Understanding Productivity: Lessons from Longitudinal Microdata

By Eric Bartelsman, Mark Doms. 2000

1,933 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This paper reviews research that uses longitudinal microdata to document productivity movements and to examine factors behind productivity growth. The research explores the dispersion of productivity across firms and establishments, the persistence of productivity differentials, the consequences of entry and exit, and the contribution of resource reallocation across firms to aggregate productivity growth. The research also reveals important factors correlated with productivity growth, such as managerial ability, technology use, human capital, and regulation. The more advanced literature in the field has begun to address the more difficult questions of the causality between these factors and productivity growth.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/17e377f1148c2a03e99603afec4907b3015841af

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

1. Giovanni Dosi
2. J. Love
3. Aida Caldera
4. A. Fernandes
5. S. Roper
6. Alex Coad
7. P. Ganotakis
8. Andrea Roventini

Citations in the corpus

• Do competition and ownership matter? Evidence from local public transport in Europe (2010, background): “(6)As Bartelsman and Doms (2000) point out: ‘The choice of output is often dictated by the available data.”
• Innovation and firm growth: Does firm age play a role? (2016, neutral): “Our result may be in line with Bartelsman and Doms (2000) and Foster and Krizan (2000) who point out that incumbents’ productivity growth plays a major role in industry productivity growth.”
• Firm spin-offs in Denmark 1981-2000 -- patterns of entry and exit (2006, background): “…literature has built up documenting a series of stylised facts (discussed by Geroski (1995) and Caves (1998)), one of which is that across industries and several countries (see e.g., Baldwin (1995), Bartelsman and Doms (2000), Bartelsman, 0167-7187/$ - see front matter D 2006 Elsevier B.V.”
• Heterogeneous Markups, Growth, and Endogenous Misallocation (2020, neutral): “Bernard et al. (2003) and Atkeson and Burstein (2008)).”
• R&D Offshoring and the Productivity Growth of European Regions (2012, neutral): “As noted (among others) by Bartelsman and Doms (2000), aggregate productivity dynamics can be decomposed into changes in productivity at the level of the firm (the within-component of productivity growth) and reallocation of resources across incumbents and through entry and exit (the…”
• What Do We Learn from Schumpeterian Growth Theory (2013, neutral): “Bartelsman and Doms (2000) and Foster, Haltiwanger and Krizan (2001) have shown that 25% of productivity growth in the US is accounted for by new entry and the remaining 75% by continuing plants.”
• Innovation and exporting: evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms (2010, background): “In particular, the result in columns (2) and (6) shows that the probability to export increases with the R&D intensity of an average firm.”
• Micro and macro policies in the Keynes+Schumpeter evolutionary models (2016, neutral): “The K+S models are also able to match a rather long list of microeconomic empirical regularities concerning the cross-sectional dynamics of firms (Bartelsman and Doms, 2000; Dosi, 2007).”