The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Product Differentiation, Multiproduct Firms, and Estimating the Impact of Trade Liberalization on Productivity
Open accessAbstract
This paper studies whether removing barriers to trade induces efficiency gains for producers. Like almost all empirical work which relies on a production function to recover productivity measures, I do not observe physical output at the firm level. Therefore, it is imperative to control for unobserved prices and demand shocks. I develop an empirical model that combines a demand system with a production function to generate estimates of productivity. I rely on my framework to identify the productivity effects from reduced trade protection in the Belgian textile market. This trade liberalization provides me with observed demand shifters that are used to separate out the associated price, scale, and productivity effects. Using a matched plant–product level data set and detailed quota data, I find that correcting for unobserved prices leads to substantially lower productivity gains. More specifically, abolishing all quota protections increases firm-level productivity by only 2 percent as opposed to 8 percent when relying on standard measures of productivity. My results beg for a serious reevaluation of a long list of empirical studies that document productivity responses to major industry shocks and, in particular, to opening up to trade. My findings imply the need to study the impact of changes in the operating environment on productivity together with market power and prices in one integrated framework. The suggested method and identification strategy are quite general and can be applied whenever it is important to distinguish between revenue productivity and physical productivity.
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
Javorcik, B. S. (2004) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/0002828041464605 · Cited by 2,950
“Market Structure and Productivity: A Concrete Example”
Syverson, C. (2004) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/424743 · Cited by 683
Cited by
Syverson, C. (2011) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.49.2.326 · Cited by 2,942
Creative accounting or creative destruction? Firm-level productivity growth in Chinese manufacturing
Brandt, L., Van Biesebroeck, J., & Zhang, Y. (2012) · Journal of Development Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2011.02.002 · Cited by 2,303
The rise of market power and the macroeconomic implications
De Loecker, J., Eeckhout, J., & Unger, G. (2020) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjz041 · Cited by 1,893
Self-citationIdentifying Technology Spillovers and Product Market Rivalry
(2013) · Econometrica · doi:10.3982/ecta9466 · Cited by 1,758
Trade Induced Technical Change? The Impact of Chinese Imports on Innovation, IT and Productivity
Bloom, N., Draca, M., & Van Reenen, J. (2016) · The Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.1093/restud/rdv039 · Cited by 1,521
Metadata
- Venue
- Econometrica
- Publisher
- The Econometric Society
- Published
- 2011
- Volume
- 79
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1407-1451
- ISSN
- 0012-9682 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2891422865
- Cited by
- 520
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 72.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Product Differentiation, Multiproduct Firms, and Estimating the Impact of Trade Liberalization on Productivity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3982/ecta7617
- The paper
- Product Differentiation, Multiproduct Firms, and Estimating the Impact of Trade Liberalization on Productivity. (2011). Econometrica. https://doi.org/10.3982/ecta7617
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.