Discussion of Can Foreign Competition Spur Productivity ? by Dunne , - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
discussion of can foreign competition spur productivity
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Discussion of Can Foreign Competition Spur Productivity ? by Dunne , - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 12, 2022 32 likes •238 views

Discussion of Can Foreign Competition Spur Productivity ? by Dunne , Klimek and Schmitz Richard Rogerson Gary Stern Conference Minneapolis April 2010 1 Basic Story Line of the US Cement Industry 1947 - 1965 : Labor productivity grows at 5%

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Discussion of Can Foreign Competition Spur Productivity? by Dunne, Klimek and Schmitz

Richard Rogerson Gary Stern Conference Minneapolis April 2010

1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Basic Story Line of the US Cement Industry 1947-1965: Labor productivity grows at 5% per year. 1965-1982: Union forms, productivity growth drops to 0. 1983 on: Foreign producers enter, union is broken, productivity growth is roughly 6% per year.

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Outline for Discussion

  • 1. Link this paper to a broader literature
  • 2. Raise some concerns about the consistency of the

broader message

  • 3. Suggest some possibility for taking the analysis further

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Context for the Current Paper Big Question: Why are some countries so much richer than

  • thers?

Partial Answer: TFP, not accumulation. This leads to only more questions:  What is the proximate source of low aggregate TFP: low adoption of technology, inefficient use of technology at the establishment level, misallocation.....  What factors are influencing adoption, efficient use, misallocation etc...

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Progress in this area requires measurement and theory. Ideally, we want to have measures of some factor across countries and across time, and then use theory to assess the quantitative effects of these measured differences. In previous work, Jim and coauthors have explored the possibility that a lack of competition is an important factor in leading to low productivity. Problem: We neither have good ways to measure competition, nor do we have established theories about the mechanisms that link competition and productivity.

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Faced with this difficulty, Jim and coauthors have looked to case studies to build a case for the potential importance of competition. Today’s paper presents one more case study. Mechanism in today’s paper:  lack of (foreign) competition lead to a strong union  union demands lead to bad outcomes  entry of foreign producers lead to increased competition  increased competition from abroad made the union demands unsustainable  union was broken and outcomes improved

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Key message: openness is an important source of competition Nice feature of the paper: it examines specific actions that unions take and so helps us understand exactly what types

  • f “distortions” or restrictive practicies are quantitatively

important. It points to employment protection types of measures.

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Questions

  • 1. What was happening with prices, wages, profits,

investment from 1947 on?

  • 2. How well does the story fit the pre union period?
  • 3. How well does the story fit the evolution in non-coastal

areas?

  • 4. How well do the various productivity measures fit with the

story?

  • 5. How compelling is the story about workforce restrictions?

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

.8 .9 1 1.1 1.2 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

(NBER Manufacturing Database, 1987=1)

Figure 1. Total Factor Productivity U.S. Cement Industry

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Factory Gate Prices, South Texas Plants Port Of Houston, from Mexico Port of Houston, from Spain 25 30 35 40 45 50 1 9 8 3 1 9 8 4 1 9 8 5 1 9 8 6 1 9 8 7 1 9 8 8 1 9 8 9

Factory−Gate Prices and Port Prices (c.i.f.)

(Dollars per ton)

Figure 2. Texas Cement Prices

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Japan France Spain Italy Mexico

.5 .75 1 1.5 2 2.5 1960 1965 1970 1975 Year

Various Countries Relative to United States

Tons of Cement per Employee (log scale)

Figure 3. Labor Productivity

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Cement Plus Clinker Cement

.05 .1 .15 .2 .25 .3 1918 1922 1926 1930 1934 1938 1942 1946 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006

(Relative to U.S. Production)

Figure 4. U.S. Cement Imports

slide-13
SLIDE 13

25 40 60 80 100 1946 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002

(Million Metric Tons, log scale)

Figure 5. U.S. Cement Production

slide-14
SLIDE 14

.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1946 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994

Figure 6. Energy Productivity U.S. Cement Industry

slide-15
SLIDE 15

.5 1 1.5 2 1947 1951 1955 1959 1963 1967 1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995

U.S. Cement Industy

Figure 7. Capital Productivity

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Portland Cement Association Census .5 1 1.5 2 1 9 4 5 1 9 4 8 1 9 5 1 1 9 5 4 1 9 5 7 1 9 6 1 9 6 3 1 9 6 6 1 9 6 9 1 9 7 2 1 9 7 5 1 9 7 8 1 9 8 1 1 9 8 4 1 9 8 7 1 9 9 (Tons per hour, log scale, 1968=1)

Figure 8. Labor Productivity U.S. Cement Manufacturing

slide-17
SLIDE 17

2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 1 9 4 5 1 9 4 8 1 9 5 1 1 9 5 4 1 9 5 7 1 9 6 1 9 6 3 1 9 6 6 1 9 6 9 1 9 7 2 1 9 7 5 1 9 7 8 1 9 8 1 1 9 8 4 1 9 8 7 1 9 9 (in logs)

Figure 9. Total Employment, US Cement Industry

slide-18
SLIDE 18

U.S.A Canada

.8 1 1.2 1.4 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998

(1978=1)

Figure 10. Total Factor Productivity US and Canadian Cement Industry

slide-19
SLIDE 19

U.S.A Canada

.5 1 1.5 2 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998

(1978=1)

Figure 11. Labor Productivity US and Canadian Cement Industry

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Plants ''Close to'' Port Plants ''Far From'' Port .8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 1 9 7 2 1 9 7 7 1 9 8 2 1 9 8 7 1 9 9 2 1 9 9 7 (1972=1)

Figure 12. Labor Prodictivity Plants ''Close to'' and Plants ''Far From'' a Port