IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cen/wpaper/22-13.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Has toughness of local competition declined?

Author

Listed:
  • Lan Dinh

Abstract

Recent evidence on rm-level markups and concentration raises a concern that market competition has declined in the U.S. over the last few decades. Since measuring competition is difficult, methodologies used to arrive at these findings have merits but also raise technical concerns which question the validity of these results. Given the significance of documenting how competition has changed, I contribute to this literature by studying a different measure of competition. Specifically, I estimate the toughness of local competition over time. To derive this estimate, I use a generalized monopolistic competition model with variable markups. This model generates insights that allows me to measure competition as the sensitivity of weighted-average markup to changes in the number of competitors using directly observable variables. Compared to firm-level markups estimation, this method relaxes the need to estimate production functions. I then use confidential Census data to estimate toughness of local competition from 1997 to 2016, which shows that local competition has decreased in non-tradable industries on average in the U.S. during this time period.

Suggested Citation

  • Lan Dinh, 2022. "Has toughness of local competition declined?," Working Papers 22-13, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
  • Handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:22-13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www2.census.gov/ces/wp/2022/CES-WP-22-13.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2022
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marc J. Melitz & Giancarlo I. P. Ottaviano, 2021. "Market Size, Trade, and Productivity," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Firms and Workers in a Globalized World Larger Markets, Tougher Competition, chapter 4, pages 87-108, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Chad Syverson, 2004. "Market Structure and Productivity: A Concrete Example," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(6), pages 1181-1222, December.
    3. Peter J. Klenow & Jonathan L. Willis, 2016. "Real Rigidities and Nominal Price Changes," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 83(331), pages 443-472, July.
    4. Fabian Eckert & Andrés Gvirtz & Jack Liang & Michael Peters, 2020. "A Method to Construct Geographical Crosswalks with an Application to US Counties since 1790," NBER Working Papers 26770, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Gervais, Antoine & Jensen, J. Bradford, 2019. "The tradability of services: Geographic concentration and trade costs," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 331-350.
    6. Kimball, Miles S, 1995. "The Quantitative Analytics of the Basic Neomonetarist Model," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 27(4), pages 1241-1277, November.
    7. Jeffrey R. Campbell & Hugo A. Hopenhayn, 2005. "Market Size Matters," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(1), pages 1-25, March.
    8. Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2015. "Control Function Methods in Applied Econometrics," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 50(2), pages 420-445.
    9. Gustavo Grullon & Yelena Larkin & Roni Michaely, 2019. "Are US Industries Becoming More Concentrated?," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 23(4), pages 697-743.
    10. Marcus Asplund & Volker Nocke, 2006. "Firm Turnover in Imperfectly Competitive Markets -super-1," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 73(2), pages 295-327.
    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. Chen Yeh, 2017. "Are firm-level idiosyncratic shocks important for U.S. aggregate volatility?," Working Papers 17-23, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    2. Shon M. Ferguson, 2015. "Endogenous Product Differentiation, Market Size and Prices," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 45-61, February.
    3. G. Corcos & M. Del Gatto & G. Mion & GIP. Ottaviano, 2007. "Productivity and Firm Selection: Intra- vs International Trade," Working Paper CRENoS 200706, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    4. Laura Alfaro & Anusha Chari, 2014. "Deregulation, Misallocation, and Size: Evidence from India," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(4), pages 897-936.
    5. Parenti, Mathieu & Ushchev, Philip & Thisse, Jacques-François, 2017. "Toward a theory of monopolistic competition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 86-115.
    6. Matthias Bürker & G. Alfredo Minerva, 2014. "Civic capital and the size distribution of plants: short-run dynamics and long-run equilibrium," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(4), pages 797-847.
    7. Okubo, Toshihiro & Picard, Pierre M. & Thisse, Jacques-François, 2010. "The spatial selection of heterogeneous firms," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 230-237, November.
    8. Mary Amiti & Oleg Itskhoki & Jozef Konings, 2016. "International Shocks and Domestic Prices: How Large Are Strategic Complementarities?," NBER Working Papers 22119, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Marc J. Melitz & Giancarlo I. P. Ottaviano, 2021. "Market Size, Trade, and Productivity," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Firms and Workers in a Globalized World Larger Markets, Tougher Competition, chapter 4, pages 87-108, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    10. Costas Arkolakis & Arnaud Costinot & Dave Donaldson & Andrés Rodríguez-Clare, 2019. "The Elusive Pro-Competitive Effects of Trade," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(1), pages 46-80.
    11. Timothy Dunne & Shawn D. Klimek & Mark J. Roberts & Daniel Yi Xu, 2013. "Entry, exit, and the determinants of market structure," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 44(3), pages 462-487, September.
    12. Greg Kaplan & Piotr Zoch, 2020. "Markups, Labor Market Inequality and the Nature of Work," Working Papers 2020-09, Becker Friedman Institute for Research In Economics.
    13. Rene Söllner, 2010. "Product Diversification and Labor Productivity Dispersion in German Manufacturing Industries," Jena Economics Research Papers 2010-028, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    14. Kato, Ryo & Okuda, Tatsushi & Tsuruga, Takayuki, 2021. "Sectoral inflation persistence, market concentration, and imperfect common knowledge," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 500-517.
    15. Marek Zapletal, 2019. "The Effects of Occupational Licensing: Evidence from Business‐Level Data," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 57(4), pages 894-918, December.
    16. David Rezza Baqaee & Emmanuel Farhi & Kunal Sangani, 2024. "The Darwinian Returns to Scale," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 91(3), pages 1373-1405.
    17. Auer, Raphael A. & Schoenle, Raphael S., 2016. "Market structure and exchange rate pass-through," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 60-77.
    18. Monika Mrázová & J. Peter Neary, 2017. "Not So Demanding: Demand Structure and Firm Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(12), pages 3835-3874, December.
    19. Ufuk Akcigit, 2009. "Firm Size, Innovation Dynamics and Growth," 2009 Meeting Papers 1267, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    20. Marek Zapletal, 2017. "The Effects of Occupational Licensing Evidence from Detailed Business-Level Data," Working Papers 17-20, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Market size; local competition; markups;
    All these keywords.

    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:cen:wpaper:22-13. 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: Dawn Anderson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesgvus.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.