Heterogeneidade da produtividade entre empresas

Entre 1990 e 1993 a Finlândia viveu aquilo a que os finlandeses chamam "A Grande Depressão Finlandesa", em parte originada pelo colapso da União Soviética com quem o país tinha relações comerciais privilegiadas.
.
A Finlândia conseguiu dar a volta por cima à custa de uma reconversão do seu sector produtivo para zonas de maior valor acrescentado. Há todo um conjunto de estudos de autores finlandeses sobre a produtividade, não sobre o mambo-jambo baseado em modelos irrealistas "the framework of the representative firm is not an appropriate tool".
.
Petri Böckerman e Mika Maliranta neste estudo "The Micro-Level Dynamics of Regional Productivity Growth - The Source of Divergence in Finland" fazem algumas afirmações interessantes:
.
"Competition is believed to be important for efficiency and productivity. However, it is essential to make a sharp distinction between two types of efficiency, and between two views on the nature of competition. The traditional view is that productivity is low because of X-inefficiency, i.e. production potentials determined by technology are utilized incompletely. This study advocates an alternative view, i.e. “Schumpeterian efficiency” or dynamic efficiency, that focus on the process of technological renewal instead of static efficiency in the use of current technology.
.
Quite analogously, Baldwin (1993) distinguishes two different conceptual approaches to the nature of competition. The static view is traditional and therefore more widely adopted. It focuses on the market structures. The intensity of competition is typically evaluated with indicators such as the number of firms, concentration, advertising ratios, etc. As a result, intensive static competition leads to a narrow dispersion of productivity across plants within industries. The alternative approach sees competition as a dynamic process. When one adopts the dynamic approach, measures of mobility of plants and workers provide a potentially useful indicator for the intensity of competitive pressure. Simultaneous occurrences of declines and rises within an industry suggest that there is a competitive struggle taking place. (Moi ici: Recordar "Para reflexão nestes tempos de recessão (parte II)") However, mobility is not an end in itself. It is of our interest only to the extent that it is beneficial to aggregate productivity performance, i.e. restructuring is productivity-enhancing."
.
Segue-se agora uma justa crítica à treta macro-económica:
.
"Marshall’s framework of the representative firm is implicitly advocated in a number of textbooks that provide a discussion on regional growth. This perspective assumes that the rate of growth in productivity is identical across firms. Firms experience productivity growth owing to disembodied technological change, retooling or a decrease in X-inefficiency. Improvement in productivity is therefore achieved within firms (and their plants). Productivity growth therefore involves internal restructuring. The total absence of heterogeneity among firms implied by the framework of the representative firm means that this internal restructuring of firms captures the dynamics of productivity growth entirely.

The alternative approach stresses the underlying heterogeneity of adjustment at the micro-level. This feature implies that there is an important role for creative destruction à la Schumpeter. In particular, Boone (2000) and Aghion et al. (2002) state that an increase in competitive pressure may encourage innovation. Firms improve their productivity by adapting new technologies. A more frequent emergence of new technologies, stimulated by increased dynamic competition, can be expected to lead to greater experimentation. However, there are a number of reasons why some firms cannot, fail or do not want to implement new technologies. (Moi ici: Basta pesquisar no blogue o marcador "distribuição de produtividades" e o termo "Perdões") For this reason, intensive dynamic competition is consistent with the presence of wide dispersion of productivity and underlying heterogeneity across plants within industries."  (Moi ici: Já ouviram algum economista português falar sobre esta heterogeneidade? Esta heterogeneidade não faz comichão mental? Claro que esta heterogeneidade é uma machadada nos modelos mentais obsoletos de muita gente... por isso nem lhes convém abordá-la)
...
"the consequences of increased dynamic competition can be expected to be more gradual and longer-lasting than increased competition in the static sense. These points mean that the productivity growth of a whole industry often involves an important external adjustment that is realized via productivity-enhancing restructuring between plants." (Moi ici: Claro que os estímulos, travestidos de "investimento público" impedem, atrasam, minimizam esta necessária reestruturação between plants)
.
Neste estudo Maliranta compra diferenças entre a produtividade a nível micro (ao nível das empresas concretas) entre diferentes regiões da Finlândia. Os autores documentam grandes diferenças de produtividade entre empresas e entre regiões. Particularmente interessante esta afirmação que dedico aos cainesianos deste país:
.
"Extensive subsidies to Eastern Finland (Moi ici: Região fronteiriça mais afectada pelo fim da União Soviética) may have insulated those regions from productivity-stimulating selection".
.