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）》请在第一文库网上搜索。

1、Inter-industry and intra-industry switching as sources of productivity growth: structural change of Finland,s ICT industriesNatalia Kuosmanen1 Timo Kuosmanen timo.kuosmanenutu.fi ETLA Economic Research, Helsinki, Finland Department of Economics, Turku School of Economics, University of Turku, Turku,

2、 Finland Timo KuosmanenAccepted: 2 November 2023 The Author(s) 2023AbstractStructural change is an important driver of productivity growth at the aggregate level. While previous productivity decompositions account for the contributions of market entry and exit, they overlook continuing firms that sw

3、itch from one industry to another. We develop an improved productivity decomposition that accounts for both intra-industry and interindustry switching, is applicable to both static and inter-temporal settings, and ensures consistent aggregation of firm-level productivity to the industry level. The p

4、roposed decomposition is applied to Finland,s information and communication technology (ICT) industry in the first two decades of the 21st century. This industry experienced major structural changes due to the rapid downfall of Nokia, the world,s largest mobile phone manufacturer at the beginning of

5、 our study period. Our results reveal that the sharp decline of labor productivity was associated with structural changes, whereas the surviving firms that continued in the same industry managed to improve their productivity. Our results indicate that industry switching can dampen or enhance the pro

6、ductivity impacts of structural change, especially during times of crisis and recession.Keywords Entry and exit Labor productivity Product switching Reallocation of resourcesJEL classification D24 L16 0471 IntroductionSchumpeter (1939) coined the term “creative destruction” to describe how market co

7、mpetition leads to the continuous replacement of inefficient producers with more productive ones. He also noted that during recessions, the least productive and least innovative units are more likely to be scrapped, which can help to increase productivity and foster new growth. However, the traditio

8、nal approach of measuring productivity growth using balanced panel data of continuing firms ignores the impact of structural change through entry and exit on productivity growth (The use of balanced panels of firms in Malmquist productivity decompositions remains common today, with recent examples i

9、ncluding Bansal et al. (2022), Laporsek et al. (2022), and Li and Guan (2022), among others).Baily et al. (1992) and Griliches and Regev (1995) were the first to introduce structural change decompositions of productivity growth that considered not only the continuing firms but also the contributions

10、 of firm entry and exit. Following Olley and Pakes (1996), another line of studies distinguishes the contribution of resource reallocation across firms, which is also related to creative destruction. Competition favors highproductivity firms, which tend to grow larger than Iowproductivity firms. Not

11、e that the market share of a Iowproductivity firm may initially shrink and eventually reach zero, resulting in a market exit. Several subsequent studies, such as Maliranta (2003), Bockerman and Maliranta (2007), Diewert and Fox (2009), Hyytinen and Maliranta (2013), Holm (2014), Melitz and Polanec (

12、2015), and Maliranta and Maattanen (2015) have extended the Olley-Pakes productivity decomposition to incorporate entry and exit.Published online: 21 November 2021SpIn previous productivity decompositions cited above, firms are classified into mutually exclusive groups of continuing firms, exiting f

13、irms, and new entrants. Conventional theoretical foundation for the structural change decompositions of productivity to be introduced in Section 3.Dynamic models of oligopoly that incorporate sunk entry costs, stochastic technological progress, and endogenous exit decision-making have gained signifi

14、cant attention in the literature. These models, first introduced by Jovanovic (1982), Hopenhayn (1992), Ericson and Pakes (1995), and Olley and Pakes (1996) (For recent developments, see Abbring et al. (2018) and references therein), examine how firms maximize their expected net present value of fut

15、ure profits by competing with incumbent firms and potential entrants in the future. The entry and exit decisions made by firms depend on their perceptions of future market structures, which are based on current information. These decisions ultimately shape the future market structures. Ericson and P

16、akes (1995) established a Markov perfect Nash equilibrium in which firms, perceptions of the distribution of future market structures align with the objective distribution of market structures generated by the firms, choices.Olley and Pakes (1996) describe the endogenous exit rule implied by their dynamic oligopoly model as follows: ila firm compares the sell-off value of its plant to the expected discounted returns of stayin