We provide a nonlinear characterization of the macroeconomic impact of microeconomic productivity shocks in terms of reduced‐form nonparametric elasticities for efficient economies. We also show how microeconomic parameters are mapped to these reduced‐form general equilibrium elasticities. In this sense, we extend the foundational theorem of Hulten (1978) beyond the first order to capture nonlinearities. Key features ignored by first‐order approximations that play a crucial role are: structural microeconomic elasticities of substitution, network linkages, structural microeconomic returns to scale, and the extent of factor reallocation. In a business‐cycle calibration with sectoral shocks, nonlinearities magnify negative shocks and attenuate positive shocks, resulting in an aggregate output distribution that is asymmetric (negative skewness), fat‐tailed (excess kurtosis), and has a negative mean, even when shocks are symmetric and thin‐tailed. Average output losses due to short‐run sectoral shocks are an order of magnitude larger than the welfare cost of business cycles calculated by Lucas (1987). Nonlinearities can also cause shocks to critical sectors to have disproportionate macroeconomic effects, almost tripling the estimated impact of the 1970s oil shocks on world aggregate output. Finally, in a long‐run growth context, nonlinearities, which underpin Baumol's cost disease via the increase over time in the sales shares of low‐growth bottleneck sectors, account for a 20 percentage point reduction in aggregate TFP growth over the period 1948–2014 in the United States.

This paper develops a general theory of aggregation in inefficient economies. We provide nonparametric formulas for aggregating microeconomic shocks in economies with distortions such as taxes, markups, frictions to resource reallocation, financial frictions, and nominal rigidities. We allow for arbitrary elasticities of substitution, returns to scale, factor mobility, and input-output network linkages. We show how to separately measure changes in technical and allocative efficiency. We also show how to compute the social cost of distortions. We pursue applications focusing on firm-level markups in the United States. We find that improvement in allocative efficiency, due to the reallocation over time of market share to high-markup firms, accounts for about half of aggregate TFP growth over the period 1997–2015. We also find that eliminating the misallocation resulting from the large and dispersed markups estimated in the data would raise aggregate TFP by about 15%, increasing the economy-wide cost of monopoly distortions by two orders of magnitude compared with the famous 0.1% estimate by Harberger (1954). These exact numbers should be interpreted with care because the data are imperfect and require substantial imputation.

Emmanuel Farhi tragically passed away in July, 2020. Emmanuel was a one-in-a-lifetime friend and collaborator. Revising this paper without him has been very diffcult. We thank Veronica De Falco and Stephanie Kestelman for excellent research assistance. We thank Natalie Bau and Jennifer La'O for their comments. The authors received support from NSF grant No. 1947611. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peerreviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.

This paper analyzes a general equilibrium economy featuring input‐output connections, imperfect competition, and external economies of scale owing to entry and exit. The interaction of input‐output networks with industry‐level market structure affects the amplification of shocks and the pattern of diffusion in the model, generating cascades of firm entry and exit across the economy. In this model, sales provide a poor measure of the systemic importance of industries. Unlike the relevant notions of centrality in competitive constant‐returns‐to‐scale models, systemic importance depends on the industry's role as both a supplier and a consumer of inputs, as well as the market structure of industries. A basic calibration of the model suggests that aggregate output is three times more volatile in response to labor productivity shocks when compared to a perfectly competitive model.

We provide a nonlinear characterization of the macroeconomic impact of microeconomic productivity shocks in terms of reduced-form non-parametric elasticities for efficient economies. We also show how microeconomic parameters are mapped to these reduced-form general equilibrium elasticities. In this sense, we extend the foundational theorem of Hulten (1978) beyond the first order to capture nonlinearities. Key features ignored by first-order approximations that play a crucial role are: structural microeconomic elasticities of substitution, network linkages, structural microeconomic returns to scale, and the extent of factor reallocation. In a business-cycle calibration with sectoral shocks, nonlinearities magnify negative shocks and attenuate positive shocks, resulting in an aggregate output distribution that is asymmetric (negative skewness), fat-tailed (excess kurtosis), and a has negative mean, even when shocks are symmetric and thin-tailed. Average output losses due to short-run sectoral shocks are an order of magnitude larger than the welfare cost of business cycles calculated by Lucas (1987). Nonlinearities can also cause shocks to critical sectors to have disproportionate macroeconomic effects, almost tripling the estimated impact of the 1970s oil shocks on world aggregate output. Finally, in a long-run growth context, nonlinearities, which underpin Baumol's cost disease via the increase over time in the sales shares of low-growth bottleneck sectors, account for a 20 percentage point reduction in aggregate TFP growth over the period 1948-2014 in the US. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.