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

_ (2003) ‘The economic performance of regions.’ Regional Studies 37, 549-578

Roudaut, Nolwenn (2006) ‘Influences of the business environment on manufacturing firms tech-
nical efficiencies: The côte d’ivoire case.’ Journal of Productivity Analysis 25(1-2), 93-109

Schmalensee, Richard (1985) ‘Do markets differ much?’ American Economic Review
75(3), 341-351

Schmidt, Peter, and Robin C. Sickles (1984) ‘Production frontier and panel data.’ Journal of
Business and Economic Statistics 2(4), 367-374

Schmidt, Peter, and Tsai-fen Lin (1984) ‘Simple tests of alternative specifications in stochastic
frontier models.’ Journal of Econometrics 24(3), 349-361

Shea, John (1997) ‘Instrument relevance in multivariate linear models: A simple measure.’ The
Review of Economics and Statistics 79(2), 348-352

Sickles, Robin C. (2005) ‘Panel estimators and the identification of firm-specific efficien-
cylevels in parametric, semiparametric and nonparametric settings.’ Journal of Econometrics
126, 305-334

Soderbom, Mâns, and Francis Teal (2004) ‘Size and efficiency in African manufacturing firms:
Evidence from firm-level panel data.’ Journal of Development Economics 73(1), 369-394

Theil, Henri (1971) Principles of Econometrics (Santa Barbara: Wiley and Sons)

Torii, Akio (1992) ‘Dual structure and differences of efficiency between Japanese large and
small enterprises.’ In Industrial Efficiency in Six Nations, ed. Richard E. Caves (Cambridge
(Mass.): MIT Press) pp. 385-424

Wernerfelt, Birger, and Cynthia A. Montgomery (1988) ‘Tobin’s q and the importance of focus
in firm performance.’ American Economic Review 78(1), 246-250

Appendix

We use the value of gross production net of subsidies and excise taxes as a measure of output.
This mainly comprises the turnover plus the net change in the stock of final products. We do
not include turnover from goods for resale or from activities that are classified as miscellaneous,
such as license fees, commissions, rents, leasing, and etc., because we assume that such revenue
cannot adequately be explained on the basis ofa production function.

Median production shares of these input categories and other descriptive statistics are re-
ported in Table A.1. The dominant categories are material inputs and payroll, the median values
of which add up to about 73 percent of the overall expenses. The median values of the shares
sum up to 92.4 percent. The difference to unity of approximately 7.6 percent can be interpreted
as the share of gross profits in production. Since firms with less than 500 employees are in-
cluded in the Cost Structure Census only as a representative random sample, we use weights

27

<<   27   28   29   30   31   32   >>

More intriguing information