投入中的异质性作用。更广泛的影响：部门内的产出价格异质性可能是由于部门内工厂之间的加价差异、产品质量差异或需求冲击差异造成的。对产出价格异质性的测量，以及对收入的测量，允许将传统的“基于收入的生产率”测量中的运动分解为与实物生产率运动和相对价格运动相关的组成部分。大量的研究问题都可以通过这种分解来解决。首先，当实际产出和相对价格变动分开衡量时，了解现有文献中关于植物动态的主要见解是否成立是有意义的。其次，探索工厂层面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，探讨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方面的相对作用是有意义的。例如，文献中的一个普遍发现是，测量生产力较低的植物更有可能退出。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，现有的工厂是否真的生产率较低，还是只是收取更高的价格。最后，考虑到大多数数据集中没有工厂水平的价格，探索在多大程度上，在最近的文献中开发的间接方法成功地控制了部门内的价格异质性是有意义的。研究人员在回答这个问题上处于一个独特的位置，因为他们可以访问一个纵向的商业数据库，这个数据库确实有直接的价格衡量标准。就更广泛的影响而言，本研究的发现和分析有望对那些使用没有工厂级价格的数据集的研究策略有所帮助，这些研究策略可以而且应该在试图使用基于紧缩收入的产出和生产率衡量标准得出推论时使用。由于现在有全球50多个国家的纵向商业数据集，而且几乎所有国家都没有工厂水平的价格，因此潜在的更广泛影响是巨大的。

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.