Cited by 1,418Experimental Behavioral Economics StudiesManagement Theory and PracticeFirm Innovation and Growth

Does Management Matter? Evidence from India *

Open access
Bloom, Nicholas, Eifert, Benn, Mahajan, Aprajit, McKenzie, David, Roberts, John·2013·The Quarterly Journal of Economics

Abstract

A long-standing question is whether differences in management practices across firms can explain differences in productivity, especially in developing countries where these spreads appear particularly large. To investigate this, we ran a management field experiment on large Indian textile firms. We provided free consulting on management practices to randomly chosen treatment plants and compared their performance to a set of control plants. We find that adopting these management practices raised productivity by 17% in the first year through improved quality and efficiency and reduced inventory, and within three years led to the opening of more production plants. Why had the firms not adopted these profitable practices previously? Our results suggest that informational barriers were the primary factor explaining this lack of adoption. Also, because reallocation across firms appeared to be constrained by limits on managerial time, competition had not forced badly managed firms to exit.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/qje/qjs044

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Under current law, loan forgiveness is treated as taxable income.

    “under current law loan forgiveness is treated as taxable income.”

    From The Distributional Effects of Student Loan Forgiveness (2023) · cites this paper as [16]

    Our copy discusses firms’ loans and tax avoidance in Section VII.A, but not the tax treatment of forgiven loans. Searches for loan forgiveness as taxable income and for cancellation-of-debt tax law found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 63 · Cited by 1,418

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. [2]2. Autor, David, Lawrence Katz, and Mellissa Kearney (2008), "Trends in US wage Inequality: Revising the Revisionists," Review of Economics and Statistics, 90 (2), 300-323.
  2. [6]6. Bertrand, Marianne and Antoinette Schoar (2003) "Managing with Style: The Effects of Managers on Corporate Policy," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1169-1208.
  3. [8]8. Bloom, Nicholas, Raffaella Sadun, and John Van Reenen (2009a) "Americans do IT Better: American Multinationals and the Productivity Miracle," forthcoming American Economic Review.
  4. [11]11. Bloom, Nicholas, and John Van Reenen (2010) "Human Resource Management and Productivity," draft chapter for the, Handbook of Labor Economics.
  5. [15]15. Cappelli, P and D. Neumark (2001), "Do 'High Performance" Work Practices Improve Establishment- Level Outcomes?" Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54(4), 737-775.
  6. [16]16. Clark, Greg (1987), "Why isn't the Whole World Developed?" Journal of Economic History, 141-173.
  7. [19]19. Delery, John and Harold Doty (1996), "Modes of Theorizing in Strategic Human Resource Management: Test of Universalistic, Contingency and Configurational Performance Predictions", Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 802-835.
  8. [24]24. Garicano, Luis and Van Zandt, Timothy (2010), "Hierarchy," in Robert Gibbons and John Roberts, editors, Handbook of Organizational Economics, Princeton University Press.
  9. [25]25. Gibbons, Robert and John Roberts (2010), The Handbook of the Organizational Economics, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  10. [26]26. Greevy, Robert, Jeffrey H. Silber, Avital Cnaan and Paul R. Rosenbaum (2004), "Randomization Inference with Imperfect Compliance in the ACE-inhibitor," Journal of the American Statistical Association. 99(465), 7-15.
  11. [28]28. Hsieh, Chiang-Tai and Pete Klenow (2010), "Development accounting," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 2(1), 207-223.
  12. [31]31. Ichniowski, Casey, Kathryn Shaw and Giovanna Prenushi. (1997), "The Effects of Human Resource Management: A Study of Steel Finishing Lines", American Economic Review, 87(3), 291-313.
  13. [35]35. MacDuffie, John Paul (1995), "Human Resource Bundles and Management Performance: Organizational Logic and Flexible Production Systems," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(2), 197-221.
  14. [41]41. Mookherjee, Dilip (2010), "Incentives and Hierarchy," in Robert Gibbons and John Roberts, editors, Handbook of Organizational Economics, Princeton University Press, forthcoming.
  15. [51]51. Woodward J. (1958), Management and Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Authors
Bloom, N., Eifert, B., Mahajan, A., McKenzie, D., & Roberts, J.
Affiliations
  • Center for Economic and Policy Research (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • World Bank (US)
Venue
The Quarterly Journal of Economics
Published
2012-11-18
Volume
128
Issue
1
Pages
1-51
ISSN
  • 0033-5533 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-4650
OpenAlex
W2262603336
Cited by
1,418
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 84 · 2025: 88 · 2024: 99 · 2023: 131 · 2022: 125 · 2021: 152 · 2020: 127 · 2019: 114 · 2018: 109 · 2017: 93 · 2016: 91 · 2015: 74 · 2014: 57 · 2013: 42 · 2012: 22
FWCI
106.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Quarterly Journal of Economics (publishedVersion)
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (publishedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  • World Bank Group
  • European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  • Harvard Business School
  • London School of Economics and Political Science
  • International Growth Centre (WC2A 2AE)
  • KU Leuven
  • Stanford Institute for Research in the Social Sciences
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/H02123X/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management Theory and Practice
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Firm Innovation and Growth
Keywords
management practices, firm performance, textile industry, productivity, quality, inventory reduction, information flow, delegation, computer adoption, diffusion of management practices, information barriers, India

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review