Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published online by De Gruyter February 9, 2022

Missing growth measurement in Germany

Sven Schreiber and Vanessa Schmidt
From the journal German Economic Review

Abstract

Using detailed establishment-level micro data, this paper analyzes for the German case the hypothesis by Aghion et al. (2019), stating that officially published figures for real output growth would be systematically understated. The effect rests on overstated inflation estimates due to imputed prices for disappearing goods and services varieties, where measurable plant entry and exit dynamics play a crucial rule. Our main results regarding understated real output growth lie in the range of 0.39 to 0.54 average annual percentage points for 1998–2016, which is quite closely in line with existing findings for France, the USA, and Japan (in different periods). We also find that services sectors appear most affected, and that the effect in East Germany is somewhat larger. We investigate different market share proxies, provide additional robustness analysis and also discuss limitations of the approach.

JEL Classification: E31; O47

Acknowledgment

Without implicating them in our mistakes and misinterpretations, the authors would like to thank especially Antonin Bergeaud, Sebastian Gechert, Till Strohsal, staff of the German Federal Statistical Office (Destatis/ Statistisches Bundesamt) as well as the participants of the 2019 IWH Halle meeting on micro data and macro questions, of the German Economic Association meeting (VfS 2020) and the ESEM 2021 meeting for helpful discussions. In addition, this manuscript has benefitted from constructive comments by anonymous referees during the review process at the GER.

Appendix A Quotes from technical documents

  1. Concerning footnote 15; accessible at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/en/prc_hicp_esms_de.htm (accessed on February 26th, 2020):

“18.5. Data compilation – Treatment of missing items and replacements

A replacement for a missing price observation in case of non-seasonal items is forced to be made in the third month at the latest.... Missing prices for the first or the second month are estimated using price movements based on the other price observations for the relevant product group. If there are less than five price observations for a certain product group in a Bundesland, the superior ECOICOP aggregate (4-digit-level) is to be used instead.”

“18.6. Adjustment – Adjustment for quality differences

The German Bundeslaender are in principle responsible for the price collection. For the main part of products, quality adjustments are therefore done by the Bundeslaender. The German statistical system applies agreed rules for the price collection, treatment of missing prices, and quality adjustment.

For those price series that can be collected centrally, explicit quality adjustment methods are very common (e. g. option pricing for cars, hedonics for PCs and used cars). Explicit methods have been implemented for price collection in the field (decentralized price collection).

For durables the general rules for the price collection have been supplemented by detailed rules. These rules for durables contain explicit standards for the treatment of missing prices, replacement and quality adjustment, and are once again supplemented by a database containing quality determining characteristics. This database is filled monthly by the data collected for the compilation of the CPI. The most common methods used for durables are option pricing, consumption equivalence method, and bridged overlap.”

  1. Concerning footnote 18, German original from Statistisches Bundesamt (2018: p. 9):

Dennoch können Informationen berechtigter Weise fehlen, zum Beispiel wenn eine Erhebungseinheit nicht besucht werden kann (Betriebsferien) oder eine Beobachtungseinheit, zum Beispiel aus saisonalen Gründen, nicht erfasst werden kann. Für solche zeitlich begrenzt auftretenden Ausfälle kennt das Aufbereitungsprogramm Fortschreibungsmechanismen, die eine Verzerrung verhindern sollen. Diese automatisierten Berechnungen werden durch spezielle Signierungen angestoßen. Im Falle dauerhafter Ausfälle (zum Beispiel in Folge einer Betriebsschließung oder dem Wegfall eines Gutes) müssen die Erhebungsbeauftragten umgehend Ersatz suchen. Für diese Ersetzung von Beobachtungs- und Erhebungseinheiten gibt es allgemeine Vorgaben. Die Preiserheberinnen und Preiserheber werden dafür besonders geschult. In der Folge wird jeder Einzelfall einer dafür speziell qualifizierten Mitarbeiterin beziehungsweise einem speziell dafür geschulten Mitarbeiter des zuständigen Statistischen Amtes zur endgültigen Entscheidung beziehungsweise zur Präzisierung der weiteren Verfahrensweise angezeigt.

References

Aghion, Philippe, Antonin Bergeaud, Timo Boppart, and Simon Bunel. 2018. “Firm Dynamics and Growth Measurement in France.” Journal of the European Economic Association 16(4): 933–956. ISSN 1542–4766. http://oup.prod.sis.lan/jeea/article-pdf/16/4/933/25536351/jvy031.pdf, 10.1093/jeea/jvy031. Search in Google Scholar

Aghion, Philippe, Antonin Bergeaud, Timo Boppart, Peter J. Klenow, and Huiyu Li. 2019. “Missing Growth from Creative Destruction.” The American Economic Review 109(8): 2795–2822. 10.1257/aer.20171745. Search in Google Scholar

Anttila, Juho. 2018. “Missing Growth in Finland.” Working Paper 60. ETLA. http://pub.etla.fi/ETLA-Working-Papers-60.pdf. Search in Google Scholar

Autor, David, David Dorn, Lawrence F. Katz, Christina Patterson, and John Van Reenen. 2020. “The Fall of the Labor Share and the Rise of Superstar Firms.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 135(2): 645–709. 10.3386/w23396Search in Google Scholar

Bils, Mark. 2009. “Do Higher Prices for New Goods Reflect Quality Growth or Inflation?” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 124(2): 637–675. 10.1162/qjec.2009.124.2.637Search in Google Scholar

Bils, Mark, and Peter J. Klenow. 2001. “Quantifying Quality Growth.” The American Economic Review 91(4): 1006–1030. 10.1257/aer.91.4.1006Search in Google Scholar

Blanchet, Didier, MarieBaïanne Khder, Marie Leclair, Raphaël Lee, Hélène Poncet, and Nicolas Ragache. 2018. “La Croissance Est-elle Sous-estimée?” Références, Dossier. Insee. 59–79. Search in Google Scholar

Boskin, Michael J., Ellen R. Dulberger, Robert J. Gordon, Zvi Griliches, and Dale Jorgenson. 1996. “Toward a More Accurate Measure of the Cost Of Living.” Final Report to the SenateFinance Committee. Search in Google Scholar

Bundesregierung. 2018. “Jahresbericht der Bundesregierung zum Stand der Deutschen Einheit 2018”. Der Beauftragte der Bundesregierung für die neuen Bundesländer. 120 pp. Search in Google Scholar

Christopoulou, Rebekka, and Philip Vermeulen. 2012. “Markups in the Euro Area and the US over the Period 19812004: a Comparison of 50 Sectors.” Empirical Economics 42(1): 53–77. https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/empeco/v42y2012i1p53-77.html, 10.1007/s00181-010-04303. Search in Google Scholar

De Loecker, Jan, and Jan Eeckhout. 2018. “Global Market Power.” NBER Working Papers 24768. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/24768.html. 10.3386/w24768Search in Google Scholar

Dettmann, Eva, Daniel Fackler, Steffen Müller, Georg Neuschäffer, Viktor Slavtchev, Ute Leber, and Barbara Schwengler. 2020. “Innovationen in Deutschland – Wie Lassen Sich Unterschiede in Den Betrieben Erklären?” IAB-forschungsbericht 12:1–141. ISSN: 2195-2655. https://doku.iab.de/forschungsbericht/2020/fb1220.pdf. Search in Google Scholar

Deutsche Bundesbank. 2017. “Mark-ups of Firms in Selected European Countries.” Monthly Report 53–67. Search in Google Scholar

Döpper, Hendrik, Alexander MacKay, Nathan Miller, and Joel Stiebale. 2021. “Rising Markups and the Role of Consumer Preferences.” Research Rep. CEPR. 13. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3939126. 10.2139/ssrn.3939126Search in Google Scholar

Elstner, Steffen, Lars P. Feld, and Christoph M. Schmidt. 2018. The German Productivity Paradox – Facts and Explanations. CESifo Working Paper Series 7231. CESifo Group Munich. https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_7231.html. 10.2139/ssrn.3275405Search in Google Scholar

Eurostat. 2012. Handbook on industrial producer price indices (PPI). Search in Google Scholar

Feenstra, Robert C. 1994. “New Product Varieties and the Measurement of International Prices.” The American Economic Review 84(1): 157–177. Search in Google Scholar

Ganglmair, Bernhard, Alexander Kann, and Ilona Tsanko. 2021. “Markups for Consumers.” Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik 241(5–6), 701734. 10.1515/jbnst-2020-0059Search in Google Scholar

Hall, Robert E. 2018. “New Evidence on the Markup of Prices over Marginal Costs and the Role of Mega-firms in the us Economy.” Tech. rep. National Bureau of Economic Research. 10.3386/w24574Search in Google Scholar

Kodama, Naomi, and Huiyu Li. 2019. “Missing Growth in the Lost Decade.” Discussion Paper 19-E-026. RIETI. Search in Google Scholar

Monopolkommission. 2018. Wettbewerb 2018. 487 pp. Search in Google Scholar

OECD. 2011. “Producer Price Indices Comparative Methodological Analysis.” Tech. rep. Search in Google Scholar

Roma, Moreno. 2019. “Rent Inflation in the Euro Area Since the Crisis.” ECB Economic Bulletin 4, box 5. Search in Google Scholar

Statistisches Bundesamt. 2006. “Qualitätsbereinigung in der Verbraucherpreisstatistik.” Themenkasten der Preisstatistik 35. Search in Google Scholar

Statistisches Bundesamt. 2018. “Verbraucherpreisindex für Deutschland.” Qualitätsbericht. Search in Google Scholar

Weinand, Sebastian, and Ludwig von Auer. 2020. “Anatomy of Regional Price Differentials: Evidence from Micro-price Data.” Spatial Economic Analysis 15(4): 413–440. 10.1080/17421772.2020.1729998Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2022-02-09

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston