IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_11028.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Adoption of Non-Rival Inputs and Firm Scope

Author

Listed:
  • Xian Jiang
  • Hannah Rubinton

Abstract

Custom software is distinct from other types of capital in that it is non-rival—once a firm makes an investment in custom software, it can be used simultaneously across its many establishments. Using confidential U.S. Census data, we document that while firms with more establishments are more likely to invest in custom software, they spend less on it as a share of total capital expenditure. We explain these empirical patterns by developing a model that incorporates the non-rivalry of custom software. In the model, firms choose whether to adopt custom software, the intensity of their investment, and their scope, balancing the cost of managing multiple establishments with the increasing returns to scope from the non-rivalrous custom software investment. Using the calibrated model, we assess the extent to which the decline in the rental rate of custom software over the past 40 years can account for a number of macroeconomic trends, including increases in firm scope and concentration.

Suggested Citation

  • Xian Jiang & Hannah Rubinton, 2024. "The Adoption of Non-Rival Inputs and Firm Scope," CESifo Working Paper Series 11028, CESifo.
    • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_11028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp11028.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicholas Bloom & Raffaella Sadun & John Van Reenen, 2012. "Americans Do IT Better: US Multinationals and the Productivity Miracle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 167-201, February.
    2. Xiang Ding, 2023. "Industry Linkages from Joint Production," Working Papers 23-02, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    3. Illenin O. Kondo & Logan T. Lewis & Andrea Stella, 2023. "Heavy tailed but not Zipf: Firm and establishment size in the United States," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(5), pages 767-785, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xian Jiang & Hannah Rubinton, 2024. "The Adoption of Non-Rival Inputs and Firm Scope," Working Papers 2024-005, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, revised Mar 2024.
    2. Ulrike Malmendier & Vincenzo Pezone & Hui Zheng, 2023. "Managerial Duties and Managerial Biases," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(6), pages 3174-3201, June.
    3. Elstner, Steffen & Feld, Lars P. & Schmidt, Christoph M., 2018. "The German productivity paradox: Facts and explanations," Ruhr Economic Papers 767, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    4. Martin, Ralf, 2009. "Why is the US so energy intensive? Evidence from US multinationals in the UK," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 28703, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Poschke, Markus, 2013. "The Decision to Become an Entrepreneur and the Firm Size Distribution: A Unifying Framework for Policy Analysis," IZA Discussion Papers 7757, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. P. Charnoz & C. Lelarge & C. Trevien, 2016. "Communication Costs and the Internal Organization of Multi-Plant Businesses: Evidence from the Impact of the French High-Speed Rail," Documents de Travail de l'Insee - INSEE Working Papers g2016-02, Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques.
    7. Andrew Reeson & Lachlan Rudd, 2016. "ICT Activity, Innovation and Productivity: An Analysis of Data From Australian Businesses," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 35(3), pages 245-255, September.
    8. Forman, Chris & van Zeebroeck, Nicolas, 2019. "Digital technology adoption and knowledge flows within firms: Can the Internet overcome geographic and technological distance?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.
    9. López, Alberto, 2012. "Productivity effects of ICTs and organizational change: A test of the complementarity hypothesis in Spain," MPRA Paper 40400, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Barth, Erling & Davis, James C. & Freeman, Richard B. & McElheran, Kristina, 2023. "Twisting the demand curve: Digitalization and the older workforce," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 233(2), pages 443-467.
    11. Nicholas Bloom & Luis Garicano & Raffaella Sadun & John Van Reenen, 2014. "The Distinct Effects of Information Technology and Communication Technology on Firm Organization," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(12), pages 2859-2885, December.
    12. Mary Amiti & Cédric Duprez & Jozef Konings & John Van Reenen, 2023. "FDI and Superstar Spillovers: Evidence from Firm-to-Firm Transactions," NBER Working Papers 31128, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Concetta Castiglione & Davide Infante & Janna Smirnova, 2022. "Do female managers perform better? Evidence from Italian manufacturing firms," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 2194-2209, April.
    14. Hätönen, Jussi, 2011. "The economic impact of fixed and mobile high-speed networks," EIB Papers 7/2011, European Investment Bank, Economics Department.
    15. Greene, William H. & Hornstein, Abigail S. & White, Lawrence J., 2009. "Multinationals do it better: Evidence on the efficiency of corporations' capital budgeting," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 703-720, December.
    16. Nicholas Bloom & Raffaella Sadun & John Van Reenen, 2012. "Americans Do IT Better: US Multinationals and the Productivity Miracle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 167-201, February.
    17. Jaan Masso & Priit Vahter, 2008. "Technological innovation and productivity in late-transition Estonia: econometric evidence from innovation surveys," The European Journal of Development Research, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 20(2), pages 240-261.
    18. Greaney, Theresa M. & Tanaka, Ayumu, 2021. "Foreign Ownership, Exporting and Gender Wage Gaps: Evidence from Japanese Linked Employer-Employee Data," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    19. Georg Graetz & Guy Michaels, 2017. "Is Modern Technology Responsible for Jobless Recoveries?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 168-173, May.
    20. Wolfgang Briglauer & Michał Grajek, 2021. "Effectiveness and efficiency of state aid for new broadband networks: Evidence from OECD member states," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-21-01, ESMT European School of Management and Technology.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    technology adoption; non-rivalry; concentration; firm scope;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D24 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
    • E22 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Consumption, Saving, Production, Employment, and Investment - - - Investment; Capital; Intangible Capital; Capacity
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_11028. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.