What Drives the Productive Efficiency of a Firm?: The Importance of Industry, Location, R&D, and Size



Table 5: Partial R2s (in percent)

Variable

Model I: 1992-2005

Model II: 1999-2005

df

Partial R2

df

Partial R2

Environmental factors

Industry affiliation

256

9.34*

256

10.29*

Location (district)

439

3.12*

443

2.77*

Year-effects

14

0.72

7

0.41

Firm-specific factors

a) Firm characteristics

Size category

5

4.51*

5

3.38*

Production share in industry

1

0.01*

1

0.04*

Number of owners working in the firm

1

0.43*

1

0.44*

R&D intensity

1

0.20*

b) Outsourcing activities

Quota of material inputs

1

1.27*

1

1.41*

Quota of external contract work

1

0.74*

1

0.77*

Quota of external services

1

0.03*

1

0.17*

Quota of temporarily employed labor

1

0.01

Quota rents and leases

1

0.00005

Sample selection control

Number of years observed

1

0.02*

1

0.10*

Overall R2

21.78

21.11

Sum of all partial R2s

20.19

20.00

Number of observations

38,641

24,339

Notes: Dependent variable: productive efficiency; df is degrees of freedom;
statistical significance at the 1 percent level is indicated (
*).

chemical industry. Industrial differentiation might also stem from differences in average quality
of inputs, the degree of implied product differentiation, or be due to characteristics of production
technology (e.g.,
Carlsson, 1972).

Third, firm size contributes about 20 percent to the model’s explanatory power. This finding
supports Hypothesis
3, and also confirms the results of other studies finding different efficiency
performance among different firm size classes (e.g.,
Alvarez and Crespi, 2003; Caves, 1992;
Torii, 1992). However, our results are in the opposite direction of the effects found in these
other studies: according to our analysis, firms become less efficient as size increases. Thus,
smaller firms are, on average, significantly more efficient than larger ones (Table
6). For ex-
ample, the group of firms with less than 49 employees is on average 15 percent more efficient
than the group of firms with more than 1,000 employees. Similarly, we find that relative size,
measured in terms of production share in total industry production, is negatively related to ef-
ficiency. Therefore, Hypothesis
3 holds with respect to the significance, but not with regard to
the direction, of the size effect.

14



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. The name is absent
3. Running head: CHILDREN'S ATTRIBUTIONS OF BELIEFS
4. THE MEXICAN HOG INDUSTRY: MOVING BEYOND 2003
5. The name is absent
6. Infrastructure Investment in Network Industries: The Role of Incentive Regulation and Regulatory Independence
7. Fortschritte bei der Exportorientierung von Dienstleistungsunternehmen
8. DISCUSSION: ASSESSING STRUCTURAL CHANGE IN THE DEMAND FOR FOOD COMMODITIES
9. The name is absent
10. A Dynamic Model of Conflict and Cooperation
11. Estimated Open Economy New Keynesian Phillips Curves for the G7
12. Wirkung einer Feiertagsbereinigung des Länderfinanzausgleichs: eine empirische Analyse des deutschen Finanzausgleichs
13. The name is absent
14. The name is absent
15. The name is absent
16. The name is absent
17. The name is absent
18. Multimedia as a Cognitive Tool
19. Can a Robot Hear Music? Can a Robot Dance? Can a Robot Tell What it Knows or Intends to Do? Can it Feel Pride or Shame in Company?
20. On the job rotation problem