IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cen/wpaper/96-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Measuring the Impact of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership

Author

Listed:
  • Ron Jarmin

Abstract

In this paper, I measure the impact of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) on productivity and sales growth at manufacturing plants. To do this, I match MEP client data to the Census Bureau�s Longitudinal Research Database (LRD). The LRD contains data for all manufacturing establishments in the U.S. and provides a number of measures of plant performance and characteristics that are measured consistently across plants and time. This facilitates valid comparisons between both client and non-client plants and among clients served by different MEP centers. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) administers the MEP as part of their effort to improve the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing. The program provides business and technical assistance to small and medium sized manufacturers much as agricultural extension does for farmers. The goal of the paper is to see if measures of plant performance (e.g., productivity and sales growth) are systematically related to participation in the MEP, while controlling for other factors that are known or thought to influence performance. Selection bias is often a problem in evaluation studies so I specify an econometric model that controls for selection. I estimate the model with data from 8 manufacturing extension centers in 2 states. The control group includes all plants from each state in the LRD. Preliminary results indicate that MEP participation is systematically related to productivity growth but not to sales growth.

Suggested Citation

  • Ron Jarmin, 1996. "Measuring the Impact of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership," Working Papers 96-8, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    • Handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:96-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www2.census.gov/ces/wp/1996/CES-WP-96-08.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. LaLonde, Robert J, 1986. "Evaluating the Econometric Evaluations of Training Programs with Experimental Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 604-620, September.
    2. Birkhaeuser, Dean & Evenson, Robert E & Feder, Gershon, 1991. "The Economic Impact of Agricultural Extension: A Review," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(3), pages 607-650, April.
    3. Robert Moffitt, 1991. "Program Evaluation With Nonexperimental Data," Evaluation Review, , vol. 15(3), pages 291-314, June.
    4. Martin, S. A., 1994. "Effectiveness of State Technology Incentives (The): Evidence from the Machine Tool Industry," Staff General Research Papers Archive 703, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    5. Lung-Fei Lee, 1982. "Some Approaches to the Correction of Selectivity Bias," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 49(3), pages 355-372.
    6. Ron Jarmin, 1995. "Using Matched Client And Census Data To Evaluate The Performance Of The Manufacturing Extension Partnership," Working Papers 95-7, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    7. James J. Heckman & V. Joseph Hotz & Marcelo Dabos, 1987. "Do We Need Experimental Data To Evaluate the Impact of Manpower Training On Earnings?," Evaluation Review, , vol. 11(4), pages 395-427, August.
    8. Irwin Feller, 1993. "What agricultural extension has to offer as a model for manufacturing modernization," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(3), pages 574-581.
    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. Ronald S. Jarmin, 1999. "Evaluating the impact of manufacturing extension on productivity growth," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(1), pages 99-119.
    2. Robert J. LaLonde, 2003. "Employment and Training Programs," NBER Chapters, in: Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the United States, pages 517-586, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Jeffrey Smith, 2000. "A Critical Survey of Empirical Methods for Evaluating Active Labor Market Policies," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 136(III), pages 247-268, September.
    4. Eric Rasmusen, 1995. "Observed Choice, Estimation, and Optimism About Policy Changes," Econometrics 9506004, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 16 Jun 1995.
    5. Juan Díaz & Miguel Jaramillo, 2006. "An Evaluation of the Peruvian "Youth Labor Training Program"-PROJOVEN," OVE Working Papers 1006, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE).
    6. Regner, Hakan, 2002. "A nonexperimental evaluation of training programs for the unemployed in Sweden," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 187-206, April.
    7. Metcalf, Charles E., 1997. "The Advantages of Experimental Designs for Evaluating Sex Education Programs," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(7), pages 507-523, November.
    8. Patrick Kline & Christopher R. Walters, 2019. "On Heckits, LATE, and Numerical Equivalence," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(2), pages 677-696, March.
    9. Mona Said, 2003. "The Distribution of Gender and Public Sector Pay Premia: Evidence from the Egyptian Organised Sector," Working Papers 132, Department of Economics, SOAS University of London, UK.
    10. Jeffrey Smith & Arthur Sweetman, 2016. "Viewpoint: Estimating the causal effects of policies and programs," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 49(3), pages 871-905, August.
    11. Fitzenberger, Bernd & Prey, Hedwig, 1996. "Training in East Germany: An evaluation of the effects on employment and wages," Discussion Papers 36, University of Konstanz, Center for International Labor Economics (CILE).
    12. David H. Dean & Robert C. Dolan & Robert M. Schmidt, 1999. "Evaluating the Vocational Rehabilitation Program Using Longitudinal Data," Evaluation Review, , vol. 23(2), pages 162-189, April.
    13. Shapira, Philip & Youtie, Jan & Roessner, J. David, 1996. "Current practices in the evaluation of US industrial modernization programs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 185-214, March.
    14. Stern, Steven, 1996. "Semiparametric estimates of the supply and demand effects of disability on labor force participation," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1-2), pages 49-70.
    15. Gershon Feder & Rinku Murgai & Jaime B. Quizon, 2004. "Sending Farmers Back to School: The Impact of Farmer Field Schools in Indonesia," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(1), pages 45-62.
    16. Joo, Joonhwi & LaLonde, Robert J., 2014. "Testing for Selection Bias," IZA Discussion Papers 8455, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Humphreys, Keith & Phibbs, Ciaran S. & Moos, Rudolf H., 1996. "Addressing self-selection effects in evaluations of mutual help groups and professional mental health services: An introduction to two-stage sample selection models," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 301-308, November.
    18. Heckman, J.J. & Hotz, V.J., 1988. "Choosing Among Alternative Nonexperimental Methods For Estimating The Impact Of Social Programs: The Case Of Manpower Training," University of Chicago - Economics Research Center 88-12, Chicago - Economics Research Center.
    19. Vincent Ngeno, 2017. "The Impact of Adoption of Recommended Tea Plucking Interval on Tea Yields in Kenya," Agrekon, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(3), pages 290-295, July.
    20. Liu, Yan & Chen, Minjie & Yu, Jianyu & Wang, Xiaobing, 2024. "Being a happy farmer: Technology adoption and subjective well-being," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 385-405.

    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:96-8. 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.