The dynamics of total factor productivity and its components: Russian plastic production

Transcription

1 The dynamics of total factor productivy and s components: Russian plastic production Ipatova Irina, HSE NRU, Moscow

2 Introduction Russian plastic production sector Plastic production is a part of a medium-tech sector (NACE: 22.2) Its main consumers are construction, field of consumer goods and services This sector has sufficient competiveness in domestic market: share of Russian firms amounts to more than 70% Growth rates plastic production are significantly higher than growth rates of manufacturing and total industry Plastic production is one of the leaders among manufacturing sectors according to s growth rates rank 2

3 Introduction Comparison of growth rates Rubber and plastic production Manufacturing industry Total industry Rank of growth rate (right scale) Source: Russian statistical year book,

4 Introduction Russian plastic production sector There was observed a sharp slowdown of growth rates in 2013 The lack of modern and efficient capal assets (mean value of capacy utilization coefficient was 58% at the end of 2013) decreases competiveness abroad (Gnidchenko, 2015): This sector revealed growth of competiveness before the global economic crisis and declining after It s presented in cheap market segment However modificated Hausmann-Klinger approach demonstrates high both export potential and potential of import substution in plastic production sector 4

5 Introduction Russian plastic production sector In the report (National Council of Russian Federation, 2014) Russian plastic production was included in a set of priory sectors for import substution Assumed measures of government support: subsidy concessional lending public purchases et al. I study efficiency and productivy of Russian plastic production firms using TFP approach and SFA and DEA methods TFP is equal to ratio of aggregate output to aggregate input 5

6 Hypotheses Technical efficiency (TE) is one of the main drivers of total factor productivy (TFP) dynamics TFP and technical efficiency significantly declined in 2009 because of the global economic crisis (Gnidchenko, 2015) TFP and technical efficiency also decreased in 2013 over total slowdown of Russian economy growth Results are robust across different models and methods 6

7 Lerature review Main theoretical aspects Shepard (1953) distance function Farrell (1957) formula of technical efficiency Meeusen, Van den Broeck (1997) and Aigner et al. (1977) Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA) Charnes et al. (1978) Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) Balk (1998) formula of scale efficiency O Donnell (2008) formula of TFP index decomposion used in this research 7

8 SFA vs. DEA SFA Parametric method Estimation of stochastic production frontier Fixed functional form of production function for all firms Necessy of a priori assumption about error components distribution DEA Non-parametric method Optimization problem of mathematical programming Estimation of deterministic production frontier High sensivy to outliers 8

9 Total factor productivy change q, output and input vectors of firm i in period t Q, aggregate output and input (nonnegative, nondecreasing and linearly homogeneous) functions where N x M Q( q ) X X ( x ) TFPI TFPI hs, QI hs, XI hs, hs, TFP index Q QI Qhs X X XI hs, hs hs,, aggregate output and input quanty indices 9

10 TFP change and s components (O Donnell, 2008) Technical change is a measure of production frontier movement as a result of change in technology Technical efficiency change is movement towards or away from the production frontier as a result of more or less efficient factors use Scale efficiency change is movement along the production frontier in an effort to capture economy of scale Mix efficiency change is movement along the production frontier in an effort to capture economy of scope (recombination of inputs and outputs) 10

11 TFP change decomposion TFP TFP TFPE TFP OTE OSME where TFP * TFP t TFPI TFPE OTE OSME * * t t TFP of firm i in period t maximum TFP using technology of period t TFP efficiency output technical efficiency output scale and mix efficiency TFP TFPE TFP OTE OSME * * t t hs, * * TFPs TFPEhs TFPs OTEhs OSMEhs 11

12 Aggregate function DEA Färe-Primont TFP function: where D () O, output and input distance functions x 0, t 0 q 0 D () I TFP Q DO ( x0, q, t0) X D ( x, q, t ) I 0 0 vectors of representative quanties a representative time period SFA TFP function from model estimation: Q 1 ˆ k TFP ˆ q xk,, k X k k where ˆ vector of estimated parameters 12

13 Data Database RUSLANA (Bureau van Dijk): country Russian Federation main OKVED code code 25.2 (plastic production) years minimum value of total revenue, total assets, and fixed assets, is 1 thousand rubbles, of the number of employees is 16 persons Observation was recognized an outlier in case when s deviation from mean value of some variable in some year exceeded 3 st. dev. Balanced panel consists of 530 firms All variables are expressed in constant prices 2006 (except number of employees) 13

14 Descriptive statistics of variables in Variable Mean Std. Dev. Total revenue Capal Labour Remaining assets Capal = Fixed assets Remaining assets = Total assets Fixed assets Labour = number of employees 14

15 Correlation matrix of variables in Capal = Fixed assets Total revenue Capal Labour Remaining assets = Total assets Fixed assets Labour = number of employees Remaining assets Total revenue 1 Capal Labour Remaining assets

16 SFA pooled model lntr 0 1 ln K 2 ln L 3 ln Rem v u 2 2 v N(0, v ), u N (0, u ), i 1,...,530, t 2006,...,2013 where lntr logarhm of total revenue ln K logarhm of capal (fixed assets) ln L logarhm of labour (number of employees) ln Rem logarhm of remaining assets (total assets fixed assets) Battese, Coelli (1988): TE i u i e i ˆ E i i 16

17 SFA panel model RE-2S Random effects model, 2-step procedure (Heshmati et al., 1995) lntr ln K ln L ln Rem w v N(0, ), u N (0, ), i 1,...,530, t 2006,...,2013 where i 2 v u, wi N(0, w) 2 2 v u lntr logarhm of total revenue ln K logarhm of capal (fixed assets) ln L logarhm of labour (number of employees) ln Rem logarhm of remaining assets (total assets fixed assets) w i random individual effect of firm i

18 SFA panel model TRE True random effects model (Greene, 2005) lntr ln K ln L ln Rem w v u where lntr ln K ln L ln Rem i w N i v N u N i t 2 2 (0, v ), (0, u ), 1,...,530, 2006,...,2013 logarhm of total revenue logarhm of capal (fixed assets) logarhm of labour (number of employees) logarhm of remaining assets (total assets fixed assets) random individual effect of firm i w i 2 (0, w) 18

19 SFA models estimates Dependent variable is ln(total revenue) Variable Pooled Panel RE-2S Panel TRE ln(capal) *** 0.109*** *** ( ) ( ) ( ) ln(labour) 0.514*** 0.687*** 0.585*** (0.0181) (0.0280) (0.0222) ln(remaining assets) 0.464*** 0.334*** 0.290*** ( ) (0.0141) (0.0108) Constant 4.344*** 3.809*** 5.238*** (0.0668) (0.116) (0.105) lnsig2v *** *** *** (0.0541) (0.0361) (0.0973) lnsig2u *** *** *** (0.0367) (0.0643) (0.0481) Observations 4,240 4,240 4,240 logl Number of firms Note. *, **, *** 10, 5, 1% significance levels. 19

20 Kernel densy of technical efficiency estimates, SFA, pooled TE

21 Kernel densy of technical efficiency estimates, DEA TE

22 Kernel densy of technical efficiency estimates in TE Pooled Panel TRE Panel RE-2S DEA 22

23 Spearman coefficient of TFP and technical efficiency estimates Technical efficiency estimates 23 TE Pooled Panel RE-2S Panel TRE DEA Pooled 1 Panel RE-2S Panel TRE DEA TFP estimates Pooled 1 Pooled Panel RE-2S Panel TRE DEA Panel RE-2S Panel TRE DEA

24 Average values of TFP efficiency components in 2006, SFA and DEA Pooled Panel RE-2S Panel TRE DEA TFP Efficiency Technical efficiency Scale and mix efficiency TFP efficiency estimates are the same across different models and methods. However other components estimates differ as a result of inefficiency redistribution 24

25 Average values of TFP index and s components, SFA, pooled TFP TFP_max OTE OSME 25

26 Average values of TFP index and s components, SFA, panel RE-2S TFP TFP_max OTE OSME 26

27 Average values of TFP index and s components, SFA, panel, TRE TFP TFP_max OTE OSME 27

28 Average values of TFP index and s components, DEA TFP TFP_max OTE OSME 28

29 Conclusion Technical efficiency has almost the same dynamics as TFP in SFA models and s the main driver of TFP dynamics according to DEA results TFP and technical efficiency dramatically dropped after the global economic crisis The recovering process was not completed to the end of Results of analysis allow to verify that has not started at all Firms rankings by TFP and technical efficiency estimates are rather robust across different models and methods. However the dynamics of TFP components differs across methods 29

30 Thank you for your attention!