1 / 76

Outline: Output Validation From Firm Empirics to General Principles

Outline: Output Validation From Firm Empirics to General Principles. Firm data highly regular (universe of all firms) Power law firm sizes, by various measures What is a typical firm? Conceptual/mathematical challenges Heavy-tailed firm growth rates

Download Presentation

Outline: Output Validation From Firm Empirics to General Principles

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Outline: Output ValidationFrom Firm Empirics to General Principles • Firm data highly regular (universe of all firms) • Power law firm sizes, by various measures • What is a typical firm? • Conceptual/mathematical challenges • Heavy-tailed firm growth rates • Why doesn’t the central limit theorem work? • Wage-firm size effects • Agent models are multi-level: • Validation at distinct levels

  2. Summary from Yesterday • Interacting agent model of firm formation • Features of agent computing: • Agents seek utility gains; perpetualadaptation emerges • Intrinsically multi-level • Full distributional information available • Potentially costly: • Sensitivity analysis • Calibration/estimation

  3. “U.S. Firm Sizes are Zipf Distributed,”RL Axtell, Science, 293 (Sept 7, 2001), pp. 1818-20 For empirical PDF, slope ~ -2.06, thus tail CDF has slope ~ -1.06 Pr[S≥si] = 1-F(si) = si-a

  4. “U.S. Firm Sizes are Zipf Distributed,”RL Axtell, Science, 293 (Sept 7, 2001), pp. 1818-20 For empirical PDF, slope ~ -2.06, thus tail CDF has slope ~ -1.06 Average firm size ~ 20 Median ~ 3-4 Mode = 1 Pr[S≥si] = 1-F(si) = si-a

  5. Alternative Notions of Firm Size • Simon: Skewness not sensitive to how firm size is defined • For Compustat, size distributions are robust to variations including revenue, market capitalization and earnings • For Census, receipts are also Zipf-distributed

  6. Alternative Notions of Firm Size • Simon: Skewness not sensitive to how firm size is defined • For Compustat, size distributions are robust to variations including revenue, market capitalization and earnings • For Census, receipts are also Zipf-distributed Firm size in $106

  7. Alternative Notions of Firm Size • Simon: Skewness not sensitive to how firm size is defined • For Compustat, size distributions are robust to variations including revenue, market capitalization and earnings • For Census, receipts are also Zipf-distributed DeVany on the distribution of movie receipts: a ~ 1.25 => the ‘know nothing’ principle Firm size in $106

  8. Self-Employment • 15.5 million businesses with receipts but no employees: • Full-time self-employed • Farms • Other (e.g., part-time secondary employment)

  9. Self-Employment • 15.5 million businesses with receipts but no employees: • Full-time self-employed • Farms • Other (e.g., part-time secondary employment)

  10. What Size is a Typical Firm? Existence of moments depends on a • First moment doesn’t exist if a ≤ 1: a ~ 1.06 • Alternative measures of location: • Geometric mean: s0 a exp(1/a) ~ 2.57(for U.S. firms) • Harmonic mean (E[S-1]-1): s0 a (1+1/a) ~ 1.94(for U.S. firms) • Median: s0 a 21/a ~ 1.92 (for U.S. firms) • Second moment doesn’t exist since a ≤ 2 Moments exist for finite samples Non-existence means non-convergence

  11. History I: Gibrat • Informal sample of French firms in the 1920s • Found firms sizes approximately lognormally distributed • Described ‘law of proportional growth’ process to explain the data • Important problems with this ‘law’ • Early empirical data censored with respect to small firms

  12. History II: Simon and co-authors • Described entry and exit of firms via Yule process (discrete valued random variables • Characterized size distribution for publicly-traded (largest) companies in U.S. and Britain • Pareto tail (large sizes) • Explored serial correlation in growth rates • Famous debate with Mandelbrot • Caustically critiqued conventional theory of the firm

  13. History III: Industrial Organization • Quandt [1966] studied a variety of industries and found no functional form that fit well across all industries • Schmalansee [1988] recapitulated Quandt • 1990s: All discussion of firm size distribution disappears from modern IO texts • Sutton (1990s): game theoretic models leading to ‘bounds of size’ approach to intra-industry size distributions

  14. History IV: Stanley et al. [1995] • Using Compustat data over several years found the lognormal to best fit the data in manufacturing • 11,000+ publicly traded firms • More than 2000 firms report no employees! Ostensibly holding companies • Beginning of Econophysics!

  15. SBA/Census vs Compustat Data • Qualitative structure: increasing numbers of progressively smaller firms • Comparison: 5.5 million U.S. firms

  16. What is the Origin of the Zipf? • Hypothesis 1: Zipf in all industries => Zipf overall

  17. What is the Origin of the Zipf? • Hypothesis 1: Zipf in all industries => Zipf overall Refuted by Quandt [1966]

  18. What is the Origin of the Zipf? • Hypothesis 1: Zipf in all industries => Zipf overall Refuted by Quandt [1966] • Hypothesis 2: Zipf distribution of industry sizes => Zipf overall

  19. What is the Origin of the Zipf? • Hypothesis 1: Zipf in all industries => Zipf overall Refuted by Quandt [1966] • Hypothesis 2: Zipf distribution of industry sizes => Zipf overall No!

  20. What is the Origin of the Zipf? • Hypothesis 1: Zipf in all industries => Zipf overall Refuted by Quandt [1966] • Hypothesis 2: Zipf distribution of industry sizes => Zipf overall No! • Hypothesis 3: Zipf dist. of market sizes

  21. What is the Origin of the Zipf? • Hypothesis 1: Zipf in all industries => Zipf overall Refuted by Quandt [1966] • Hypothesis 2: Zipf distribution of industry sizes => Zipf overall No! • Hypothesis 3: Zipf dist. of market sizes No!

  22. What is the Origin of the Zipf? • Hypothesis 1: Zipf in all industries => Zipf overall Refuted by Quandt [1966] • Hypothesis 2: Zipf distribution of industry sizes => Zipf overall No! • Hypothesis 3: Zipf dist. of market sizes No! • Hypothesis 4: Exponential distribution of firms in each industry and exponential distribution of inverse average firm size

  23. Origin of the Zipf, hypothesis 4 Sutton [1998] gives as a bound an exponential distribution of firm sizes by industry

  24. Origin of the Zipf, hypothesis 4 Sutton [1998] gives as a bound an exponential distribution of firm sizes by industry Exponential distribution of firm sizes by industry: p exp(-ps) Exponential distribution of reciprocal firm means: q exp(-qp)

  25. Origin of the Zipf, hypothesis 4 Sutton [1998] gives as a bound an exponential distribution of firm sizes by industry Exponential distribution of firm sizes by industry: p exp(-ps) Exponential distribution of reciprocal firm means: q exp(-qp)

  26. Origin of the Zipf: Sutton

  27. Origin of the Zipf: Sutton

  28. Origin of the Zipf: Sutton

  29. Origin of the Zipf: Sutton Frequency Average firm size across industries

  30. Firm Growth Rates areLaplace Distributed: Publicly-Traded Stanley, Amaral, Buldyrev, Havlin, Leschhorn, Maass,, Salinger and Stanley, Nature, 379 (1996): 804-6

  31. Firm Growth Rates areSubbotin Distributed: Universe

  32. Firm Growth Rates areLaplace Distributed: Over Time

  33. Properties of Subbotin distribution • Laplace (double exponential) and normal as special cases • Heavy tailed vis-à-vis the normal • Recent work by S Kotz and co-authors characterizes the Laplace as the limit distribution of normalized sums of arbitrarily-distributed random variables having a random number of summands (terms)

  34. Variance in Firm Growth RatesScales Inversely (Declines) with Size s ~ r0-b b ≈ 0.15 ± 0.03 (sales) b ≈ 0.16 ± 0.03 (employees) Stanley, Amaral, Buldyrev, Havlin, Leschhorn, Maass, Salinger and Stanley, Nature, 379 (1996): 804-6

  35. Anomalous Scaling… • Consider a firm made up of divisions: • If the divisions were independent then s would scale like s-1/2 • If the divisions were completely correlated then s would be independent of size (scale like s0) • Reality is interior between these extremes • Stanley et al. get this by coupling divisions • Sutton postulates that division size is a random partition of the overall firm size • Wyart and Bouchaud specify a Pareto distribution of firm sizes

  36. More Firm Facts • Wage rates increase in firm size (Brown and Medoff): • Log(wages)  Log(size) • Constant returns to scale at aggregate level (Basu) • More variance in job destruction time series than in job creation (Davis and Haltiwanger) • ‘Stylized’ facts: • Growth rate variance falls with age • Probability of exit falls with age

  37. Requirements of an Empirically Accurate ‘Theory of the Firm’ • Produces a power law distribution of firm sizes • Generates Laplace (double exponential) distribution of growth rates • Yields variance in growth rates that decreases with size according to a power law • Wage-size effect obtains • Constant returns to scale • Methodologically individualist (i.e., written at the agent level) • No microeconomic/game theoretic explanation for any of these

  38. Firm Size Distribution Firm sizes are Pareto distributed, fs(1+a) a ≈ -1.09

  39. Productivity: Output vs. Size Constant returns at the aggregate level despite increasing returns at the local level

  40. Firm Growth Rate Distribution Growth rates Laplace distributed by K-S test Stanley et al [1996]: Growth rates Laplace distributed

  41. Variance in Growth Ratesas a Function of Firm Size slope = -0.174 ± 0.004 Stanley et al. [1996]: Slope ≈ -0.16 ± 0.03 (dubbed 1/6 law)

  42. Wages as a Function of Firm Size:Search Networks Based on Firms Brown and Medoff [1992]: wages  size 0.10

  43. Wages as a Function of Firm Size:Search Networks Based on Firms Brown and Medoff [1992]: wages  size 0.10

  44. Firm Lifetime Distribution Data on firm lifetimes is complicated by effects of mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcies, buy-outs, and so on Over the past 25 years, ~10% of 5000 largest firms disappear each year

  45. Summary:An Empirically-Oriented Theory • Produces a right-skewed distribution of firm sizes (near Pareto law) • Generates heavy-tailed distribution of growth rates • Yields variance in growth rates that decreases with size according to a power law • Wage-size effect emerges • Constant returns to scale at aggregate level • Methodologically individualist

  46. ThreeDistinct KindsofEmpirically-RelevantAgent-Based Models

  47. Background • Agent models are multi-level systems • Empirical relevance can be achieved at different levels • Observation: For most of what we do, 2 levels are active Macro-dynamics g: Rm Rm y(t+1) y(t) a: Rn Rm m < n x(t) x(t+1) f: Rn Rn Micro-dynamics

  48. Update to“Understanding Our Creations…, ”SFI Bulletin, 1994 • Multiple levels of empirical relevance: • Level 0: Micro-level, qualitative agreement • Level 1: Macro-level, qualitative agreement • Level 2: Macro-level, quantitative agreement • Level 3: Micro-level, quantitative agreement • Then, few examples beyond level 0

  49. Distinct Classes of ABMs Qualitative Quantitative Macro Micro

  50. Distinct Classes of ABMs Qualitative Quantitative Macro Micro

More Related