본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기
22대 대한민국 국회 국회정보길라잡이 국회의원검색
회원가입 로그인
HOME

정보검색

소장정보 검색

국회도서관 홈으로 정보검색 소장정보 검색

결과 내 검색

동의어 포함

고급검색

인명/단체명

저자정보 상세정보
인명/단체명을 입력하세요.

키워드

  • 대표어

  • 외국어

-

목차보기

Title page 1

Contents 4

Abstract/Résumé 3

1. Introduction 6

2. Motivation and analytical framework 8

2.1. Growth in potential output has slowed alongside business investment and dynamism 8

2.2. Studying the changes in the responsiveness of investment to productivity 9

2.3. Frontier and non-frontier firms display diverging investment trajectories 11

2.4. Institutional and policy conditions shape the investment-productivity link 12

2.4.1. External financial dependence as a potential constraint on investment responsiveness 12

2.4.2. Insolvency regimes and the scope for capital reallocation 13

2.4.3. Trade openness may strengthen investment-productivity responsiveness 13

2.4.4. The role of industry concentration is theoretically ambiguous 14

2.5. Alternative explanations examined 14

3. Data and descriptive evidence 15

3.1. Data sources and sample construction 15

3.1.1. Commercial data on firms' financials as the primary data source 15

3.1.2. Complementary information on intangible investment 16

3.2. From aggregate weakness to firm-level divergence 16

3.2.1. Firm-level investment in the micro-data mirrors the aggregate slowdown 16

3.2.2. Decreasing average firm-level productivity growth 17

3.2.3. Investment rates have diverged between frontier and non-frontier firms 18

3.3. Measures of the policy and market environment 20

3.3.1. External financial dependence 20

3.3.2. Insolvency regimes and zombie firms 21

3.3.3. Trade openness 21

3.3.4. Market concentration 21

4. The weakening link between productivity and investment 21

4.1. Econometric analysis 21

4.2. Main results 23

4.2.1. Investment responsiveness declined sharply during the GFC and has not recovered 23

4.2.2. The decline is broad-based across countries and sectors 24

4.3. Best in productivity, but also in channelling investment? 24

4.3.1. Frontier firms are systematically less responsive to productivity than non-frontier firms 24

4.3.2. Both frontier and non-frontier firms experience a decline in responsiveness, but frontier firms are more resilient 26

4.4. Aggregate implications 26

4.4.1. A loss of almost 6 percentage points in aggregate investment 26

4.4.2. The implied cumulative productivity loss is approximately 0.6% 28

4.5. The decline in responsiveness persists when accounting for intangible investment 28

4.5.1. The decline holds in a sample tilted towards the frontier with richer intangible coverage 28

4.5.2. The decline holds for total investment on the broader dataset 30

4.6. Findings are robust to alternative specifications and treating endogeneity 32

5. Policies and other mechanisms at play 33

5.1. Market and policy dimensions 33

5.1.1. Stronger baseline responsiveness in more open and less constrained markets 33

5.1.2. Responsiveness declines with external financial dependence for both frontier and non-frontier firms 36

5.1.3. Less efficient insolvency regimes weaken responsiveness, especially for frontier firms 38

5.1.4. Open economies display stronger investment-productivity responsiveness 40

5.1.5. Capital allocation is weaker in more concentrated markets, especially among non-frontier firms 41

5.2. Alternative mechanisms and adjustment margins 42

5.2.1. Cyclical macroeconomic conditions affect responsiveness but do not alter the structural results 42

5.2.2. The decline in responsiveness is broad-based across capacity utilisation levels 44

5.2.3. Employment reallocation is also on a declining trend 45

5.2.4. Firm productivity dynamics cannot explain the decline in responsiveness 46

5.2.5. Adjustment costs do not explain lower frontier responsiveness 47

6. Discussion and conclusions 47

6.1. Main takeaways: declining investment responsiveness and divergence across the firm distribution 47

6.2. Improving access to finance to strengthen investment responsiveness 48

6.3. Streamlining insolvency regimes to restore contestability 48

6.4. Preserving trade openness to sharpen competitive pressures 49

6.5. Decreasing responsiveness with rising concentration poses questions for competition policy 49

6.6. Intangibles, labour reallocation and competition as avenues for further work 50

References 51

Tables 4

Table 1. Frontier firms differ in observable characteristics 19

Table 2. Summary of policy and market data 20

Table 3. Investment-productivity responsiveness across market and policy dimensions 36

Figures 5

Figure 1. Slowing potential output growth and declining business dynamism across the OECD 9

Figure 2. Persistent weakness in business investment since the GFC 9

Figure 3. Higher responsiveness of firm investment to productivity is associated with higher investment rate at the sector level 10

Figure 4. Rising concentration of business investment at the frontier 12

Figure 5. Analytical framework: from aggregate trends to firm-level responsiveness 13

Figure 6. Firm-level investment intensity fell sharply during the GFC and has not recovered 17

Figure 7. Frontier and non-frontier tangible investment trajectories diverge after the crisis 19

Figure 8. Investment-productivity responsiveness declined during the GFC and has not recovered 23

Figure 9. Frontier firms display a smaller decline and faster recovery in responsiveness 25

Figure 10. Declining responsiveness compresses investment rates and reduces aggregate investment 27

Figure 11. The Worldscope sample is skewed towards more productive firms 29

Figure 12. The decline in responsiveness in Worldscope is sharper and more persistent 30

Figure 13. Total investment has also become less responsive to productivity using Orbis 31

Figure 14. Frontier firms hold a lower share of tangible capital than non-frontier firms 32

Figure 15. Trade openness is associated with stronger responsiveness, while other policy dimensions point in the opposite direction 34

Figure 16. Responsiveness falls with external financial dependence especially for the non-frontier 37

Figure 17. Less efficient insolvency regimes are associated with lower responsiveness, especially for frontier firms 39

Figure 18. Halving the gap to the frontier insolvency regime could help recover a meaningful share of the decline in investment-productivity responsiveness 40

Figure 19. Higher trade openness is associated with stronger responsiveness for both firm groups 41

Figure 20. Market concentration and investment-productivity responsiveness 42

Figure 21. Labour market slack strengthens pre-crisis responsiveness but amplifies its post-crisis decline 44

Figure 22. Investment-productivity responsiveness by capacity utilisation quartile 45

Boxes 5

Box 1. The empirical framework: how the responsiveness of investment to productivity is measured 11

추천서가 (다양한 추천 자료를 만나보세요)

권호기사보기

권호기사 목록 테이블로 기사명, 저자명, 페이지, 원문, 기사목차 순으로 되어있습니다.
기사명 저자명 페이지 원문 기사목차

권호

기사명 원문보기 기사목차
닫기