{"title":"植物规模分布与国家间收入差异","authors":"Laura Alfaro, Andrew H. Charlton, Fabio Kanczuk","doi":"10.1086/596010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cross‐country differences in income per worker are widely known to be enormous. Per capita income in the richest countries exceeds that in the poorest countries bymore than a factor of 50 (see KlenowandRodriguez‐ Clare 1997; Prescott 1998; Hall and Jones 1999; Caselli 2005). An important strand of the literature trying to understand cross‐country differences in per capita incomes has focused on the role of aggregate factor accumulation by abstracting from heterogeneity in the production units. But there is an emerging and growing body of research that takes a different approach, focusing instead on the misallocation of resources across plants (Restuccia and Rogerson 2007; Bartelsman, Haltiwanger, and Scarpetta 2008; Hsieh and Klenow 2009). Policies’ and institutions’ differential effects on the business climate broadly defined might significantly influence the allocation of resources across establishments. The working hypothesis in this literature is that not only the level of factor accumulation but also how these factors are allocated across heterogeneous production units matters in trying to understand income differences. Our paper contributes to this literature by performing a development accounting exercise using a new data set of more than 20 million establishments in 79 developing and industrialized countries. Specifically, we develop a simple model of heterogeneous production units that follows Melitz (2003). Plants’ dynamics and policy distortions are as in Restuccia and Rogerson (2007), but we assume that production units have constant returns to scale technologies and some degree of market power, as in Hsieh and Klenow (2009). We calibrate the model to match our data set. Our calibration exercise consists in finding the profile of output taxes and subsidies needed to match each country’s plant size distribution. These distortions should be interpreted as the different","PeriodicalId":353207,"journal":{"name":"NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"55","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Plant Size Distribution and Cross‐Country Income Differences\",\"authors\":\"Laura Alfaro, Andrew H. Charlton, Fabio Kanczuk\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/596010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Cross‐country differences in income per worker are widely known to be enormous. Per capita income in the richest countries exceeds that in the poorest countries bymore than a factor of 50 (see KlenowandRodriguez‐ Clare 1997; Prescott 1998; Hall and Jones 1999; Caselli 2005). An important strand of the literature trying to understand cross‐country differences in per capita incomes has focused on the role of aggregate factor accumulation by abstracting from heterogeneity in the production units. But there is an emerging and growing body of research that takes a different approach, focusing instead on the misallocation of resources across plants (Restuccia and Rogerson 2007; Bartelsman, Haltiwanger, and Scarpetta 2008; Hsieh and Klenow 2009). Policies’ and institutions’ differential effects on the business climate broadly defined might significantly influence the allocation of resources across establishments. The working hypothesis in this literature is that not only the level of factor accumulation but also how these factors are allocated across heterogeneous production units matters in trying to understand income differences. Our paper contributes to this literature by performing a development accounting exercise using a new data set of more than 20 million establishments in 79 developing and industrialized countries. Specifically, we develop a simple model of heterogeneous production units that follows Melitz (2003). Plants’ dynamics and policy distortions are as in Restuccia and Rogerson (2007), but we assume that production units have constant returns to scale technologies and some degree of market power, as in Hsieh and Klenow (2009). We calibrate the model to match our data set. Our calibration exercise consists in finding the profile of output taxes and subsidies needed to match each country’s plant size distribution. These distortions should be interpreted as the different\",\"PeriodicalId\":353207,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"55\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/596010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/596010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 55
摘要
每个工人的收入在不同国家之间的差异是众所周知的巨大。最富裕国家的人均收入超过最贫穷国家的50倍以上(见KlenowandRodriguez‐Clare 1997;普雷斯科特1998;霍尔和琼斯1999;Caselli 2005)。试图理解人均收入的跨国差异的文献的一个重要方面是通过抽象生产单位的异质性来关注总要素积累的作用。但是,有一个新兴的和不断增长的研究机构采取了不同的方法,而不是关注植物之间资源的错误分配(Restuccia和Rogerson 2007;Bartelsman, Haltiwanger和Scarpetta 2008;Hsieh and Klenow 2009)。广泛定义的政策和制度对商业环境的不同影响可能会显著影响企业之间的资源分配。本文献的工作假设是,在试图理解收入差异时,不仅要素积累水平,而且这些要素如何在异质生产单位之间分配都很重要。我们的论文通过使用79个发展中国家和工业化国家的2000多万家机构的新数据集进行发展会计核算,为这一文献做出了贡献。具体来说,我们遵循Melitz(2003)开发了一个异构生产单元的简单模型。工厂的动态和政策扭曲如Restuccia和Rogerson(2007)所述,但我们假设生产单位对规模技术和一定程度的市场力量具有恒定的回报,如Hsieh和Klenow(2009)所述。我们校准模型以匹配我们的数据集。我们的校准工作包括找到与每个国家的工厂规模分布相匹配所需的产出税和补贴的概况。这些扭曲应被解释为不同之处
Plant Size Distribution and Cross‐Country Income Differences
Cross‐country differences in income per worker are widely known to be enormous. Per capita income in the richest countries exceeds that in the poorest countries bymore than a factor of 50 (see KlenowandRodriguez‐ Clare 1997; Prescott 1998; Hall and Jones 1999; Caselli 2005). An important strand of the literature trying to understand cross‐country differences in per capita incomes has focused on the role of aggregate factor accumulation by abstracting from heterogeneity in the production units. But there is an emerging and growing body of research that takes a different approach, focusing instead on the misallocation of resources across plants (Restuccia and Rogerson 2007; Bartelsman, Haltiwanger, and Scarpetta 2008; Hsieh and Klenow 2009). Policies’ and institutions’ differential effects on the business climate broadly defined might significantly influence the allocation of resources across establishments. The working hypothesis in this literature is that not only the level of factor accumulation but also how these factors are allocated across heterogeneous production units matters in trying to understand income differences. Our paper contributes to this literature by performing a development accounting exercise using a new data set of more than 20 million establishments in 79 developing and industrialized countries. Specifically, we develop a simple model of heterogeneous production units that follows Melitz (2003). Plants’ dynamics and policy distortions are as in Restuccia and Rogerson (2007), but we assume that production units have constant returns to scale technologies and some degree of market power, as in Hsieh and Klenow (2009). We calibrate the model to match our data set. Our calibration exercise consists in finding the profile of output taxes and subsidies needed to match each country’s plant size distribution. These distortions should be interpreted as the different