Journal of Productivity Analysis

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 187–210 | Cite as

Exploring reallocation’s apparent weak contribution to growth

  • Mitsukuni Nishida
  • Amil Petrin
  • Sašo Polanec


Two recent meta-analyses use variants of the Baily et al. (Brookings Papers Econ Act Microecon 1:187–267, 1992) (BHC) decompositions to ask whether recent robust growth in aggregate labor productivity (ALP) across 25 countries is due to lower barriers to input reallocation. They find weak gains from measured reallocation and strong within-plant productivity gains. We show these findings may be because BHC indices decompose ALP growth using plant-level output-per-labor (OL) as a proxy for the marginal product of labor and changes in OL as a proxy for changes in plant-level productivity. We provide simple examples to show that (1) reallocation growth from labor should track marginal changes in labor weighted by the marginal product of labor, (2) BHC reallocation growth can be positively correlated, negatively correlated, or uncorrelated with actual growth arising from the reallocation of inputs, and that (3) BHC indices can mistake growth from reallocation as growth from productivity, principally because OL is neither a perfect index of marginal products nor plant-level productivity. We then turn to micro-level data from Chile, Colombia, and Slovenia, and we find for the first two that BHC indices report weak or negative growth from labor reallocation. Using the reallocation definition based on marginal products we find a positive and robust role for labor reallocation in all three countries and a reduced role of plant-level technical efficiency in growth. We close by exploring potential corrections to the BHC decompositions but here we have limited success.


Reallocation Labor productivity Aggregate productivity growth Plant-level data 

JEL Classification

J24 L6 O47 


  1. Ackerberg D, Caves K, Frazer G (2008) Structural identification of production functions. Working paperGoogle Scholar
  2. Aghion P, Howitt P (1992) A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica 60(2):323–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aghion P, Howitt P (1994) Growth and unemployment. Rev Econ Stud 61(3):477–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baily M, Hulten C, Campbell D (1992) The distribution of productivity. Brookings Papers Econ Act Microecon 1:187–267Google Scholar
  5. Bartelsman E, Haltiwanger J, Scarpetta S (2004) Microeconomic evidence of creative destruction in industrial and developing countries. World Bank policy research working paper 3464Google Scholar
  6. Bartelsman E, Haltiwanger J, Scarpetta S (2010) Cross-country and within-country differences in the business climate. Int J Ind Organ 28(4):368–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caballero R, Hammour M (1994) The cleansing effect of recessions. Am Econ Rev 84(5):1350–1368Google Scholar
  8. Cubas G, Ho A, Huynh K, Jacho-Chavez D (2011) Reallocation, productivity, and the ecuadorian economic crisis: evidence from firm-level data. Discussion paper, Bank of CanadaGoogle Scholar
  9. de Loecker J, Konings J (2006) . Eur J Polit Econ 22(2):388–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Vries GJ, Erum ban AA, Timmer MP, Voskoboynikov I, Wu HX (2012) Deconstructing the BRICs: structural transformation and aggregate productivity growth. J Comp Econ 40(2):211–227Google Scholar
  11. Ericson R, Pakes A (1995) Markov-perfect industry dynamics: a framework for empirical work. Rev Econ Stud 62(1):53–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Foster L, Haltiwanger J, Krizan C (2001) Aggregate productivity growth. Lessons from microeconomic evidence. NBER chapters, pp 303–372Google Scholar
  13. Foster L, Haltiwanger J, Syverson C (2008) Reallocation, firm turnover, and efficiency: selection on productivity or profitability? Am Econ Rev 98(1):394–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Griliches Z, Regev H (1995) Firm productivity in Israeli industry 1979–1988. J Econ 65(1):175–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hsieh C, Klenow P (2009) Misallocation and manufacturing TFP in China and India. Q J Econ 124(4):1403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Inter-American Development Bank (2010) The age of productivity: transforming economies from the bottom up. Palgrave Macmillan, UKGoogle Scholar
  17. Kwon H, Narita F, Narita M (2009) New evidence on Japan’s aggregate productivity growth in the 1990s. Discussion paper, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and IndustryGoogle Scholar
  18. Lentz R, Mortensen D (2008) An empirical model of growth through product innovation. Econometrica 76(6):1317–1373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levinsohn J, Petrin A (2003) Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables. Rev Econ Stud 70(2):341–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu L (1991) Entry–exit and productivity changes: an empirical analysis of efficiency frontiers. Ph.D. thesis, University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
  21. Liu L (1993) Entry, exit, and learning in the chilean manufacturing sector. J Dev Econ 42:217–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu L, Tybout J (1996) Productivity growth in Colombia and Chile: panel-based evidence on the role of entry, exit and learning. In: Roberts M, Tybout J (eds) Producer heterogeneity and performance in the semi-industrialized countries, chap. 4. World Bank, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. McMillan MS, Rodrik D (2011) Globalization, structural change and productivity growth. Discussion paper, National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  24. Melitz M (2003) The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica 71(6):1695–1725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Menezes-Filho NA, Muendler MA (2011) Labor reallocation in response to trade reform. Discussion paper, National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  26. Pages C, Pierre G, Scarpetta S (2009) Job creation in Latin America and the Caribbean: recent trends and the policy challenges. Macmillan, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Petrin A, Levinsohn J (2012) Measuring aggregate productivity growth using plant-level data. Rand J Econ 43(4):705–725Google Scholar
  28. Petrin A, Sivadasan J (2013) Estimating lost output from allocative inefficiency, with application to Chile and firing costs. Rev Econ Stat 95(1):286–301Google Scholar
  29. Petrin A, White T, Reiter J (2011) The impact of plant-level resource reallocations and technical progress on US macroeconomic growth. Rev Econ Dyn 14(1):3–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Polanec S (2006) On the evolution of size and productivity in transition: evidence from Slovenian manufacturing firms. In: Prasnikar J (ed) Competitiveness, social responsibility and economic growth, pp 167–176. Nova Science Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Restuccia D, Rogerson R (2008) Policy distortions and aggregate productivity with heterogeneous establishments. Rev Econ Dyn 11(4):707–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roberts M (1996) Colombia, 1977–85: producer turnover, margins, and trade exposure. In: Industrial evolution in developing countries: micro patterns of turnover, productivity, and market structure, pp 227–259. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  33. Wooldridge J (2009) On estimating firm-level production functions using proxy variables to control for unobservables. Econ Lett 104(3):112–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mitsukuni Nishida
    • 1
  • Amil Petrin
    • 2
    • 3
  • Sašo Polanec
    • 4
  1. 1.The Johns Hopkins Carey Business SchoolBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.University of Minnesota, Twin Cities MinneapolisUSA
  3. 3.NBERNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations