Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

On the Microeconomics of Specialization: the Role of Non-Convexity

  • Published:
Atlantic Economic Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper investigates the microeconomics of specialization and its effects on firm productivity. We define economies of specialization as the productivity gains obtained under greater specialization. The paper shows how scale effects and non-convex technology affect economies of specialization. Using a nonparametric approach, we present an empirical analysis applied to Korean farms. The results indicate that non-convexity is prevalent especially on large farms. We find that non-convexity generates large productivity benefits from specialization on larger farms (but not on smaller farms), providing a strong incentive for large farms to specialize. We evaluate the linkages between non-convexity, firm size and management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. While our analysis focuses at firm level, there is an extensive literature on the aggregate benefits of specialization. The two approaches (micro versus macro) are related. Economists have stressed the linkages between benefits of specialization and the aggregate gains from trade (e.g., Ricardo 1817; Samuelson 1962). Yet, some controversy remains about the magnitude of the gains from trade. The empirical measurements of aggregate gains from trade have typically been relatively small. For example, Arkolakis et al. (2012, p. 95) have estimated that the welfare gains from trade for the U.S. have ranged from 0.7 % to 1.4 % of income. This has stimulated the search for new models that could generate larger gains from specialization and trade (e.g., Melitz 2003; Bernard et al. 2003; Melitz and Trefler 2012; Caliendo and Rossi-Hansberg 2012).

  2. This paper is a follow-up to Kim et al. (2012a). While Kim et al. (2012a) relied on parametric methods, this paper uses more flexible nonparametric methods to investigate the economics of specialization.

  3. The directional distance function D(z, T) in (1) is the negative of Luenberger’s shortage function (Luenberger 1995).

  4. Note that D(z, T) includes as special cases many measures of technical inefficiency that have appeared in the literature. See the discussion presented in Chambers et al. (1996) and Färe and Grosskopf (2000).

  5. The choice of the neighborhood B r (z, σ) is further discussed below.

  6. Nonparametric analyses of non-convex technology have been previously analyzed by Agrell et al. (2005) and Podinovski (2005). The relationships between our approach and previous analyses are discussed in Chavas and Kim (2015).

  7. See Kim et al. (2012b). for details.

  8. Note that 1000 won (the Korean currency) = 0.89 US dollars.

  9. For example, for a given T, finding that D( i , T) = 0.2 means that the \( {z}_i \)-th farm is technically inefficient: it could move to the production frontier and increase its outputs by 20 % of the average outputs in the sample.

  10. We also conducted the analysis based of alternative choices of neighborhoods. As discussed in Chavas and Kim (2015), choosing smaller (larger) neighborhoods contributed to uncovering more (less) evidence of non-convexity. The sensitivity results are available from the authors upon request.

  11. In the simulation, the specialized netputs z 1 and z 2 are defined as follows. Compared to the original farm (z), the farm specialized in rice (z 1) produces 70 % of the rice output, 30 % of the non-rice outputs, and 50 % of inputs. Compared to the original farm, the farm specialized in non-rice (z 2) produces 30 % of the rice output, 70 % of the non-rice outputs, and 50 % of inputs. In a way consistent with Eq. (2), this guarantees that z = z 1 + z 2. We chose this pattern of partial output specialization as no farm in our sample was observed to be completely specialized (i.e., producing only rice or only non-rice outputs).

References

  • Agrell, P. J., Bogetoft, P., & Tind, J. (2005). Efficiency evaluation with convex pairs. Advanced Modeling and Optimization, 7(2), 211–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arkolakis, C., Costinot, A., & Rodriguez-Clare, A. (2012). New trade models, same old gains? American Economic Review, 102(1), 94–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banker, R. D., Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., Thrall, R. M., & Zhu, J. (2004). Returns to scale in different DEA models. European Journal of Operation Research, 154(2), 345–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J., Panzar, J. C., & Willig, R. (1982). Contestable markets and the theory of industry structure. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S., & Murphy, K. M. (1992). The division of labor, coordination costs and knowledge. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(4), 1137–1160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, A. B., Eaton, J., Jensen, J. B., & Kortum, S. (2003). Plants and productivity in international trade. American Economic Review, 93(4), 1268–1290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caliendo, L., & Rossi-Hansberg, E. (2012). The impact of trade on organization and productivity. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(3), 1393–1467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. G., Chung, Y., & Färe, R. (1996). Benefit and distance functions. Journal of Economic Theory, 70(2), 407–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chavas, J.P. (2001). Structural change in agricultural production: Economics, technology and policy. In B. Gardner &G. Rausser, (Ed.), Handbook in Agricultural Economics, Vol. 1 (pp. 263–285). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  • Chavas, J. P., & Kim, K. (2007). Measurement and sources of economies of scope. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 163(3), 411–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chavas, J. P., & Kim, K. (2015). Nonparametric analysis of technology and productivity under non-convexity: A neighborhood-based approach. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 43, 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coviello, D., Ichino, A., & Persico, N. (2014). Time allocation and task juggling. American Economic Review, 104(2), 609–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., & Lovell, C. A. K. (1994). Production frontiers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Färe, R., & Grosskopf, S. (2000). Theory and application of directional distance functions. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 13, 93–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garicano, L., & Rossi-Hansberg, E. (2015). Knowledge-based hierarchies: Using organizations to understand the economy. Annual Review of Economics, 7, 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, K., Chavas, J. P., Barham, B., & Foltz, J. (2012a). Specialization, diversification, and productivity: A panel data analysis of rice farms in Korea. Agricultural Economics, 43(6), 687–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, K. D., Kim, J. H., & Kim, J. S. (2012b). Retrospect and prospect of structural change in Korean agriculture: An analysis of agricultural census (2000, 2005, 2010). Seoul: Korea Rural Economic Institute Research Report, R686 (in Korean).

  • KREI (Korean Rural Economic Institute) (2015). Agriculture in Korea. Seoul: Samsin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luenberger, D. G. (1995). Microeconomic theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melitz, M. J. (2003). The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica, 71(6), 1695–1725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melitz, M. J., & Trefler, D. (2012). Gains from trade when firms matter. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(2), 91–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podinovski, V. V. (2005). Selective convexity in DEA models. European Journal of Operational Research, 161(2), 552–563.

  • Ricardo, D. (1817). In P. Sraffa (Ed.), On the principles of political economy and taxation (John Murray, London), in The works and correspondence of David Ricardo (Vol. Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Samuelson, P. (1962). The gains from international trade once again. Economic Journal, 72(1962), 820–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (1776). The wealth of nations, Indianapolis, 1993: Hackett Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, G. J. (1951). The division of labor is limited by the extent of the market. Journal of Political Economy, 59(3), 185–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varian, H. R. (1984). The nonparametric approach to production analysis. Econometrica, 52(3), 579–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded in part by a grant from the Graduate School, University of Wisconsin, Madison. This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2014S1A5A2A01014188).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-Paul Chavas.

Appendix

Appendix

Proof of Proposition 1: Eq. (2) can be alternatively written as \( EP\left(z,{z}^1,\dots, {z}^K,T\right)={\sum}_{k=1}^KD\left({z}^k,T\right)\hbox{--} K\ D\left(z/K,T\right)+K\ D\left(z/K,T\right)\hbox{--} D\left(z,T\right) \). Given (4) and (5), this gives the decomposition in (3).

For K > 1, note that \( T\left\{\begin{array}{c}\supset \\ {}=\\ {}\subset \end{array}\right\}\ K\ T \) under \( \left\{\begin{array}{c}IRS\\ {}CRS\\ {}DRS\end{array}\right\} \). It follows from (1) that \( D\left(z,T\right)=\underset{\beta }{ \sup }\ \left\{\beta :\left(z+\beta\ g\right)\in T\right\} \) \( \left\{\begin{array}{c}\ge \\ {}=\\ {}\le \end{array}\right\}\underset{\beta }{ \sup }\ \left\{\beta :\left(z+\beta\ g\right)\in K\ T\right\} \)under \( \left\{\begin{array}{c}IRS\\ {}CRS\\ {}DRS\end{array}\right\} \). Letting b = β/K, we have \( \underset{\beta }{ \sup }\ \left\{\beta :\left(z+\beta\ g\right)\in K\ T\right\}=K\underset{b}{ \sup }\ \left\{b:\left(z/K+b\ g\right)\in T\right\}=K\ D\left(z/K,T\right) \). Combining these results gives the inequalities in (4).

From (1), we have \( D\left({z}^k,T\right)=\underset{\beta_k}{ \sup}\left\{{\beta}_k:\left({z}^k+{\beta}_k\ g\right)\in T\right\} \) and \( {\sum}_{k=1}^K\left(1/K\right)\ D\left({z}^k,T\right)=\underset{\beta }{ \sup }\ \left\{{\sum}_{k=1}^K{\beta}_k/K:\left({z}^k+{\upbeta}_k\ g\right)\in T,k=1,\dots, K\right\} \). Assume that the set T is convex. Then, (z k + β k  g) ∈ T for all k implies that \( {\sum}_{k=1}^K\left[{z}^k/K+\left({\beta}_k/K\right)g\right]\in T \). Letting \( \alpha ={\sum}_{k=1}^K{\beta}_k/K \), it follows that \( \underset{\beta }{ \sup }\ \left\{{\sum}_{k=1}^K{\beta}_k/K:\left({z}^k+{\upbeta}_k\ g\right)\in T,k=1,\dots, K\right\}\le \underset{\alpha }{ \sup }\ \left\{\alpha :\left({\sum}_{k=1}^K{z}_k/K+\alpha\ g\right)\in T\right\}=D\left({\sum}_{k=1}^K{z}_k/K,T\right) \). When \( z={\sum}_{k=1}^K{z}^k \), this yields \( {\sum}_{k=1}^K\left(1/K\right)\ D\left({z}^k,T\right)\le D\left(z/K,T\right) \), which gives the first inequality in (5).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chavas, JP., Kim, K. On the Microeconomics of Specialization: the Role of Non-Convexity. Atl Econ J 44, 387–403 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11293-016-9507-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11293-016-9507-5

Keywords

JEL

Navigation