Journal of Productivity Analysis

, Volume 49, Issue 2–3, pp 187–206 | Cite as

Misallocation, productivity and fragmentation of production: the case of Latvia

  • Konstantins Benkovskis


This paper evaluates misallocation of resources in Latvia during 2007–2014 using firm-level data. I find that misallocation of resources increased before 2010 and declined afterwards. Initially, output distortion was the major source of misallocation, while the importance of capital distortions increased after the financial crisis. Determinants of changes in allocation efficiency may include growing competition in domestic markets, tighter credit supply and legal issues. However, I show that fragmentation of production induces bias to the estimates of firm-specific distortions, leading to the overestimation of gains from reallocation. Thus, in the absence of inter-firm trade data, the conclusions on misallocation should be treated with caution.


Misallocation Fragmentation Productivity Firm-level data Latvia 


D24 L11 O11 O41 O47 



This research was performed within the ESCB Competitiveness Research Network (CompNet). I am grateful to Richard Baldwin, Fabrizio Coricelli, Carlos Robalo Marques, Sašo Polanec and two referees for helpful comments.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Acemoglu D, Carvalho VM, Ozdaglar A, Tahbaz-Salehi A (2013) The network origins of aggregate fluctuations. Econometrica 80(5):1977–2016Google Scholar
  2. Asker J, Collard-Wexler A, De Loecker J (2014) Dynamic inputs and resource (mis)allocation. J Political Econ 122(5):1013–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartelsman E, Haltiwanger J, Scarpetta S (2009) Measuring and analyzing cross-country differences in firm dynamic. In: Dunne T, Jensen JB, Roberts MJ (eds) Producer dynamics: new evidence from micro data (National Bureau of Economic Research Studies in Income and Wealth), vol 69. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 15–76Google Scholar
  4. Bellone F, Mallen-Pisano J (2013) Is misallocation higher in france than in the United States? GREDEG Working Paper No. 2013-38, Groupe de Recherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), University of Nice-Sophia Antipolis, NiceGoogle Scholar
  5. Benkovskis K, Berzina S, Zorgenfreija L (2016) Evaluation of Latvia’s re-exports using firm-level data. Balt J Econ 16(1):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benkovskis K, Fadejeva L, Kalnberzina K (2012) Price setting behaviour in Latvia: econometric evidence from CPI micro data. Econ Model 29(6):2115–2124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benkovskis K, Tkačevs O (2016) Everything you always wanted to know about Latvia’s service exporters (but were afraid to ask). Latvijas Banka Working Paper No. 6/2015Google Scholar
  8. Bernard AB, Moxnes A, Ulltveit-Moe KH (2014) Two-sided heterogeneity and trade. NBER Working Paper No. 20136Google Scholar
  9. Berthou A, Dhyne E, Bugamelli M, Cazacu A-M, Demian C-V, Harasztosi P, Lalinsky T, Meriküll J, Oropallo F, Soares AC (2015) Assessing European firms’ exports and productivity distributions: the CompNet trade module. ECB Working Paper No. 1788.Google Scholar
  10. Braukša I, Fadejeva L (2016) Internal labour market mobility in 2005–2014 in Latvia: the micro data approach. Balt J Econ 16(2):152–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Broda C, Weinstein DE (2006) Globalization and the gains from variety. Q J Econ 121(2):541–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Calligaris S (2015) Misallocation and total factor productivity in Italy: evidence from firm-level data. Labour 29(4):367–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carvalho VM (2014) From micro to macro via production networks. J Econ Perspect 28(4):23–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dias D, Robalo Marques C, Richmond C (2015) Misallocation and productivity in the lead up to the Eurozone crisis. International Finance Discussion Papers 1146,, last accessed 14 July 2017
  15. Dias D, Robalo Marques C, Richmond C (2016a) A tale of two sectors: why is misallocation higher in services than in manufacturing? IMF Working Paper WP/16/220Google Scholar
  16. Dias D, Robalo Marques C, Richmond C (2016b) Misallocation and productivity in the lead up to the Eurozone crisis. J Macroecon 49(C):46–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Di Giovanni J, Levchenko A, Mejean I (2014) Firms, destinations, and aggregate fluctuations. Econometrica 82(4):1303–1340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fadejeva L, Krasnopjorovs O (2015) Labour market adjustment during 2008–2013 in Latvia: firm level evidence. Latvijas Banka Working Paper No. 2/2015Google Scholar
  19. Fontange L, Santoni G (2015) Firm level allocative inefficiency: evidence from France. CEPII Working Paper, No. 2015-12Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Foster K, Grim C, Haltiwanger J, Wolf Z (2016) Firm-level dispersion in productivity: is the devil in the details? Am Econ Rev 106(5):95–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gamberoni E, Giordano C, Lopez-Garcia P (2016) Capital and labour (mis)allocation in the euro area: some stylized facts and determinants. ECB Working Paper No. 1981Google Scholar
  23. Garcia-Santana M, Moral-Benito E, Pijoan-Mas J, Ramos R (2016) Growing like Spain: 1995-2007. CEPR Discussion Paper DP11144Google Scholar
  24. Hsieh C-T, Klenow PJ (2009) Misallocation and manufacturing TFP in China and India. Q J Econ 74(4):1403–1448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Inklaar R, Lashitew A, Timmer MT (2017) The role of resource misallocation in cross-country differences in manufacturing productivity. Macroecon Dyn 21(3):733–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jones CI (2011) Misallocation, economic growth, and input-output economics. In: Acemoglu D, Arellano M, Dekel E (eds) Advances in economics and econometrics, Tenth World Congress, vol II. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 419–455Google Scholar
  27. Banka L (2015) Euro area bank lending survey of June 2015: main results for Latvia, Latvijas Banka, Riga., last accessed 14 July 2017
  28. Libert T (2016) Misallocation and aggregate productivity: evidence from the French manufacturing sector (unpublished document)., last accessed 14 July 2017
  29. Los B, Timmer M, de Vries G (2015) Global value chains: ʽFactory World’ is emerging. In: Amador J and di Mauro F (eds) The age of global value chains: maps and policy issues, eBook. CEPR Press, London, pp. 36–47.
  30. Melitz MJ (2003) The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica 71(6):1695–1725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Olley SG, Pakes A (1996) The dynamics of productivity in the telecommunications equipment industry. Econometrica 64(6):1263–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peters M (2013) Heterogeneous mark-ups, growth and endogenous misallocation. LSE Working Paper., last accessed 14 Jul 2017
  33. Putnins T, Sauka A (2011) Size and determinants of shadow economies in the Baltic States. Balt J Econ 11(2):5–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. World Bank (2017) Latvia tax review, Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Latvia, Riga., last accessed 15 Mar 2018
  35. 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, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Monetary Policy DepartmentLatvijas BankaRigaLatvia
  2. 2.Stockholm School of Economics in RigaRigaLatvia

Personalised recommendations