NBER Working Papers by Sergey Lychagin

We simultaneously assess the contributions to productivity of three sources of research and development spillovers: geographic, technology and product–market proximity. To do this, we construct a new measure of geographic proximity that is based on the distribution of a firm’s inventor locations rather than its headquarters, and we report both parametric and semiparametric estimates of our geographic– distance functions. We find that: i) Geographic space matters even after conditioning on horizontal and technological spillovers; ii) Technological proximity matters; iii) Product–market proximity is less important; iv) Locations of researchers are more important than headquarters but both have explanatory power; and v) Geographic markets are very local.

We use a proprietary data set on the floor-level operations at the Bhilai Rail and Structural Mill in India to understand the determinants of changes in plant productivity in 2000-2003. During this period there was a 35 percent increase in output with minimal changes in factors of production, but sizable reductions in production delays. We model interruptions to the production process and find that a large part of these reductions are attributable to training. Our results suggest that specific knowledge-enhancing investments can have very high returns, and that the threat of competition provides powerful incentives to undertake such investments.