Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T14:37:42.962Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Une politique de baisse des subventions, favorisant la sélection des firmes, est-elle efficace?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2015

Raies Asma
Get access

Résumé

Le but de cet article est de montrer que le mécanisme de sélection naturelle des firmes peut entraver la croissance de la productivité agrégée de l'économie, et ce, contrairement aux résultats suggérés par la littérature théorique existante. Cette dernière considère que le mécanisme de sélection des firmes se base sur les niveaux de productivité de celles-ci. Nous supposons, dans cet article, que les firmes sont hétérogènes par non seulement leurs niveaux de productivité mais aussi par leurs coûts fixes. En outre, en tenant compte d'une possible perte d'expérience pour les firmes inactives, notre étude met clairement en avant un effet négatif de la sortie des firmes, et par là d'une baisse des subventions accordées à celles-ci, sur la croissance de la productivité agrégée tant à court qu'à long terme.

Summary

Summary

The aim of this paper is to show that - on the contrary to the existing theoretical literature- market selection mechanism can slow down the aggregate productivity growth. This literature always presumes that firms differ only by their productivity levels and have the same fixed cost. The two basic ideas in this paper are that both firms' productivity levels and fixed costs are heterogeneous. Moreover, exit of firms leads to a partial loss of knowledge which causes a further loss in productivity. Consequently, we show that exit of firms reduces the aggregate productivity growth both in the short and the long run. As a result, a decease in public subsidies which stimulates exit can be harmful for productivity growth.

Keywords

Market selectionresearch and developmentproductivity growthSélection des firmesrecherche et développementcroissance de la productivitéL10304L10304
Type
Research Article
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 77 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 53 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2011 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Maître Assistants à la FSEG de SFAX et Chercheur au CED-TEAM, Université de Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, E-mail: Asma.Raies@malix.univ-paris1.fr, Rue Habib Thameur, Sahline 5012, Tunisie. Tél 0021620809410 Remerciements: Je remercie Mr Jean Pierre Laffargue, professeur à l'Université de Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne, pour ses remarques précieuses.

References

Références bibliographiques

Allan, C. (2007) “Productivity dispersion and plant selection in the ready-mix concrete industry” Economics Department NYU Stern Mars 2007.Google Scholar
Asplund, M. and Volker, N. (2006), “Firm Turnover in Imperfectly Competitive Markets”, Review of Economic Studies, vol.73, n° 2, pp 295–327.Google Scholar
Bellone, F., Musso, P., Quere, M. et Esta, L., (2006), “Productivity and Market Selection of French Manufacturing Firms in the Nineties”, Revue de L'OFCE n° 97, pp 319–349.Google Scholar
Caspaer van, E., (1997), “Entry and Exit, Cycles, and Productivity Growth”, Oxford Economic Papers, New Series, vol 49, pp 167–187.Google Scholar
Richard, Ericson and Pakes, Ariel, (1989), “An Alternative Theory of Firm and Industry Dynamics”, Discussion Paper 445, Columbia University, September 1989.Google Scholar
Fudenberg, D. and Tirole, J., (1986), “A Theory of Exit in Duopoly”, Econometrica. vol 54, n° 4, pp 943–960.Google Scholar
Hopenhayn, H., (1992), “Entry, Exit and Firm Dynamics in Long Run Equilibrium”, Econometrica, vol 60, n° 5, pp 1127–1150.Google Scholar
Hopenhayn, H. and Rogerson, R., (1993), “Job Turnover and Policy Evaluation: A General Equilibrium Approach', Journal of Political Economy, vol 101, n° 5, pp 915-38.Google Scholar
Jovanovic, B., (1982), “Favorable Selection With Asymmetric Information”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol 97, n° 3, pp 535–539.Google Scholar
Jovanovic, B. and MacDonald, G.M., (1994), “Competitive Diffusion,” Journal of Political Economy, vol 102, n° 1, pp 24–52.Google Scholar
Kiyohiko, G. Nishimura, Takanobu Nakajima, Kozo Kiyota, (2005), “Does the Natural Selection Mechanism Still Work in Severe Recessions? Examination of the Japanese Economy”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, vol 58, pp 53–78.Google Scholar
Lippman, S.A., Mccardle, K.F. and Rummelt, R.P., (1991), “Heterogeneity Under Competition”, Economic Inquiry, vol 29, pp 774–782.Google Scholar
Liu, L. and Tybout, J. (1996), “Productivity Growth in Chile and Columbia: The Role of Entry, Exit and Learnin”, in Roberts, and Tybout, (eds.), Industrial Evolution in Developing Countries: Micro Patterns of Turnover, Productivity and Market Structure, New York: Oxford University Press for the World Ban-k, pp 73–103.Google Scholar
Melitz, M.J. (2003), “The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity”, NBER Working Paper n° 8881.Google Scholar
Pissarides, C.A. (1992), “Loss of Skills during Unemployment and the Persistence of Employment Shock” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol 107, pp 1371–1390.Google Scholar