A Sectoral Analysis of Price-Setting Behavior in U.S. Manufacturing Industries

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. In this paper we develop a multi-sector model of firms' pricing behaviour under imperfect competition. We allow for the fact that some goods sold will be for final consumption, while others will be used as intermediate goods in further production. We assume that price setters are constrained by the existence of Calvo (1983) contracts which enables us to measure the extent of price inertia across industrial sectors. We further allow for the possibility that some firms set prices to maximise the discounted value of profits, while others set prices according to a backward-looking rule-ofthumb. We then estimate the resulting price-setting equations for 18 US manufacturing industries defined at the SIC 2-digit level over the period 1959 to 1996. We find that there is statistically significant variability in estimates of price stickiness, ranging from 4 months to almost 1.5 years with significantly more inertia in the setting of durable goods prices. We also find that estimates of backward-looking price-setting behaviour vary, with some industries acting in a purely forward-looking manner, while others are characterized by almost 50 per cent of firms setting prices in a backwardlooking fashion. Finally we find that firms in less competitive industries (characterized by higher average markup-ups) tend to adjust prices less frequently and are less likely to do so in a forwardlooking manner. Terms of use: Documents inJEL Code: E3.

Estimating a New Keynesian Phillips Curve With a Corrected Measure of Real Marginal Cost: Evidence in Japan

“…Our approach is different from theirs because we partially correct labor share by incorporating labor market frictions and the influence of materials prices, rather than perfectly replacing labor share by the costs of materials. However, Leith and Malley [2007] and our study share the idea that obtaining a better proxy for RMC than labor share is crucial for evaluating the performance of the NKPC. 4 In this study, we do not investigate the mechanism of variations of the desired markup, since this issue is still controversial and it is not clear to which model we should particularly pay attention (see the conclusions of Rotemberg and Woodford (1999)).…”

Market Structure and Price-Cost Margins in European Retail Gasoline Industry

“…Yet a negative correlation between increase in market concentration measured by HHI and industry profits have been proved (Rhoades, 1995). The relation between HHI and price "stickiness" has also been confirmed (Leith and Malley, 2007).…”

CEO Talent, CEO Compensation, and Product Market Competition

“…This result might be explained by the argument of the price rigidity in this industry Petersen, 1986, 1988;Leith and Malley, 2007). …”

“…In addition to the effects of the hypothetical employment only at a reference firm, we now estimate the effects of counterfactual distributions, which is similar to the approach used by Terviö in the current equilibrium, following the free entry condition (32). We derive a new equilibrium under this structure, that is, a new set of the relative aggregate price index, P I 0 , and the mass of firms, N I , using (36) and (37):…”