MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1595141159 · doi:10.3386/w22809

Misallocation, Establishment Size, and Productivity

2016· preprint· en· W1595141159 on OpenAlexafffund
Pedro Bento, Diego Restuccia

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Bureau of Economic Research · 2016
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsProductivityEnvironmental scienceEconomicsMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a tractable model of heterogeneous production units that features endogenous entry and productivity investment to assess the quantitative impact of policy distortions on aggregate output and establishment size.Relative to the standard factor misallocation framework, policy distortions featuring a positive productivity elasticity of distortions imply larger reductions in output through smaller investments in establishment productivity.A calibrated version of the model implies that when the productivity elasticity of distortions increases from 0.09 in the U.S. to 0.5 in India, aggregate output and average establishment size fall by 53 and 86 percent, compared to 37 and 0 percent in the standard factor misallocation model.Entry productivity investment and factor misallocation contribute equally to the reduction in output, whereas the effect of lower life-cycle productivity growth is fully offset by increased entry and reduced productivity dispersion.Establishment size differences in the model are consistent with evidence from a comprehensive dataset we construct on average establishment size in manufacturing using census data for 134 countries.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.237
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations77
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Bureau of Economic ResearchSame topicEconomic Growth and ProductivityFrench-language works237,207