View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

Search

MACROBLOG

May 4, 2010

The young and the restless

I have been reading a lot lately about the role of small firms in the economy. Recommended resources in this regard include these
Kauffman Foundation papers.
One of the themes emerging from this literature is that focusing just on firm size misses an important aspect of job creation and
destruction in the U.S. economy—namely, the interaction between firm size and firm age. To illustrate this, the following chart is a
dissection of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) quarterly Business Employment Dynamics (BED) data into private employer
firms with fewer than 50 employees and those with at least 50 employees (note that the BED classifies businesses using a dynamic
size measure in which the job creation/destruction is allocated to a size class dynamically as a business moves through a size class
from prior quarter to the current quarter). Within each firm type it is possible to allocate net employment change accounted for by
opening firms (firms that had zero employment in the previous quarter), closing firms (firms with zero employment this quarter), and
the net job change at surviving firms (employment at firms that expanded over the quarter less employment at firms that downsized
over the quarter).

(enlarge)
This chart displays some striking features:
• The contribution of opening small firms to net job growth is very large (averaging about 1 million jobs a quarter). In fact, when
opening firms are netted out of the data, existing firms on average destroy more jobs than they create.
• Job creation at new firms has been relatively stable over time. During the recessionary period from the end of 2007 through
the second quarter of 2009, the decline in jobs created at opening firms was surprisingly small.
• Job losses at closing firms did not surge in the most recent recession. In fact, job destruction caused by closing firms is
relatively stable over time (research suggests that, in addition to the fact that many firms get smaller before they finally
close, there is a significant "up or out" phenomenon in that many firms that closed were recently opened firms that failed).
• Most of the cyclical action is at surviving firms, and larger surviving firms tend to account for most of the variation in net
employment change. During the recessionary period from the end of 2007 through the second quarter of 2009, surviving firms
with at least 50 employees lost about twice as many jobs as firms with fewer than 50 employees (see for example, the study
by Moscarrini and Postel-Vinay on the relative cyclical sensitivity of large and small firms).
Of course, this is largely an accounting exercise. The challenge is trying to understand the causes for these features, and how they
may change over time. It seems that there is much we don't know about the underlying factors. For instance, this paper by Dane
Stangler and Paul Kedrosky investigates in considerable detail the possible explanations for why the number of new firms is so

A

A

A

stable over time. In the end, the phenomenon remains largely a puzzle, and there are many subplots. For instance, the correlation
between venture capital spending and overall firm creation is negligible but very important in high-tech industries. Also, the dramatic
increase over time in the number of entrepreneurship courses offered at colleges and universities had no appreciable impact on the
number of new firms in the United States (although it may have prevented a decline).
Perhaps the focus on the number of new firms is misguided. What really matters might be who these new firms are—not how many
there are. Research by Dane Stangler suggests that, at any point in time, a relative handful of high-performing companies account
for a large share of job creation and innovation. This conclusion suggests that a key to long-term economic growth may lie in
ensuring that the economic environment is conducive to the ongoing creation of these types of high-growth performers.
By John Robertson, vice president in the Atlanta Fed's research department
May 4, 2010 in Economic Growth and Development, Employment, Employment, Small Business, Small Business |
Permalink