Panel tests of Gibrat’s Law for Japanese manufacturing

Abstract The properties of the standard cross sectional test of the Law of Proportionate Effect (LPE) are compared with those of three alternative panel unit root tests, using Monte Carlo methods. The cross sectional procedure produces biased parameter estimates and the test suffers from a loss of power if there are heterogeneous individual firm effects. Suitably designed panel tests avoid these difficulties. Empirical results for a panel of Japanese manufacturing firms provides some support for the notion that log firm sizes are mean-reverting towards heterogeneous equilibrium values, and that the LPE should be rejected.

[1]  Nicholas Oulton,et al.  Growth and Size of Firms , 1996 .

[2]  David S. Evans.  The Relationship between Firm Growth, Size, and Age: Estimates for 100 Manufacturing Industries. , 1987 .

[3]  Christopher Bliss,et al.  Galton's fallacy and economic convergence , 1999 .

[4]  Bronwyn H Hall,et al.  The Relationship between Firm Size and Firm Growth in the U.S. Manufacturing Sector , 1986 .

[5]  S. J. Prais,et al.  The Analysis of Business Concentration: A Statistical Approach , 1956 .

[6]  M. Utton.  The Effect of Mergers on Concentration: U.K. Manufacturing Industry, 1954-65 , 1971 .

[7]  Jonathan R.W. Temple,et al.  The New Growth Evidence , 1999 .

[8]  Á. D. L. Fuente.  The empirics of growth and convergence: A selective review , 1997 .

[9]  J. Sutton.  Gibrat's Legacy , 1996 .

[10]  David S. Evans.  Tests of Alternative Theories of Firm Growth , 1987, Journal of Political Economy.

[11]  H. White.  A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity , 1980 .

[12]  M. Pesaran,et al.  Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels , 2003 .

[13]  D. Quah.  Exploiting Cross Section Variation for Unit Root Inference in Dynamic Data , 1993 .

[14]  M. S. Kumar,et al.  GROWTH, ACQUISITION ACTIVITY AND FIRM SIZE: EVIDENCE FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM* , 1985 .

[15]  A. Tschoegl,et al.  Size, Growth, and Transnationality among the World's Largest Banks , 1983 .

[16]  Paul Dunne,et al.  Age, Size, Growth and Survival: UK Companies in the 1980s , 1994 .

[17]  Andrea Bonaccorsi,et al.  On the Relationship Between Firm Size and Export Intensity , 1992 .

[18]  Nazrul Islam,et al.  Growth Empirics: A Panel Data Approach , 1995 .

[19]  Edwin Mansfield,et al.  ENTRY, GIBRAT'S LAW, INNOVATION, AND THE GROWTH OF FIRMS , 1962 .

[20]  K. Cowling,et al.  Market Structure and Corporate Behaviour. , 1974 .

[21]  Jörg Breitung,et al.  Testing for unit roots in panel data: are wages on different bargaining levels cointegrated? , 1994 .

[22]  X. Sala-i-Martin,et al.  Regional cohesion: Evidence and theories of regional growth and convergence , 1996 .

[23]  Stephen Nickell,et al.  Biases in Dynamic Models with Fixed Effects , 1981 .

[24]  Andrew T. Levin,et al.  Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties , 2002 .

[25]  Danny Quah,et al.  Empirics for economic growth and convergence , 1996 .

[26]  Yangru Wu,et al.  Mean Reversion in Interest Rates: New Evidence from a Panel of OECD Countries , 1996 .

[27]  G. Whittington,et al.  The Size and Growth of Firms , 1975 .