Table 11: Parameter estimates of selected variables: determinants of the dynamics of firm effi-
ciency
|
Model I: 1992-2005 |
Model II: 1999-2005 | |
|
Firm-specific factors | ||
|
a) Size category | ||
|
Less than 49 employees |
-0.002 (-1.34) |
-0.002 (-1.18) |
|
50-99 employees |
-0.000236 (-0.16) |
0.0001 (0.10) |
|
100-249 employees |
0.001 (0.67) |
0.001 (0.83) |
|
250-499 employees |
0.001 (0.89) |
0.001 (1.08) |
|
500-999 employees |
0.001 (1.03) |
0.001 (1.14) |
|
More than 1000 employees | ||
|
Production share in industry |
-0.001 (-0.14) |
-0.001 (-0.25) |
|
Number of owners working in the firm |
-0.0002 (-0.62) |
-0.0002 (-0.49) |
|
R&D intensity |
0.02** (2.02) | |
|
b) Outsourcing activities | ||
|
Quota of material inputs |
0.00006 (0.61) |
0.00005 (0.46) |
|
Quota of external contract work |
0.004* (3.8) |
0.004* (3.71) |
|
Quota of external services |
-0.003* (-2.5) |
-0.003* (-2.35) |
|
Quota of temporarily employed labor |
0.003 (0.34) | |
|
Quota rents and leases |
0.000009 (0.67) | |
|
Year Dummies | ||
|
D1992 |
0.001 (0.50) | |
|
D1993 |
-0.003 (-0.91) | |
|
D1994 |
0.001 (0.49) | |
|
D1995 |
0.00004 (0.01) | |
|
D1996 |
0.00009 (0.03) | |
|
D1997 |
-0.0002 (-0.05) | |
|
D1998 |
-0.0001 (-0.04) | |
|
D1999 |
-0.001 (-0.41) |
-0.0008 (-0.35) |
|
D2000 |
-0.002 (-0.59) |
-0.002 (-0.63) |
|
D2001 |
0.002 (0.58) |
0.002 (0.69) |
|
D2002 |
0.002 (0.80) |
0.002 (0.97) |
|
D2003 |
0.001 (0.48) |
0.001 (0.54) |
|
D2004 |
-0.003 (-1.23) |
-0.003 (-1.26) |
|
D2005 |
0.004* (2.29) |
0.004* (2.84) |
|
Number of observations |
3,147 |
3j16 |
Dependent variable: θi , notes of Table 6 apply.
Hjalmarsson, 1999). The parameter θi indicates whether a firm’s efficiency increases (θi > 0)
or decreases (θi < 0) with time t . Therefore, in this part we extended the translog production
function framework by including firm-specific time trends. We performed this analysis only
for firms with at least 10 observations in order to obtain more reliable estimates of θi . We also
refrained from including a quadratic time trend in the translog production function, as the high
collinearity between the linear and quadratic time trends leads to imprecise estimates of both
21
More intriguing information
1. The English Examining Boards: Their route from independence to government outsourcing agencies2. On the Integration of Digital Technologies into Mathematics Classrooms
3. The name is absent
4. The name is absent
5. NATURAL RESOURCE SUPPLY CONSTRAINTS AND REGIONAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: A COMPUTABLE GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM APPROACH
6. Whatever happened to competition in space agency procurement? The case of NASA
7. Computing optimal sampling designs for two-stage studies
8. The name is absent
9. Citizenship
10. The name is absent