The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Does management matter? Evidence from India
Open accessAbstract
A long standing question in social science is whether management matters. To investigate this we run a field experiment on 28 plants in large Indian textile firms to evaluate the causal impact of modernizing management practices. We do this by providing free management consulting to a set of randomly chosen treatment plants, and compare their performance to a set of control plants. We find that improving management practices had three main effects. First, it led to significantly higher efficiency and quality, and lower inventory levels. These changes increased productivity by 10.5 % and profitability by 16.8 % on average. Second, it increased the decentralization of decision making, as better production monitoring enabled the owners to delegate more decisions to their plant managers. Third, it increased the use of computers, necessitated by the extensive data collection, analysis and dissemination involved in modern management. Since these management practices were profitable, and firms were able to transfer them from their treatment plants to their other plants, this raises the question of why they had not adopted these practices before? Our results suggest that informational barriers were initially a primary factor in explaining this lack of adoption. Modern management practices are a type of technology that diffuse slowly between firms, with many Indian firms simply unaware of their impact or existence. A secondary factor constraining management appears to be the ability and behavior of the family firm CEOs.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
On the Size Distribution of Business Firms
Lucas, R. E. (1978) · The Bell Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/3003596 · Cited by 3,236
Syverson, C. (2011) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.49.2.326 · Cited by 2,942
Learning about a New Technology: Pineapple in Ghana
Conley, T. G., & Udry, C. R. (2010) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.100.1.35 · Cited by 2,180
Technical change, inequality, and the labor market
Acemoglu, D. (2002) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.40.1.7 · Cited by 1,767
Beyond baseline and follow-up: The case for more T in experiments
McKenzie, D. (2012) · Journal of Development Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2012.01.002 · Cited by 871
Self-citation
Cited by
Syverson, C. (2011) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.49.2.326 · Cited by 2,942
Does Working from Home Work? Evidence from a Chinese Experiment *
Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J., & Ying, Z. J. (2015) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qju032 · Cited by 1,991
Self-citationBeyond baseline and follow-up: The case for more T in experiments
McKenzie, D. (2012) · Journal of Development Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2012.01.002 · Cited by 871
Self-citationMcKenzie, D., & Woodruff, C. (2014) · The World Bank Research Observer · doi:10.1093/wbro/lkt007 · Cited by 659
Self-citationWhat Drives Differences in Management Practices?
Bloom, N., Brynjolfsson, E., Foster, L., Jarmin, R., Patnaik, M., Saporta-Eksten, I., & Van Reenen, J. (2019) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20170491 · Cited by 502
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Bloom, N., Eifert, B., Mahajan, A., McKenzie, D., & Roberts, J.
- Publisher
- World Bank
- Published
- 2011-02-01
- OpenAlex
- W2009263548
- Cited by
- 603
- References
- 5
- Type
- report
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Does management matter? Evidence from India. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1596/1813-9450-5573
- The paper
- Bloom, N., Eifert, B., Mahajan, A., McKenzie, D., & Roberts, J. (2011). Does management matter? Evidence from India. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-5573
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.