Abstract
In this paper we study the robustness of the results found recently by Guzzini and Palestrini (J Econ Interact Coord 11:35–55, 2016). Since the original analysis was carried out in a static setting, we perform a dynamic panel analysis by using the same dataset. The inclusion of the lagged value of the endogenous variable, missing in the original paper, could be justified for several reasons. Firstly, the statistical relationship may have itself a dynamical nature; secondly the inclusion of lagged-endogenous variable is a way to mitigate the possibility of an omitted variable problem. We find that the results are only qualitatively the same, and we discuss the quantitative differences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We use the Arellano and Bond (1991) difference GMM estimator. In particular, we use as instruments the dependent variable with lags 2 and 3 and the set of the exogenous variables.
This estimation is validated by the three standard tests. As the reader can see from Table 1, the AR(1) test is rejected while the AR(2) is not (in accordance with the dynamic panel theory). At the end, the Hansen test for the instruments’ exogenenity is not rejected suggesting that the instruments as a group are exogenous.
Also our analysis is conducted by using robust standard errors to cope with the problem of heteroskedasticity.
The average values of LIA are about 0.7 and the standard deviations are about 0.12. For details see Guzzini and Palestrini (2016, Table 3).
References
Adelman MA (1955) Concept and statistical measurement of vertical integration. In: Stigler GJ (ed) Business concentration and price policy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 281–322
Angelini P, Generale A (2008) On the evolution of firm size distribution. Am Econ Rev 98(1):426–438
Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud 58:277297
Bianco M, Nicodano G (2006) Pyramidal groups and debt. Eur Econ Rev 50(4):937–961
Evans DS (1987) The relationship between firm growth, size, and age: estimates for 100 manufacturing-industries. J Ind Econ 35:567–581
Gibrat R (1931) Les inégalités économiques. Recueil Sirey, Paris
Guzzini E, Iacobucci D (2014a) Business group affiliation and R&D. Ind Innov 21(1):20–42
Guzzini E, Iacobucci D (2014b) Ownership as R&D incentive in business groups. Small Bus Econ 43(1):119–135
Guzzini E, Palestrini A (2016) Growth in total factor productivity and links among firms. J Econ Interact Coord 11:35–55
Hall BH (1987) The relationship between firm size and firm growth in the US manufacturing sector. J Ind Econ 35:583–606
Levine DK (2012) Production chains. Rev Econ Dyn 15:271–282
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Palestrini, A., Guzzini, E. A note on the relationship between the total factor productivity and the network of firms. J Econ Interact Coord 14, 419–423 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11403-017-0203-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11403-017-0203-6