2018/34 | LEM Working Paper Series | ||||||||||||||||
![]() |
|||||||||||||||||
Neodualism in the Italian business firms: training, organizational capabilities and productivity distributions |
|||||||||||||||||
Giovanni Dosi, Dario Guarascio, Andrea Ricci and Maria Enrica Virgillito |
|||||||||||||||||
Keywords | |||||||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||||||||
productivity, firm-level heterogeneity, training, organizational capabilities
|
|||||||||||||||||
JEL Classifications | |||||||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||||||||
M53, O12, D22
|
|||||||||||||||||
Abstract | |||||||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||||||||
What has been the dynamics of productivity in the Italian business
firms in the aftermath of the crisis? And what has been the impact of
training efforts upon such dynamics? In this work we address these
questions exploring a unique Italian microlevel dataset which links
information on the amount and the nature of training and the
balance-sheet data. First, we document what we call a neo-dualist
tendency with a leader-laggard dynamics entailing a widening support
of the productivity distributions. Second, we analyze the relationship
between productivities and training intensities by means of quantile
regression analysis, also controlling for additive fixed effects by
means of Canay (2011) technique. There is indeed some relationship in
the whole sample which however gets weaker when disaggregating by
sector and by size. Moreover, hardly any dynamic relationship appears,
either between initial training intensities and subsequent
productivity changes, nor between changes in both variables. Our
results do not imply of course that training is not important, but
that its effectiveness must be shaped by other firm-specific
characteristics, plausibly associated with idiosyncratic
organizational capabilities.
|
Downloads
|
![]() ![]() |
|
![]()
|
![]() |