Refine
Document Type
- Report (7)
- ResearchPaper (6)
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
Keywords
- Produktivität (15) (remove)
Institute
In the early 1990s the European Commission and the national governments of the EU member states initiated an extensive deregulation and liberalization process in the European railway industry. Prior to this process, the European railway industry was characterized by loosely connected national monopoly railway companies which faced severe losses of transportation market share and required increasing subsidies. Overall, this system was not what a single European market needed: an integrated transport system that provides reliable and fast cross-border transportation of goods, services, and people. The main elements of the reforms have been the separation of infrastructure management from transport operations, the implementation of interoperability among the national railway systems, the assurance of third-party access to the infrastructure, and the introduction of independent railway regulatory systems. In general, the intention of the reforms has been to enhance competition by opening the market and to improve the economic performance of the European railway industry. The objective of this thesis is to analyze the effectiveness of the European railway deregulation process in enhancing efficiency and productivity in the European railway industry. For that purpose three empirical papers are introduced that use non-parametric and parametric benchmarking methods to evaluate the impact of different production technologies and country- and firm-specific environmental and regulatory conditions on efficiency and productivity. The first paper, ‘Testing for Economies of Scope in European Railways: An Efficiency Analysis’, conducts a pan-European efficiency analysis to investigate the performance of European railways with a particular focus on economies of vertical integration. We test the hypothesis that integrated railways realize economies of scope and, thus, produce railway services with a higher level of efficiency. To determine whether joint or separate production is more efficient, we apply an innovative two-stage data envelopment analysis super-efficiency model which relates the efficiency for integrated production to a reference set consisting of separated firms which use a different production technology. We find that for a majority of European railways economies of scope exist. The second paper, ‘Productivity Growth in European Railways: Technological Progress, Efficiency Change and Scale Effects’, analyzes the efficiency and productivity of the European railway sector in the period of deregulation (1990-2005). Using a stochastic frontier panel data model that controls for unobserved heterogeneity a distance function model is estimated in order to evaluate the sources of productivity growth: technological progress, technical efficiency change and scale effects. The results indicate that technology improvements were by far the most important driver of productivity growth, followed by gains in technical efficiency, and to a lesser extent by exploitation of scale economies. Overall, we find an average productivity growth of 39 percent within the sample period. The third paper, ‘European Railway Deregulation: The Influence of Regulatory and Environmental Conditions on Efficiency’, investigates the impact of regulatory and environmental conditions on technical efficiency of European railways. Using a panel data set of 31 railway firms from 22 European countries from 1994 to 2005, a distance function model, including regulatory and environmental factors, is estimated using stochastic frontier analysis. The results obtained indicate positive and negative efficiency effects of different regulatory reforms. Furthermore, estimating models with and without regulatory and environmental factors indicates that the omission of environmental factors, such as network density, substantially changes parameter estimates and, hence, leads to biased estimation results. The last chapter of the thesis summarizes the results of the three empirical analyses. It contains overall conclusions, highlights implications for economic policy, and provides directions for further research.
This paper contributes to the flourishing literature on exports and productivity by using a unique newly available panel of exporting establishments from the manufacturing sector of Germany from 1995 to 2004 to test three hypotheses derived from a theoretical model by Hopenhayn (Econometrica 1992): (H1) Firms that stop exporting in year t were in t-1 less productive than firms that continue to export in t. (H2) Firms that start to export in year t are less productive than firms that export both in year t-1 and in year t. (H3) Firms from a cohort of export starters that still export in the last year of the panel were more productive in the start year than firms from the same cohort that stopped to export in between. While results for West Germany support all three hypotheses, this is only the case for (H1) and (H2) in East Germany.
This paper presents the first nonparametric test whether German works councils go hand in hand with higher labor productivity or not. It distinguishes between establishments that are covered by collective bargaining or not. Results from a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for first order stochastic dominance tend to indicate that pro-productive effects are found in firms with collective bargaining only. However, the significance level of the test statistic is higher than a usually applied critical level. This somewhat weak evidence casts doubts on the validity of results from recent parametric approaches using a regression framework that point to high positive effects of works councils on productivity.
While the role of exports in promoting growth in general, and productivity in particular, has been investigated empirically using aggregate data for countries and industries for a long time, only recently have comprehensive longitudinal data at the firm level been used to look at the extent and causes of productivity differentials between exporters and their counterparts which sell on the domestic market only. This papers surveys the empirical strategies applied, and the results produced, in 45 microeconometric studies with data from 33 countries that were published between 1995 and 2004. Details aside, exporters are found to be more productive than non-exporters, and the more productive firms self-select into export markets, while exporting does not necessarily improve productivity.
Markteintritte, Marktaustritte und Produktivität - Empirische Befunde zur Dynamik in der Industrie
(2006)
This paper presents the first empirical test with German establishment level data of a hypothesis derived by Helpman, Melitz and Yeaple in a model that explains the decision of heterogeneous firms to serve foreign markets either trough exports or foreign direct investment: only the more productive firms choose to serve the foreign markets, and the most productive among this group will further choose to serve these markets via foreign direct investments. Using a non-parametric test for first order stochastic dominance it is shown that, in line with this hypothesis, the productivity distribution of foreign direct investors dominates that of exporters, which in turn dominates that of national market suppliers.
Mikroökonometrische Studien mit Firmendaten aus vielen Ländern zeigen, dass exportierende Firmen eine höhere Produktivität aufweisen als Firmen, die lediglich den jeweiligen Binnenmarkt ihres Sitzlandes beliefern, und dass es einen Selbstselektionsprozess der produktiveren Firmen auf Auslandsmärkte gibt, während anderseits Exporttätigkeit nicht unbedingt die Produktivität verbessert. Der vorliegende Beitrag präsentiert empirische Befunde hierzu mit Daten für niedersächsische Industriebetriebe aus den Jahren 1995 bis 2004. Folgende Fragen stehen im Mittelpunkt: Wie unterscheiden sich Produktivität und Produktivitätswachstum zwischen exportierenden und nicht-exportierenden mittelständischen Betrieben? Gehen die produktiveren Betriebe den Schritt auf den Weltmarkt? Führen Exporte zu höherer Produktivität? Die Implikationen der Ergebnisse werden dann vor dem Hintergrund der internationalen Evidenz zum Zusammenhang zwischen Exporttätigkeit und Produktivität diskutiert.
Using unique recently released nationally representative high-quality longitudinal data at the plant level, this paper presents the first comprehensive evidence on the relationship between exports and productivity for Germany, a leading actor on the world market for manufactured goods. It applies and extends the now standard approach from the international literature to document that the positive productivity differential of exporters compared to non-exporters is statistically significant, and substantial, even when observed firm characteristics and unobserved firm specific effects are controlled for. For West German plants (but not for East German plants) some empirical evidence for self-selection of more productive firms into export markets is found. There is no evidence for the hypothesis that plants which start to export perform better in the three years after the start than their counterparts which do not start to sell their products on the world market. Results for West Germany support the hypothesis that the productivity differential between exporters and nonexporters is at least in part the result of a market driven selection process in which those export starters that have low productivity at starting time fail as a successful exporter in the years after the start, and only those that were more productive at starting time continue to export.
Using panel data from Spain Farinas and Ruano (IJIO 2005) test three hypotheses from a model by Hopenhayn (Econometrica 1992): (H1) Firms that exit in year t were in t-1 less productive than firms that continue to produce in t. (H2) Firms that enter in year t are less productive than incumbent firms in year t. (H3) Surviving firms from an entry cohort were more productive than non-surviving firms from this cohort in the start year. Results for Spain support all three hypotheses. This paper replicates the study using a unique newly available panel data sets for all manufacturing plants from Germany (1995 – 2002). Again, all three hypotheses are supported empirically.
Empirische Befunde zeigen, dass exportierende niedersächsische Industriebetriebe produktiver als vergleichbare nicht exportierende Betriebe sind, wobei diese Unterschiede bereits vor dem Exportstart bestehen (also eine Selbstselektion der produktiveren Betriebe auf Exportmärkte stattfindet), während es für Lerneffekte im Zusammenhang mit Exportaktivitäten und daraus folgendem höherem Produktivitätswachstum in exportierenden Betrieben keine Evidenz gibt. Mit neu verfügbaren Paneldaten für deutsche Industriebetriebe und auf der Grundlage der Ergebnisse einer neuen international vergleichenden Studie zeigt dieser Beitrag, dass die Produktivitätsprämie in Niedersachsen so hoch wie im Durchschnitt für den Rest von Westdeutschland, aber höher als für Ostdeutschland ist. Niedersachsen nimmt im internationalen Vergleich damit einen Mittelplatz unter den hier betrachteten Ländern ein. Ein interregionaler bzw. internationaler Vergleich der Größenordnungen der Selektions- und Lerneffekte ist hier allerdings nicht möglich. Zwar zeigt eine Gegenüberstellung der Ergebnisse für Niedersachsen mit denen für das übrige West- bzw. für Ostdeutschland und mit den übrigen EU-Ländern in den meisten Fällen ein Bild ähnlich wie für Niedersachsen, aber die Gruppen der Starter umfassen dabei in der Regel nur wenige Firmen, und die geschätzten Koeffizienten sind sehr häufig statistisch insignifikant, so dass ein quantitativer Vergleich nicht möglich ist.
