WPS6718 Policy Research Working Paper 6718 Size and Age of Establishments Evidence from Developing Countries Meghana Ayyagari Asli Demirguc-Kunt Vojislav Maksimovic The World Bank Development Research Group Finance and Private Sector Development Team December 2013 Policy Research Working Paper 6718 Abstract Survey data from 120 developing countries are used to it looks within a large country, India, based on detailed examine the relation between establishment size and manufacturing census data over 23 years. It also finds that age in the formal sector. Existing research suggests that differences in financial development across Indian states, manufacturing establishments in developing countries while substantial, have a minor effect on firm growth, do not grow over time, most likely because of market consistent with inefficiency of state-owned financial imperfections and regulations. To the contrary, this paper systems. These results hold controlling for differences finds that the average plant in developing countries that in labor regulations across states, capital intensity, labor is more than 40 years old employs almost five times as regulations, and firms born before and after the major many workers as the average plant that is five years old reforms. or younger. The analysis finds consistent evidence when This paper is a product of the Finance and Private Sector Development Team, Development Research Group. It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://econ.worldbank.org. The authors may be contacted at ademirguckunt@worldbank.org. The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. Produced by the Research Support Team Size and Age of Establishments: Evidence from Developing Countries Meghana Ayyagari Asli Demirguc-Kunt Vojislav Maksimovic JEL classification: G00, G3, 01 Keywords: Firm life cycle, age, size and growth, financial development, India __________ *Ayyagari: School of Business, George Washington University, ayyagari@gwu.edu, Ph: 202-994-1292; Demirgüç- Kunt: World Bank, ademirguckunt@worldbank.org, Ph: 202-473-7479; Maksimovic: Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland, vmaksimovic@rhsmith.umd.edu, Ph: 301-405-2125. We would like to thank Miriam Bruhn, Roberto Fattal Jaef, Hiau Looi Kee, Aart Kraay, David McKenzie, and Sergio Schmukler for their valuable comments and suggestions and Xiaoyuan Hu for excellent research assistance. This paper’s findings, interpretations, and conclusions are entirely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent. I. Introduction The determinants of firm size and, more broadly, firm life cycle are still largely a black- box. We do know that in developed countries such as the U.S. new businesses start small and, if they survive, grow fast as they age (e.g. Evans, 1987; Dunne, Roberts, and Samuelson, 1989; Davis, Haltiwanger, and Schuh, 1996; Caves, 1998; Hsieh and Klenow, 2013). It is an open question as to whether firms in developing countries face a similar size-age profile as in the US given that they face entirely different business environments and operating conditions. An understanding of the firm life cycle in developing countries and its determinants is critical to the policy debate on productivity improvements and achieving convergence between rich and poor countries. In this paper, we examine the relationship between plant size, age, and growth in the formal sector across 120 developing economies. Specifically we examine if older plants are much larger than young plants and if there are any differences in the size-age relationship across country income groups and industries. To overcome concerns with cross-country analysis, we investigate the firm size-age relation using detailed manufacturing census data from India. We then try to understand how financial institutions are associated with the size-age gap. Our cross-country sample consists of 69,224 formal firms in 120 countries, surveyed over the period 2006-2012. The strength of our data is that we cover most of the developing countries in the world. The country with the highest GDP/capita in our sample of countries is Slovenia. Our data are comparable across countries since it they sourced from the World Bank Enterprise Surveys (ES) database which samples formally registered firms from over 100 countries to study the business climate constraints to private sector growth and performance. The surveys use 2 standardized survey instruments and a uniform sampling methodology to minimize measurement error and to yield data that are comparable across countries. 1 Our India sample is comprised of repeated cross-section census data for the formal manufacturing sector at roughly five-year intervals - 1983/84; 1989/90; 1994/95; 2000/01; and 2004/05 2 and census data on the informal sector for 1994/1995. India offers an ideal laboratory for testing the role of institutions on firm life cycle given the large persistent differences in institutions, business environment, and income across different regions in India (Ahluwalia, 2002). Being the seventh largest and second most populous country in the world, the size and income of each of its different states and territories can be likened to other developing countries. For instance, in an interesting comparison, the Economist magazine matches India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, to Brazil in terms of population, Qatar in terms of size of the economy, and Kenya in terms of its GDP/capita. Maharashtra, on the other hand is one of India’s richest states and is equivalent to Mexico in terms of population, Singapore in terms of GDP, and Sri Lanka in terms of GDP/capita. 3 Importantly, there is substantial and well researched heterogeneity in financial and labor institutions across these states. At the same time, comprehensive and centrally collected Census data at the firm-level are available to researchers, thereby sidestepping many of the concerns arising from data comparability in cross-country studies. India is also an interesting case study because some recent studies (e.g. Hsieh and 1 The mean response rate across our sample of countries is 70% which is superior to most other survey based studies. For instance, Campello, Giambona, Graham, and Harvey (2011) report response rates of 3 to 7% in their survey of how companies use credit lines during a financial crisis. Other studies in corporate finance report response rates between 7%-9% including Graham and Harvey (2001), Brav, Graham, Harvey and Michaelu (2005), and Lins, Servaes, and Tufano (2010). 2 Repeated cross-sections helps us look at life-cycle patterns over a longer period of time in addition to providing us more observations at each point in the life-cycle. It also allows us to examine if our results are consistent over different periods of institutional change in India such as financial liberalization and industry de-licensing. 3 All the comparisons are based on 2009 values. See “Comparing Indian states and territories with countries,” The Economist Magazine, June 21, 2011. 3 Klenow, 2013) suggest that India has a flat life cycle where 40-year-old plants are no larger than young plants. We have the following main findings: First, our cross-country analysis shows that in the formal sector in developing countries, older firms are substantially larger than younger firms. While the average mid-aged firm between 10 and 19 years of age is only twice the size of the average plant under the age of 5 years, the average plant that is 40 years and older is 4.65 times the size of the average plant under the age of 5 years in terms of employment. 4 The significantly upward sloping age-size profile is pervasive in the vast majority of countries and in only less than 10% of the countries, the average 40+ year plant is not at least as big as plants younger than 5 years. One possible explanation for our findings is selection effects due to firm exits since we have data only on surviving firms. To improve on our cross-sectional evidence, we look at employment at two points in time – last year and three years back. We find that on average, firms are approximately the same size as two years ago suggesting that the surviving plants we examine are not the fastest growing in the distribution and that our results are unlikely to be driven mostly by plant exits. Second, when we study the life cycles of Indian plants, we find that the average 40-year- old plant in the formal sector in India is two to four times the size of plants less than five years of age, both when compared contemporaneously and when comparing older and younger firms within the same cohort. Our results hold true when we take sampling weights into account and look at the entire population of firms, and also when we study just the Census sector firms that 4 Our results are robust to considering only manufacturing plants and taking into account survey sampling weights. We obtain similar patterns when we look across country income groups. Our results are also robust to dropping firms with government ownership, dropping former Socialist economies where they may a discrepancy in age reported due to large-scale privatization, and also to dropping firms that started operations before countries’ independence. This finding also holds controlling for industry and country fixed effects in a multivariate analysis. 4 are surveyed each year. Thus, while plants in India may not be growing at the same rate as in developed countries such as the US, especially during their early life cycle, there is clear evidence that older plants in the formal manufacturing sector are larger than younger plants. Third, we find that technological differences across industries shape establishment life cycles in India. We use the identification strategy introduced by Rajan and Zingales (1998) for classifying industries into financially dependent and financially independent depending on the extent to which firms can support their capital expenditures using cash flow from operations, based on the experiences of US firms in the same industries. We find that firms in financially dependent industries are larger at all stages of their life cycle. Thus, there is no evidence that financial dependence affects growth rates of established Indian firms relative to firms in industries that are not financially dependent. 5 Fourth, we find stark differences in firm life cycles in the formal and informal sectors: We find that older firms in the unorganized manufacturing sector in India employ fewer people than firms younger than 5 years old. This is consistent with recent findings in La Porta and Shleifer (2008) who show that informal firms look very different from formal firms in terms of size, productivity, and education level of managers and find little evidence that growth occurs by informal firms eventually becoming large formal establishments. Fifth, we study the impact of institutional differences on firm life cycles in India. Despite considerable differences in financial depth across Indian states, we find the role of state-level financial development to be marginal in explaining firm life cycles in the broad population of firms and in most of the sub-samples we analyze. These results are robust to a number of checks including looking at just the firms in the right tail of the size distributions, across states with 5 Rajan and Zingales (1998) show that financially dependent industries grow less fast than financially independent industries using a sample of developed and developing countries. 5 flexible versus rigid labor market regulation, and using alternate indicators of financial development. We also find no differential impact of financial development on firm life cycles when we look at firms born after India’s financial liberalization in 1991 or at periods after industry de-licensing. We also find only marginal differences in the proportion of manufacturing employment in old and new firms across different levels of financial development. Our results are consistent with the conjecture that the state-owned and controlled financial sector in India is not significantly contributing to firm growth. Following Beck et al. (2008), we classify industries into small firm dominated and large firm dominated categories using the US industry composition as an instrument. Beck et al. measure an industry’ s “ technological” composition of small firms relative to large firms as the share of employment in firms with less than 20 employees in the United States (a country with a relatively frictionless financial system) in 1997. We also classify industries into labor intensive and capital intensive industries using the classification in Hasan and Jandoc (2012). Using a difference-in-difference set-up we find that establishments in large-firm dominated industries are larger at each stage of the life cycle, both in the case of capital intensive and labor intensive industries. These findings contrast with the literature that finds a significant effect of within-country institutional differences on firm performance. For example, Jayantre and Strahan (1996) and Dehejia and Lleras-Muney (2007) show that differences in state-level bank regulation in the United States affects financial development. Similarly, Guiso et al. (2004) examine differences in financial development across regions in Italy, particularly on small firms and entrepreneurship, and find a significant effect. 6 However, the literature also shows that in a large cross-section of countries, higher government ownership of banks is associated with slower subsequent financial development and lower income per capita growth and productivity (La Porta et al, 2002; Barth et al. 2001), as well as poorer financial access by small firms (e.g. Beck, Demirguc-Kunt and Maksimovic, 2005). Our findings are also consistent with those of Boyreu-Debray (2003) and Boyreau-Debray and Wei (2005) who show that the depth of the financial sector does not promote growth of provinces in China, another country where the banking system is largely state owned and controlled. Hence, our findings on India provide additional evidence that state-ownership in banking hampers the impact of finance on growth. The finding that differences in financial depth in a state-owned financial system do not affect the life cycles of firms does not imply that there are no qualitative differences in financial access within those systems or that they do not benefit individual firms. For example, Cole’s (2009) Indian study uses a regression discontinuity design and finds that government ownership of banks adversely affects the development of small enterprises in villages in which these banks have branches. In another study of Chinese banks and enterprises, Ayyagari, Demirguc-Kunt and Makimovic (2010) find that controlling for local financial development, firms that receive bank financing outperform firms that do not. However, Ayyagari et al. do not address the question of whether differences in financial depth at the province level materially affect the aggregate province level growth or the life cycles of the firms comprising the whole of the manufacturing sector. Our results also contribute to the large literature on firm size and age (Dunne, Roberts, and Samuelson, 1989; Davis, Haltiwanger, and Schuh,1996; Cabral and Matta, 2003, Foster, Haltiwanger, and Syverson, 2012). Given the idiosyncratic distortions in the business 7 environment, it is not clear what type of size-age gap to expect in developing countries. A recent paper by Hsieh and Klenow (2013) suggests that in India and Mexico, in contrast to the case of the U.S., the life cycle of manufacturing plants is relatively flat - that in fact on average the surviving manufacturing plants in India shrink in size between ages 5 and 35 years. The dual economy view in development economics (originally associated with Harris and Todaro, 1970) predicts that informal firms should look very different from formal firms in terms of size, productivity, wages paid, and the industries/markets they operate in. Recent studies such as La Porta and Shleifer (2008) also show that while informal firms account for a large portion of economic activity in developing countries, growth and development come from the creation of highly productive formal firms. Strikingly, Hsieh and Klenow find that plants in both the formal and informal sectors share the same trajectories. Our results using data for the same year 1994/95 as in their paper stand in sharp contrast with their findings on the formal sector. Given the heterogeneity in firm formation we study the formal and informal sectors separately in this paper and do find differing life cycle patterns. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section II we describe the data. In Section III we discuss in detail the relationship between establishment size and age in our cross- country sample. In Section IV we examine plant life cycles in India. Section V concludes. II. Data A. Cross-Country Sample We use the World Bank Enterprise Surveys (ES), which are an ongoing initiative of the World Bank, to benchmark the investment climate in different countries across the world and to analyze firm behavior and performance. The Enterprise Surveys survey from the universe of 8 eligible firms obtained from the country’s statistical office 6 using stratified random sampling with replacement to generate a sample representative of the whole non-agricultural private economy (so fully government-owned firms are excluded from the sampling universe) in the country. The surveys are stratified according to three criteria: Sector of activity (population of industries include manufacturing sectors, construction, services, transport, storage, communications, and computer and related activities), Firm size (the strata include small firms (5-19 employees), 7 medium firms (20-99 employees), and large firms (100 or more employees)), and Geographical location (selected based on centers of economic activity in the country). While the ES have been produced since 2002, we restrict our sample to surveys administered during 2006-2012 since these provide sampling weights that address the varying probabilities of selection across different strata and are thus indispensable to making assertions about the whole population. 8 For countries that were surveyed twice during this period, we retain the most recent survey data for each country. Our results are also robust to retaining data for the year with the largest number of firms surveyed. Establishment Size is the number of permanent, full-time employees in the establishment where permanent, full-time employees are defined as all paid employees that are contracted for a term of one or more fiscal years and/or have a guaranteed renewal of their employment contract and that work 8 or more hours per day. The survey asks establishments to report the employment numbers at the end of the last fiscal year. We compute the average 6 The master list of firms is sometimes obtained from other government agencies such as tax or business licensing authorities. In some cases, the sampling universe is generated from lists maintained by the Chamber of Commerce and business associations or marketing databases where registration is voluntary. In a few cases, the sample frame is created via block enumeration. 7 We have a few firms in the sample that report having less than 5 employees. All our results are robust to dropping these firms. Our results are also robust to dropping firms that started out as informal enterprises and were formally registered after starting operations. 8 Most surveys contain three sets of weights – strict, median, and weak weights depending on the eligibility criteria used to construct the sample universe. The survey implementation manual recommends the use of median weights for cross-country comparisons which is what we use in this paper. 9 establishment size in each age bin. As an alternate measure of average size in each age bin, we use Total Employment/Total # of establishments where Total employment is derived by aggregating the employment reported by each establishment multiplied by its sampling weight. Establishment Size Ratio is the ratio of current establishment size to the size of the establishment when it first started operations. Establishment Age is defined as the number of years since the establishment began operations in the country. We compute age at the end of the last fiscal year to be consistent with the employment question. As before, we construct the following 9 age bins: <5, 5-9, 10-14, 15- 19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, and 40+. We drop missing observations on size and age, drop observations where the date the establishment began operations is before 1800 and obvious data errors (such as one observation where date the establishment began operations is reported to be 2205). We also drop the bottom and top 1% of the employment variable. 9 This leaves us with a final sample of 53,821 firms across 119 countries. 10 Table1 presents the summary statistics and correlations between the main variables. Panel A of Table 1 shows that the mean establishment size in our sample is 70 employees. The mean establishment size ratio is 6.078, suggesting that the average firm in our sample is 6 times its size when it started operations though the ratio extends from a very small number to 1,250. The firms with ratios in excess of 100 are spread out across countries and industries. For instance, the establishment with a size ratio of 1,250 is a Brazilian establishment surveyed in 2009 in the industry sector Other: Construction, Transportation, etc., which is privately held and started operations in 1995 with 1 employee and had 1,250 employees in 2009. 9 Our results are robust to winsorizing the employment numbers at 1% rather than dropping the top and bottom 1%. 10 The Enterprise Survey database was downloaded in Dec 2012. 10 Panel B shows that Size and Age are positively correlated, suggesting that older firms are larger in our sample. Establishment Size Ratio and Age are also positively correlated, suggesting that firms grow as they age. Our cross-country data are subject to some caveats. First, the Enterprise Surveys sample only the formal sector in each country and exclude the informal sector. In addition, since the sampling frame is restricted to 5 employees or above, our results do not speak to the micro enterprises. Second, our data are only on the continuing/surviving firms and hence we have no data on firm exit rates. On a related note, the surveys are stratified only by industry, firm size, and geographical location and so we may not have a completely representative sample of firm ages, though the firms within the strata are randomly sampled. Third, our analysis is at the establishment level and not at the firm level since the sampling unit in the Enterprise Surveys is the establishment. 11 While this has the advantage that our employment measures are well defined and capture actual jobs at the establishment rather than changes from mergers, acquisitions, and divestitures, we are not able to measure firm size accurately for multi-establishment firms. However we are helped to some extent that the establishments in our sample report whether they are part of a larger firm or whether they are stand-alone. While most of the establishments in our data are stand-alone establishments (86%) and hence can be treated as firms, for robustness, we repeat the analysis on the sub-sample of firms that report that they have a single establishment and find that all our results hold. 11 In the Enterprise Surveys, the establishment is defined as a physical location where business is carried out and where industrial operations take place or services are provided. In addition, an establishment must make its own financial decisions, have its own financial statements separate from those of the firm, and have its own management and control over its payroll. 11 Henceforth, we will use the term establishment and firm interchangeably in our discussion of ES data. Fourth, we are unable to identify mergers in our data. Finally, the ES data are based on survey data rather than individual country censuses. However, our enquiries with the survey implementation team reveal that mean response rates across our sample of countries is 70%, which suggests that we have a representative sample of firms across economies. B. India Sample We use data on formal manufacturing plants in India from the Annual Survey of Industries (ASI), which is conducted by the Indian Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation. The ASI sampling frame consists of all registered factories employing 10 or more workers using power or 20 or more workers without using power. The sampling frame consists of the “Census” sector that is surveyed every year and the “Sample” sector where plants are sampled randomly and unit multipliers are provided to take into account sampling probabilities. The definitions of the Census and Sample sectors have changed over the years as described in the table in Appendix A. 12 In robustness checks, we find all our results to hold when we just analyze the Census sample. We use data from five years: 1983/84; 1989/90; 1994/95; 2000/01, and 2004/05. The specific ASI variables we use are described below: Establishment Age is defined as the year of the census - year of initial production reported by the firms. As in Hsieh and Klenow 12 The ASI also contains some establishments outside of manufacturing. Thus while the primary unit of enumeration in the survey is a factory in the case of manufacturing industries, it could also be a workshop (for repair services), an undertaking or a licensee (electricity, gas & water supply undertakings) or an establishment (bidi & cigar industries). According to the Ministry of Statistics, “the owner of two or more establishments located in the same State and pertaining to the same industry group and belonging to census scheme is, however, permitted to furnish a single consolidated return. Such consolidated returns are common feature mostly in the case of bidi and cigar establishments, electricity and certain public sector undertakings” 12 (2013) , we define 9 age bins as follows : <5, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, and 40+. Establishment Size is the total number of workers which includes workers employed directly, workers employed through contractors, supervisory and managerial staff, other employees, working proprietors, unpaid family workers, and unpaid working members if the establishment is a cooperative factory. As a measure of growth rates, we construct Establishment Size Ratio which is the ratio of each firm’s establishment size scaled by the average establishment size of all firms in its birth cohort. Thus, we scale the employment of each firm in youngest age bin (<5) in 2004 by the average size of that age bin in 2004, of the firms in the age bin (5-9) in 2004 by the average size in the youngest age bin (<5) in 1999, of the firms in the age bin (10-14) in 2004 by the average size in the youngest age bin (<5) in 1994, of the firms in the age bin (15-19) in 2004 by the average size in the youngest age bin (<5) in 1989, of the firms in the age bin (20-24) in 2004 by the average size in the youngest age bin (<5) in 1983, and so on. Since our sample period extends from 1983/84 to 2004/05 we are able to construct this ratio for only the age bins <5, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, and 20-24. To deal with outliers, we winsorize the bottom and top 1% of all plant-level variables and drop firms that stated initial year of production to be before 1800 and clear data errors where the year of initial production is given to be after the year of the survey. The data also provide National Industry Classification (NIC) codes that map onto different revisions of the International Standard Industry Classification (ISIC) codes. 13 Using this we construct three digit 13 The census years 1983/84 uses NIC-70 which maps onto ISIC-Revision 2 at the 3-digit level. The 1989/90 and 1994/95 censuses use NIC-87 which maps onto ISIC-Revision 3 at the 3-digit level. The 1999/00 and 2000/01 censuses use NIC-98 which maps onto ISIC-Revision 3 at the 3-digit level. The 2004/05 census uses NIC-04 which maps onto ISIC-Revision 3.1 at the 3-digit level. 13 NIC industry dummies that are consistent across all census-years and restrict the data to only the manufacturing sector. 14 To explore industry heterogeneity, we use three different classifications of industries. First, we follow the procedure in Rajan and Zingales (1998) and estimate an industry’s dependence on external financing using data on US corporations (RZ index). The RZ index is based on the assumption that, since U.S. financial markets are developed, sophisticated, have fewer market imperfections and are relatively open, they should allow US firms to achieve their desired financial structure. Thus assuming that there are technological reasons why some industries depend more on eternal finance than others, the RZ index offers an exogenous way to identify the extent of external dependence of an industry anywhere in the world. The methodology does not require that the US markets are perfect but rather that market imperfections in the US do not distort the ranking of industries in terms of the technological dependence on external financing. We reconstruct the RZ index for the period 1980-2012 by computing external dependence as (Capital Expenditures-Operating Cash Flow)/Capital Expenditures for each domestic US firm in Compustat. The median value across firms in each industry is a measure of that industry’s dependence on external finance. This index of external dependence is constructed at the SIC 2/3 digit level which is then manually matched to 3-digit ISIC codes that map onto the Indian NIC classification. Appendix C provides the concordance used in the paper. We construct EFD, a dummy variable that takes the value 1 if the industry’s dependence on external finance is ≥ the median value of dependence on external finance across industries and 0 if it was < the median across industries. 14 We drop recycling from the manufacturing sector since it is not included under manufacturing in the ISIC classification. 14 Second, we create Small Firm Industry which is a dummy variable that takes the value 1 if the industry’s share of employment in firms with less than 20 employees is ≥ the median value of the index of small firm domination from Beck, Demirguc-Kunt, Laeven, and Levine (2008) and takes the value 0 if it is < the median index value. Beck et al. (2008) use the methodology in Rajan and Zingales (1998) described above to argue that each industry has a technological firm size that depends on that industry’s particular production process and that these technological differences should persist across countries. They construct each industry’s share of employment in firms with less than 20 employees in the US using data from the 1997 US Census. 15 Finally, we follow Hasan and Jandoc (2012) in constructing Labor Intensive Industries which is a dummy variable that takes the value 1 for labor intensive industries and 0 for capital intensive industries. 16 We use data on informal firms from the Unorganized Manufacturing sector for 1994/95 that is collected by the National Sample Survey (NSS) Office of the Ministry of Statistics. The survey uses a stratified two-stage sampling design where the first-stage units are the villages in the rural areas and urban blocks in the urban areas and the second-stage units are the enterprises. The allocation of sample first-stage units between rural and urban areas is in proportion to population as per the 1991 Census with double weightage to the urban sector. As seen in Appendix B, the informal sector in India is very large and dwarfs the formal sector in terms of 15 Beck et. al. present alternate indices including using 100 employees as the cut-off and using 1992 census to construct the index. Our results are robust to these alternate classifications. 16 Hasan and Jandoc (2012) classify the following industries in India to be capital intensive industries: Machinery, Electrical Machinery, Transport, Metals and Alloys, Rubber/Plastic/Petroleum/Coal and Paper/Paper Products. The labor-intensive industries are: Beverages and Tobacco, Textile Products, Wood/Wood Products, Leather/Leather Products and Non-Metallic Products. The remaining industries are not as clearly distinguishable and include: Food Products, Textiles, Basic Chemicals, Metal Products and Other Manufacturing 15 the number of firms. Establishment Size and Age variables are calculated similar to the formal manufacturing census described above. B.1. Finance and Labor Market Institutions in India To take into account institutional differences that may affect firm life cycles, we focus on the level of financial development and the stringency of labor regulations across different states of India. We first describe India’s banking sector and the measures we construct followed by the stringency of labor regulation in India and the associated measures. India has a rich and mature banking history with the first banks being established by the British East India Company toward the end of the 18th century. India’s largest bank today, the State Bank of India, originated in 1806 as the Bank of Calcutta. Following India’s independence, in 1949, the Banking Regulation Act vested the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), India’s Central Bank, with extensive powers for supervision of banking in India. In two waves of nationalization in 1969 and 1980, the Indian government nationalized the major private banks, running them as profit-making public sector undertakings that were allowed to compete and operate as commercial banks. 17 This increased the public sector banks’ share of deposits to 92% (Hanson, 2001). The government also experimented with a social banking program during this period to improve access to banking services for the poor, leading to a huge expansion in the number of bank branches (Burgess and Pande, 2005). In response to a fiscal and balance of payments crisis in 1991, India went through a large- scale financial liberalization. Following the recommendations of the Narasimhan Committee Report that suggested reforms in the Indian banking sector, the government allowed for the entry 17 In 1969, 14 banks with deposits over Rs 50 crores were nationalized. In 1980, 6 private sector banks were nationalized. A few of the private sector banks were not nationalized because of their small size and regional focus. 16 of new private sector banks (including foreign banks) in 1993. Despite the massive growth of private sector banks, India’s banking system is still largely state dominated. As of 2012, India’s state-owned banks have 73% of the market share of assets and 83% of branches. 18 Even within this government dominated banking sector, there is a large variation across India’s states in level of financial development. Bajpai and Sachs (1999) note that there has been a wide variation in the adoption of economic reforms with states like Maharashtra being very reform oriented and others, especially the poorest BIMARU 19 states (Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh) being laggards. Aghion et al. (2005) also note the reforms in the 1990s to be associated with increasing cross-state inequality in industrial performance. Our measure of financial development is the ratio of total Commercial Bank Credit outstanding to the Net State Domestic Product (SDP) in each census year and gauges the depth of financial development. The data are sourced from Burgess and Pande (2005) with updates from the Reserve Bank of India (http://dbie.rbi.org.in). According to statistics by the Reserve Bank of India, in March 2006, there were about 217 commercial banks in operation, with 161 of them state owned (includes nationalized banks and regional rural banks), 27 private sector banks and the remaining 29 foreign banks. 20 Despite the entry of private banks, state-controlled banks still account for three-quarters of all loans in India. India’s largest commercial bank, the State Bank of India, is over two hundred years old and is government owned. Banerjee, Cole, and Duflo (2004) state that 83% of banking business in India is through government owned banks and even the private banks are subject to extensive regulations on who they can lend to. 18 Speech by Dr Duvvuri Subbarao, Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, at the FICCI–IBA (Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry – Indian Banks’ Association) Annual Banking Conference, Mumbai, 13 August 2013. http://www.bis.org/review/r130813b.pdf?frames=0. 19 BIMARU resembles the Hindi word “Bimar” meaning sick. 20 http://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/Publications/PDFs/78903.pdf 17 We only have data on financial development across 15 Indian states but these are the major states of India with the highest SDP, accounting for 95% of India’s population and 90% of India’s GDP in 2004/05. Table 2 shows a wide variation in Credit/SDP across the states ranging from 0.073 in 1983 in Assam, one of India’s poorest states to 0.477 in Maharashtra, one of the richest Indian states with a median value of 0.19 (Gujarat) in 1983. These differences persist over our sample period and the values in 2004/05, the last year in our sample, are 0.171 in Assam and 1.148 in Maharashtra. Based on Credit/SDP, we construct a dummy variable, FD, which takes the value 1 for a particular state in a particular year if that state is at the median or above the median value of financial development in that year across states and 0 for states that are below the median value of financial development. Across the years, we find six states that are always classified as financially developed – Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Maharashtra. Only two of the states, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, switch from being classified as financially underdeveloped to developed in 2004/05 while Gujarat and West Bengal are classified as underdeveloped in the last year. India’s labor regulations have been known to be among the most stringent in the world and responsible for the stagnant share of manufacturing outputs in India’s GDP (Dougherty, 2009). Under the Indian Constitution, both central and state governments have joint jurisdiction over labor market regulation. One of the most important set of labor regulations governing Indian industry is the centrally legislated Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 which lays out the arbitration and adjudication procedures in industrial disputes and which has been extensively amended by state governments. A large literature has evolved quantifying labor market regulations across different states of India, the most well-known being Besley and Burgess (2004), that code the legislative state-level amendments to IDA to classify states as pro-worker 18 (score of +1) or pro-employer (-1) or neutral (0) over the period 1958 to 1992. Given the limited time-series variation within states, Hasan, Mitra, and Ramaswamy (2007) build on the Besley- Burgess data set to cumulate the coded scores in net years into a time-invariant index of the general direction in labor regulations, classifying states with anti-employee amendments as those with flexible labor markets and the others as inflexible labor markets. They argue that the scores on cumulative amendments between 1980 and 1997 do not vary much over time within states, with eight of the states showing no amendment activity since 1980. Dougherty (2009) further reports that only 8 amendments (in 3 states) have been recorded since 1990, and only one amendment passed in 2004 appears to be of material importance to labor market outcomes. Gupta et al. (2008) build a composite index based on a simple majority rule across the indicators proposed in Besley and Burgess (2004), Bhattacharjea (2006), and Dougherty (2009), and classify five states to have flexible labor regulations, (Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh), three states to have inflexible labor market regulations (Maharashtra, Orissa, and West Bengal), and the remaining seven to be neutral (Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, and Punjab). 21 Following the composite classification in Gupta et al. (2008), we create a Flexible State dummy that takes the value 1 for states with flexible labor regulation and 0 for states with rigid or neutral labor regulations as shown in panel B of Table 2. We make one change to the Gupta et al. classification of using the pre-2000 state boundaries in classifying states. So our flexible states classification includes Uttaranchal (which split from Uttar Pradesh in 2000) and our inflexible states classification includes Jharkhand and Chattisgarh that were formerly part of Bihar and Madhya Pradesh, respectively). 21 The labor market regulation index is not available for the following states and union territories: Jammu & Kashmir, Chandigarh, Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura, Meghalaya, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Pondicherry, Lakshadweep, and Andaman & Nicobar Islands. 19 Table 3 presents summary statistics and correlations for our main variables from the formal manufacturing Census. Table 3 shows that after winsorizing, Establishment Size ranges from 1 to 1,616 employees with a mean of 121 employees. The mean Establishment Size Ratio is 1.38, suggesting that the average firm in our sample is 1.38 times the size of its birth cohort. 62% of the firm-year observations are classified as small firm industries, 23% are classified as labor intensive and 42% are classified as being in industries that are highly dependent on external finance. Sixty-nine % of the establishments are in states with flexible labor regulations and 73% are in financially developed states. Panel B presents the correlation matrix between these variables. The sample correlations with age dummies show that older firms are larger and growing faster. When we look at the industry classifications we find that none of the correlations between the industry categories are larger than 0.19, suggesting that the three measures – Small Firm Industry, Labor Intensive, and EFD – are capturing three different aspects of industry technology. Overall we find that small firm industries are positively correlated with labor intensive industry and negatively correlated with external finance dependence. The correlations with Establishment Size and Establishment Size Ratio show that firms are larger and grow faster in large firm dominated industries, in capital intensive industries and in industries that are not highly dependent on external finance. The raw correlations also show that firms in financially developed states are larger and grow faster. On the other hand, while firms in states with flexible labor regulations are smaller, they are growing faster. 20 III. Establishment Size and Age in Developing Countries A. Summary Statistics In this section we present stylized facts on the size of establishments as they age in developing countries. We begin by presenting evidence on the relationship between average plant employment and age in the cross-section in Figure 1. We first compute the mean employment in each age bin in each country. We then compute an index for each country where the index takes the value 1 for establishments less than five years old. For all other age bins, the index is the ratio of the mean employment in that age bin to the mean employment for firms under five years of age. Figure 1 plots the mean and 95% confidence intervals of the index for each age bin. We find that in developing countries, across all industries, the average size of plants that are less than 20 years old is only twice as large as the average size of plants that are less than 5 years old but after that there is a large increase in the size-age gap. A plant that is 40 years or older on average employs nearly 5 times as many people as a plant that is less than five years old. 22 The 95% confidence intervals show that this number could vary between 4 and 5.3. The findings in Figure 1 are very robust. The upward-sloping size-age profile is pervasive in our sample of countries. In less than 10% of the countries, a plant that is 40 years or older is not at least as big as a plant that is younger than five years old. In Figure 2, we find similar results when we take sampling weights into account and compute average establishment size as Total Employment/Total # of establishments - the 40+ year old plant employs 5 times as many workers as the typical plant five years or younger. When we look at just manufacturing plants in 22 The ratio represents the increase in mean size of the establishments in the 40+ age bin compared to that of establishments in the <5 age bin. It is not the mean annual growth rate of the establishments in the 40+ age bin. 21 Figure 3, we again find that the average size of a plant that is 40+ years old is 5.7 times larger than the average size of plants that are less than 5 years old. In Figure 4, we undertake additional robustness tests. We exclude countries with a Socialist legal tradition because Ayyagari, Demirguc-Kunt, and Maksimovic (2008, 2013a) argue that these countries are fundamentally different from others in their perceptions of property rights protection. One of the other concerns with the former Socialist economies might be that the data on establishment year are noisy because of mass privatizations though the establishments were queried on when the establishment first started operations even if it was under state ownership. However in Figure 4 we find consistent results with our main finding when we drop former Socialist economies. We then explore if our results are being driven by the really old large state firms or firms that were established many years before countries’ independence. We find our results to be robust to dropping firms with any government ownership and dropping firms that were established before the countries’ independence. Firms in our survey were also asked to report the number of employees at the time the firm began operations (size at birth). So in Figure 5, we normalize the average size of each age cohort by the average size of that cohort at birth. We find that firms that are over 40 years old are 4 times larger than their size at birth. This is consistent with our main finding that older plants in developing countries are larger than their younger counterparts. In unreported figures, we examine if there are differences in plant size-age gap across different country income groups. Using the sampling weights, we find that in all cases, the average size of 40-year-old plants is much larger than plants under 5 years of age and the size- age gap ranges from 4.75 times in the case of high-income countries to 5.3 times in the case of 22 low-income countries. Across regions, we find that the size-age gap for firms 40 years and older ranges from 3.32 in East Asia Pacific to 6.03 in Africa. The evidence thus far provides only suggestive evidence of plant life cycles because it provides a snapshot of the firm size-age relationship for surviving establishments. One possible explanation for the pattern we find may be selection, that is, our results may be being driven by firm exits rather than firm growth. For instance, each year if we had the smallest 5% of firms exiting, we would still find an upward-sloping relationship between establishment size and age. To improve on the cross-sectional evidence, we next look at the data at two snapshots in time from the same surveys. Firms in our survey were asked to report their employment last year and three years ago. In Figure 6, we plot the average employment at the two different snapshots in time. So for instance if we look at the firms in the 15-16 age cohort (bold line), their size at the previous snapshot will be the dashed line of the 13-14 age cohort. The figure shows that the two distributions are comparable so it is not the case that the surviving firms are from the top end of the size distribution. This provides some suggestive evidence that our results are not entirely driven by exit. B. Multivariate Analysis In Table 4, in col. 1, we regress Establishment Size on age dummies and find all the age coefficients to be positive and significant, suggesting that older firms are larger than younger firms. For ease of comparison with the youngest firms, we add the constant (which presents the average mean size for firms younger than 5 years old) to each of the age coefficients and divide the sum by the constant. These ratios are reported in bold in square brackets below the coefficient and standard errors. Thus we see that the average 40+ year old firm is 4.783 times the 23 size of the average firm that is younger than five years old. In col. 2, we repeat the analysis in col. 1 using industry dummies and country dummies to control for any time-invariant unobserved heterogeneity across countries and industries. Once again we find that all the age coefficients are positive and significant. Cols. 3 and 4 present results for manufacturing and non-manufacturing sub-samples where we find a similar increase in establishment size with age. In cols. 1-4, we are comparing the mean size of firms that are 40+ years old with the mean size of firms that are younger than 5 years old. However, young firms could be varying in size across years due to different macroeconomic factors, entry regulations, capital market openness, etc. as well as across countries. In order to see if firms indeed grow as they age over their life cycle, we would want to compare the size of older firms at any given point in time with their size when they were born. The Enterprise Surveys ask firms to report the number of full- time employees when the firm started operations which allows us to construct Establishment Size Ratio, which is the ratio of each firm’s current employment level to the number of employees when it started operations. Col. 5 presents a regression of Establishment Size Ratio on age dummies and shows that older firms are much larger compared to their size when they first started operations. The constant shows that the average firm that is less than 5 years old is 3.05 times its size when it first started operations whereas the coefficient of the 40+ age bin shows that the average 40+ year old establishment is 11 times its size when it first started operations. Overall Table 4 shows that firms in developing countries grow as they age and we find no evidence of a declining life cycle in our sample of firms. 24 IV. Establishment Size and Age in India A. Firm Life Cycle in the Formal Manufacturing Sector To examine the relationship between firm size and age, we pool repeated cross-section data from the Indian census. We begin with some descriptive statistics of our data, following Hsieh and Klenow (2013). For each census year separately, we first compute the mean employment in each age bin reported by that census. We then compute an index for each year of data where the index takes the value 1 for establishments less than five years old. For all other age bins, the index is the ratio of the mean employment in that age bin to the mean employment for firms under five years of age reported in the same census. Figure 7 plots the mean index for each age bin using data for five repeated cross-sections – 1983/84, 1989/90, 1994/95, 2000/01, and 2004/05. The figure shows that the average 40-year-old plant is 3 to 5 times the size of the plants under five years of age. Figure 8 presents data using weighted employment and shows that for the average 40+ year old plant, the ratio varies from 4.8 times in 1983 to 2.2 in 1994. We also see that in recent years, the average 30-year-old plant is not that much larger than plants younger than five years old but after that, older plants are larger than the young plants. To mitigate concerns about sampling issues, we present data only using the census sector in Figure 9 and find that even 20-year-old plants in most years are twice as large as plants younger than five years of age. Figure 9 also shows that over time the size-age gap for the 40+ year old plant has shrunk starting from 4.91 in 1983/84 to 2.62 in 2004/05. In unreported figures we find similar results when we use a weighted average across all industries in each age bin with the weights being the value-added shares of each industry. The graphs show a much faster growth rate for Indian plants than found by Hsieh and Klenow (2013) who document a flat plant life cycle in Indian manufacturing, including in just 25 the formal sector, using only data form the 1994/95 Census. The differences are particularly stark later in the life cycle where we find older plants to be much larger while they find older plants to be declining in size. We discuss the reasons for the discrepancy below in section IV.E. In Table 5, we use pooled OLS regressions to explore the age effects in detail. In col. 1, we regress Establishment Size on age dummies and find all the age coefficients to be positive and significant, suggesting that older firms are larger than younger firms. For ease of comparison with the youngest firms, we add the constant (which presents the average mean size for firms younger than 5 years old) to each of the age coefficients and divide the sum by the constant. These ratios are reported in bold in square brackets below the coefficient and standard errors. Thus we see that the average 40+ year old firm is 3.775 times the size of the average firm that is younger than five years old. In col. 2, we repeat the analysis in col. 1 using 3-digit NIC industry dummies and state dummies. While we are not allowing for time-varying changes across states and industries, the dummies help us control for any time-invariant unobserved heterogeneity across states and industries. Once again we find that all the age coefficients are positive and significant. Figure 10 plots the coefficients for the age dummies and the 95% confidence bands and shows that even after controlling for period effects, location, and industry, older firms are larger than firms younger than five years old (reference sample). In columns 1 and 2, we are comparing the mean size of firms that are 40+ years old in the pooled sample with the mean size of firms that are younger than 5 years old. However, young firms could be varying in size across years due to different macroeconomic factors, entry regulations, capital market openness, etc. Figure 11 plots the mean employment and the 26 confidence intervals for firms younger than five years old in each census year and shows that the average size of the youngest firms almost doubles between 1983 and 1995 23 and then reduces. In order to obtain true life-cycle effects and to see if firms indeed grow as they age over their life cycle, we would want to compare the size of older firms at any given point in time with their size when they were born. In the absence of panel data we are unable to look at the employment of the exact firm when it was born and hence rely on the mean employment in its birth cohort. Thus we construct Establishment Size Ratio, which is the size of firms in a particular age bin scaled by the mean size of the firms in their birth cohort. Since our sample period extends from 1983 to 2005, the oldest firms in our sample for which we can obtain this comparison are firms that are 20-24 years old in 2005 with their birth cohort being firms that were <5 years old in 1983. Columns 3 and 4 in Table 5 present regressions with the Establishment Size Ratio. Col. 3 shows that firms that are 20-24 years old are 1.419 times the size of average firms in their birth cohort. The constant in col. 3 is again the reference category of firms younger than five years old and since we are scaling each firm’s employment by the mean employment of their birth cohort (firms younger than 5 years old when the firms was born) and using OLS we would expect it to be 1 as it is. Col. 4 shows that after controlling for industry, location, and year dummies, firms that are 20-24 years old are 1.86 times the size when they were born. Col. 4 also shows that there must be heterogeneity across industries (e.g. labor vs. capital intensive), states (e.g. regulation), and firm types (e.g. organization structure) in the size of the firms younger than 5 years old since the constant is no longer 1. Overall Table 5 shows that manufacturing plants in India grow as they age. 23 Hsieh and Klenow (2013) use data from 1995 for their main analysis thus scaling the employment of all firms with that of the youngest firms in 1995, which is also the year when the youngest firms were the largest in our sample period. 27 B. Heterogeneity across Industries in Firm Life Cycle In this section we explore if there are technological differences across industries that must be taken into account when considering life-cycle effects. In the regression tables in this section and the following section, we first show the regression results and then show the corresponding margin plots of the interaction coefficients for ease of interpretation. While these margin plots give an idea of the initial starting points of plants in different industries and give an idea of relative size across different age groups, we also present results taking the ratio of the predicted margin of each age group with that of the youngest firms to give an estimate of growth rates. In column 1 of Table 6 we interact Age Dummies with Small Firm Industry dummy. The main age effects are positive and significant, suggesting that the average older firm is larger and the main effect of Small Firm Industry is negative and significant, suggesting that average firm size in small-firm-dominated industries is smaller than that in large-firm-dominated industries. The interaction coefficients are all negative and significant. To better interpret the interaction effects, we plot the predictive margins of the interaction coefficients in col. 1 along with the 95% confidence intervals in Figure 12. The first panel in Figure 12 shows that the average size of firms in large-firm-dominated industries is higher than that in small-firm-dominated industries across all age groups. Large-firm-dominated industries are also growing faster than small-firm- dominated industries. In Panel B of Table 6 we present the ratio of the predictive margins of each age bin to that of the reference group to obtain an estimate of growth rates. Cols. 1 and 2 of Panel B show that the average 40+ year old firm is 5.11 times the size of firms that are younger than five years old in large-firm-dominated industries while that ratio is only 2.74 in small-firm- dominated industries. 28 In col. 2 of panel A we look at the interaction of labor intensive industry and age. The age effects are again positive and significant while the labor intensive industry dummy is positive and significant, suggesting that on average employment levels are higher in labor intensive industries. The second panel in Figure 12 plots the margin plots of the interaction coefficients and shows that, while firms in capital intensive industries start out smaller than those in labor intensive industries, they grow faster and are larger than firms in labor intensive industries as they age. Cols. 3 and 4 of Panel B show that the average 40+ year old firm is 4.08 times the size of firms that are younger than five years old in capital intensive industries, while that ratio is only 2.38 in labor intensive industries. The correlation coefficient of the Small Firm Industry dummy and Labor Intensity Dummy is only 6.3% (see panel B of Table 2). However, to investigate if the difference in age effects in small-firm-dominated versus large-firm-dominated industries varies by labor intensity, in col. 3 of panel A of Table 6 we explore the triple interaction of age dummies with Small Firm Industry dummy and Labor Intensity dummy. The interaction of labor intensity and small-firm- dominated industry is positive and significant. Figure 13 plots the predictive margins of the triple interaction coefficients and shows that the average size is largest in capital intensive and large- firm-dominated industries while in the small-firm-dominated labor intensive industries growth over the firm’s life cycle is the lowest. The figure also shows that older firms in capital intensive and large-firm-dominated industries are particularly large while the differences between the other industry classifications are not as stark. In cols. 5-8 of panel B, we take the ratio of the predictive margins in each age group in each industry category with the predictive margin of the youngest firms in that industry category. We find that the average 40+ year old firm is 5.69 times larger than firms younger than 5 years 29 old in large-firm-dominated and capital intensive industries whereas that ratio is 2.71, 3.02, and 2.12 in large firm and labor intensive industries, small-firm-dominated and capital intensive industries, and small-firm-dominated and labor intensive industries, respectively. To explore the role of external financing in the establishment life cycle and firm growth, we divide the sample into industries that are dependent on external finance and those that are not dependent on external finance using the index of external finance dependence (EFD). In col.4 of Table 6, we interact the age dummies with EFD. The age dummy coefficients are all positive and significant, suggesting that on average older firms are larger. The EFD dummy is positive but not significant whereas the interaction of EFD with age dummies is positive and significant. To better interpret the interaction terms, we plot the predictive margins along with the 95% confidence intervals in Figure 14. The figure shows that while firms in industries that are dependent on external finance start out the same size as firms in industries that are not highly dependent on external finance, they grow faster and are larger as they age. Cols. 9 and 10 of Panel B show that the average 40+ year old firms in industries that are not highly dependent on external finance is 2.93 times the size of firms younger than five years old in those industries whereas that number is 4.89 times in industries that are highly dependent on external finance. Overall, Table 6 and Figures 12-14 show that the initial starting point of firms and their growth rates are different depending on their industries’ technological size, production technology, and dependence on external finance. Firms grow more over their life cycles in industries predicted to be large-firm-dominated based on US data and in capital-intensive industries and in industries more dependent on external finance. 30 C. Financial Development and Firm Life Cycle In this section, we examine variations in firm life cycles across different levels of financial development of the states they are located in and across different industry characteristics. In these regressions, we do not include state fixed effects but instead control for net State Domestic Product (SDP)/capita (in logs). In col.1 of Table 7, we investigate the role of financial development on firm life cycles by interacting age dummies with FD, a dummy variable that takes the value 1 for financially developed states and 0 for financially underdeveloped states. The financial development dummy is by itself positive and significant, suggesting that plants in more financially developed states are larger and so are plants in states with higher SDP/capita. Most of the interaction terms are insignificant. This can also be seen in Figure 15 where we plot the predictive margins of the interaction coefficients and find that financial development does not make a material difference to plant life cycles in India. In col. 1 of Panel B, we take the ratios of the predicted margins in each age bin to that of the youngest firms (<5), and find that plants in developed versus underdeveloped states are growing at very similar rates. In unreported tests we find similar results when we look at just the top 3 and bottom 3 states in terms of financial development. We also do not find evidence supporting the role of financial development for firm life cycles when we use a continuous measure of financial development, Credit/SDP, interacted with age dummies. In cols. 2-7 we investigate if the financial development of the state is more critical for firm life cycles in some industries versus others. We look at large-firm-dominated and labor intensive industries in col.2, large-firm-dominated capital intensive industries in col. 3, small-firm- dominated and labor intensive industries in col.4, small-firm-dominated capital intensive 31 industries in col. 5, industries not dependent on external finance in col. 6, and industries dependent on external finance in col. 7. The financial development dummy is positive and significant in all specifications except in the case of small-firm-dominated, capital intensive industries. The predictive margins of the interaction coefficients in all 6 columns are shown in Figure 16 where we see that firms in large- firm-dominated labor intensive industries are larger at all ages in financially developed states versus underdeveloped states. In small-firm-dominated labor intensive industries, plants start out larger in the financially developed states but for older plants we find that those in financially underdeveloped states are larger. In all other industry samples, we do not find striking differences between the financially developed and underdeveloped states. In cols. 2-7 of panel B we show the ratio of the predictive margins in each age bin to that of the youngest firms (<5 years old). We find that plants are growing fastest in large-firm-dominated capital intensive industries and slowest in small-firm-dominated labor intensive industries. Plants in industries that are dependent on external finance grow faster compared to plants in industries less dependent on external finance. However when we look at the differences across financial development, surprisingly we find that the older plants in financially underdeveloped states are larger than the youngest firms in those states compared to the size difference between old and young plants in financially developed states. Together Table 7 and Figures 15-16 show that there are no significant differences in the life cycles of Indian firms across financially developed and underdeveloped states and any key differences in size and growth rates that exist are at the industry level. 32 C.1. Robustness In this section we undertake a number of robustness tests to see if there is a differential effect of financial development on firm life cycles. First, in col. 1 of Table 8, we explore whether the effect of financial development is larger for firms in the right tail of the size distribution by looking at firms at or above the 90th percentile in terms of size distribution. Most of the interaction terms are insignificant, suggesting only marginal differences in growth rates of these plants in financially developed versus underdeveloped states. In cols. 2 and 3 we use alternate measures of our financial development indicator – in col. 2 we use Commercial Bank Deposits/SDP as an alternate measure of financial depth and in col. 3 we use Total number of bank branches/1000 persons as a measure of financial outreach. We once again split states each year into financially developed versus underdeveloped depending on the median value of these indicators across states. Cols. 2 and 3 show that the main effect of financial development is negative while the interaction effects with age are mostly insignificant. This is also seen in Figure 18 where we do not find material differences between developed and underdeveloped states using these alternate indicators. India has been known to have one of the most stringent formal labor laws in the world, which is substantially more protective than the British labor laws along which it was originally modeled, as discussed by Dougherty, Robles, and Krishna (2011). Several studies have shown that stringent labor regulations have been associated with lower levels of manufacturing output, employment, and labor productivity (e.g. Besley and Burgess, 2004; Aghion et al., 2008; Ahsan and Pages, 2009). In cols. 4 and 5 of Table 8, we examine if the effect of financial development on plant life cycle is different in states with flexible labor regulations versus states with stringent labor regulations following the classification in Gupta, Hasan, and Kumar (2008). While the 33 main effect of financial development is positive and significant in flexible states, it is negative and significant in the inflexible states. However, all the interaction coefficients of age with financial development are positive and significant in states with rigid labor regulations. To better interpret the interaction coefficients, we look at the predictive margins with the 95% confidence bands for the interaction coefficients in Figure 18. We find that among the plants in states with rigid labor regulations, those in financially developed states are larger than those in financially underdeveloped states. The differences across financial development are less stark in states with flexible labor regulations. In cols. 6 and 7 we next investigate if the role of financial development differs across differing periods of industrial policy. Following India’s independence in 1947, the 1951 Industries Development and Regulation Act introduced a system of industrial licensing that came to be known as the “license raj”, which regulated and restricted the entry of new firms and expansion of existing firms. With the Indian economy being stagnant over several decades, a series of liberalization reforms were introduced by the government starting in the 1980s which included de-licensing of industries. A third of the industries were de-licensed during the period 1985-1987 and most of the others in 1991. Aghion et al. (2008) provide information on each three-digit industry that was de-licensed over the period 1980-1997. We extend their data to the end of our sample period in 2005 to identify firms that were born after their industry was de- licensed. In col. 6 of Table 8 we look at the interaction of FD and age for firms born after the period of de-licensing. Since the earliest de-licensing year in our sample starts in 1985, we only have the first19 years of firm life cycle and hence use interactions of FD with each year of age. The predictive margins of the interaction coefficients are in Figure 19. We find that while the age coefficients are mostly positive and significant, the FD dummy is not significant and neither are 34 the interaction terms. Figure 19 also shows that there does not seem to be much difference in the early life cycle of firms born after de-licensing in financially developed versus underdeveloped states. While firms in financially developed states seem to be born larger, the difference is not maintained over time. In col. 7 of Table 8 we examine if there is a differential effect of state-level financial development on plants born after India’s financial liberalization in 1991. Since the last year of data in our sample is 2005, we have 14 years of firms’ life cycles for the firms born after liberalization. Once again most of the interaction terms are not significant. Figure 20 plots the predictive margins of the interaction coefficients along with the 95% confidence intervals. We find that while firms in financially developed states start out larger than firms in financially underdeveloped states in the period before liberalization, these differences do not persist over time. We do not find any material difference in the life cycle of plants born after liberalization in financially developed versus underdeveloped states. In unreported tests we do not find significant differences in early plant life cycles between states with high versus low levels of financial development even before industry de- licensing or liberalization. C.2. Intensive vs. Extensive Margins The above section shows that despite great variation within the country, financial institutions have limited explanatory power for plant life cycles in India. In this section we examine if the financial institutions have a differential effect on the extensive margin (Number of Plants) versus intensive margin (Avg Employment/Plant). 35 In Figure 21, we plot the proportion of employment in financially developed states in each bin (EM-developed) and the proportion of employment in financially underdeveloped states in each bin (EM-Underdeveloped). We find marginal differences between financially developed versus underdeveloped states. Across both categories of states, the 5-9 aged firms have the highest proportion of employment after which it declines. So older plants have smaller employment shares though the oldest age group of 40+ have higher employment shares than middle-aged plants between 20-39 years of age Next, for each age bin in financially developed states we take the ratio of total number of employees to total number of establishments to give us the intensive margin (IM-developed) and repeat the same for the underdeveloped states to obtain IM-Underdeveloped. While older firms have higher employment/ establishment ratio, we don’t find significant differences across financially developed versus underdeveloped states. All our results hold if we were to take sampling weights into account and examine the intensive and extensive margins in the population. D. Informal Manufacturing Sector In this section we study the size-age gap in the informal manufacturing sector in India. In a recent paper using World Bank Enterprise survey data for the informal sector, La Porta and Shleifer (2008) show that informal firms look very different from formal firms in terms of size, productivity, and education level of managers and find little evidence that growth occurs by informal firms eventually becoming large formal establishments. They interpret their findings as being consistent with the dual economy view (e.g. Harris and Todaro, 1970) which predicts that in developing countries, in addition to the formal sector, there is an informal sector that employs a large section of the labor force. 36 Figure 22 presents the sample statistics for establishment size across different age bins, combining the data for both the rural and urban sectors. We see that older firms in the unorganized manufacturing sector employ fewer people than firms younger than 5 years old. Thus firms in the informal manufacturing sector in India have a very different life cycle than the firms in the formal manufacturing sector. The downward-sloping age-size profile in the informal sector is consistent with the description of the informal sector in La Porta and Shleifer (2008). E. Reconciling Our Results with Hsieh and Klenow (2013) The analysis above shows that firms in the formal manufacturing sector in India grow as they age in contrast to the findings in Hsieh and Klenow (2013) for the formal manufacturing sector for the same year – 1994/95. 24 In this section, we try to understand if the different results we obtain from those in Hsieh and Klenow (2013) are data driven by taking a closer look at the different types of workers. The Indian Census data provide detailed information on the types of workers in an establishment as shown in Appendix D. In all the figures presented thus far, we use total number of workers (line 13 in ASI data and line 22 in NSS data). In this section, we focus our attention on contract workers in the ASI 1994/95 data set. In Figure 23, we present the size-age relationship using total employment and just contract workers. We find the size-age gap is declining only in the case of contract workers with older firms employing fewer workers than firms under five years of age. Overall, we find evidence of a flat or declining life cycle in India found by Hsieh and Kloenow only when we look at the informal sector or a particular category of workforce, 24 Hseih and Klenow (2013) state “..we see flat size with respect to age in the formal plants of the Indian ASI alone, just as in the pooled NSS-ASI data” 37 contract labor. However, there is no compelling economic rationale for measuring firm size or labor input in the formal sector in this way, and clear reasons not to do so. IV. Conclusion The role of size and age in influencing plant dynamics is crucial to understanding productivity differences across firms and countries. In this paper, we use unique survey data across 120 developing countries to examine the relationship between establishment size and age in the formal sector. We find that the average 40-year-old plant in developing countries is about five times larger than the average plant less than 5 years of age. Our results are robust to a number of checks in smaller samples, including looking at just the manufacturing sector, dropping former Socialist economies, dropping firms with any government ownership and dropping firms that started operations before the countries’ year of independence. We then undertake an in-depth analysis of plant life cycles in one developing country, India. Based on five repeated cross-sections of census data in India spanning 23 years, this study shows that there are significant age effects in the determination of firm size. While the average 20-year-old plant in India is not that much larger than plants younger than five years, by age 40, the average plant in India in the formal sector is two to four times larger than the average plant five years or younger. We find evidence of a flat life cycle only in the informal sector in India. We also find that the differences in financial development across Indian states, while substantial, only modestly affect the life cycles of established firms in most industries. The one exception is firms in large-firm-dominated labor intensive industries, which are larger in financially developed states versus underdeveloped states. We also find that plants in financially developed states that have rigid labor market regulations are larger than plants in financially 38 underdeveloped states with rigid labor market regulations. We do not find the institutions to have a big impact on either the intensive (employment/establishment) or extensive margin (number of plants). Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that a majority government-owned banking system, like the one India has, is not an effective way of employing the financial system to support economic growth. Our findings have important policy implications. We show that on average, across the world, formal new establishments start small and grow as they age. We find no evidence of declining life cycles in the formal sector, suggesting that older firms are important contributors to economies in developing countries in terms of employment. However, we also find that the size-age ratio may not be as large as that in developed countries such as the United States, suggesting that other institutional factors or firm idiosyncratic factors, such as organizational structures, may play a role in establishment life cycles. 39 References Aghion, Philippe, Robin Burgess, Stephen J. Redding, and Fabrizio Zilibotti (2008), “The Unequal Effects of Liberalization: Evidence from Dismantling the License Raj in India”, American Economic Review, 98(4): 1397-1412. Ahsan, Ahmad and Carmen Pages (2009), “Are all labor Regulations Equal? Evidence from Indian Manufacturing”, Journal of Comparative Economics, 37(1): 62-75. Ahluwahlia, M. (2002) State Level Performance under Economic Reforms in India. In “Economic Policy Reforms and the Indian Economy” Ed: Anne O. Krueger, University of Chicago Press, 1 edition, Chicago, USA. Ayyagari, Demirguc-Kunt, and Maksimovic, 2008, How well do Institutional Theories Explain Firms Perception of Property Rights, Review of Financial Studies 21(4), 1833-1871. Ayyagari, Demirguc-Kunt, and Maksimovic, 2010 “Formal versus Informal Finance: Evidence from China.” Review of Financial Studies, 23(8). Ayyagari, Demirguc-Kunt, and Maksimovic, 2012, Who creates jobs in developing countries? SSRN Working Paper Series. Ayyagari, M., Demirguc-Kunt, A., and V. Maksimovic, 2013a, What determines protection of property rights? An Analysis of Direct and Indirect Effects, Journal of Financial Econometrics forthcoming. Bajpai, N. and J. D. Sachs, 1999, The Progress of Policy Reform and Variations in Performance at the Sub-National Level in India. Harvard Institute of International Development Discussion Paper No. 730 Banerjee, A., S. Cole, and E. Duflo, 2004, “Banking Reform in India” in Bery, S. B. Bosworth and A. Panagariya, India Policy Forum, 2004, Volume 1. New Delhi; Washington, DC: National Council of Applied Economic Research; Brookings Institution, 277-332. Barth, James, Gerard Caprio and Ross Levine, 2001. “Banking Systems Around the Globe: Do Regulation and Ownership Affect Performance and Stability?” in Financial Supervision and Regulation: What Works and What Doesn’t? Ed. Frederick Mishkin, NBER, 31-88. Beck, Thorsten, Asli Demirguc-Kunt, Luc Laeven and Ross Levine, 2008. "Finance, Firm Size, and Growth," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, vol. 40(7), 1379-1405. Beck, Thorsten, Asli Demirguc-Kunt, and Vojislav Maksimovic, 2005, Financial and Legal Constraints to Firm Growth: Does Firm Size Matter? Journal of Finance, 137-177 Besley, T. and R. Burgess, 2004, Can Labor Regulation Hinder Economic Performance? Evidence from India," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 119(1), 91-134. 40 Bhattacharjea, Aditya. 2006. “Labour market regulation and industrial performance in India: A critical review of the empirical evidence.” The Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 49(2): 211-32. Boyreau-Debray, G., 2003, Financial Intermediation and Growth: Chinese Style. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3027. Boyreau-Debray, G. and S. J. Wei 2005, “Pitfalls of a State-Dominated Financial System: The Case of China.” NBER Working Paper 11214 Burgess, R. and R. Pande, 2005. "Do Rural Banks Matter? Evidence from the Indian Social Banking Experiment," American Economic Review, 95(3), 780-795. Brav, A., John R. Graham, Campbell Harvey, Roni Michaely, 2005, Payout Policy in the 21st Century, Journal of Financial Economics 77(3), 483-527. Bruhn, M., 2011, License to Sell: The Effect of Business Registration Reform on Entrepreneurial Activity in Mexico, The Review of Economics and Statistics 93(1), 382-386. Cabral, Luis and Jose Mata (2003), "On the Evolution of the Firm Size Distribution: Facts and Theory," American Economic Review 93(4): 1075-90. Campello, M., Erasmo Giambona, John R. Graham, and Campbell R. Harvey, 2011, Liquidity Management and Corporate Investment During a Financial Crisis, Review of Financial Studies 24(6): 1944-1979. Caves, Richard E. (1998). “Industrial Organization and New Findings on the Turnover and Mobility of Firms,” Journal of Economic Literature, December 1998, 1947-1982. Cole, S. (2009). “Financial Development, Bank Ownership, and Growth: Or, Does Quantity Imply Quality?” Review of Economics and Statistics 91, 33-51. Davis, Steven, John Haltiwanger, and Scott Schuh (1996), Job Creation and Destruction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dehejia, R. and A. Lleras-Muney, 2007. "Financial Development and Pathways of Growth: State Branching and Deposit Insurance Laws in the United States, 1900-1940," Journal of Law and Economics, 50, 239-272 Dougherty, Sean (2009), “Labor Regulation and Employment Dynamics at the State Level in India”, Review of Market Integration, 1(3): 295-337. Dougherty, Sean, Robles, V. C. F. and Krishna, K., 2011. "Employment Protection Legislation and Plant-Level Productivity in India," NBER Working Papers 17693, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. 41 Dunne, Timothy, Mark Roberts, and Larry Samuelson (1989), "The Growth and Failure of U.S. Manufacturing Plants," Quarterly Journal of Economics 104(4), 671-98. Evans, David S, 1987, The Relationship between Firm Growth, Size, and Age: Estimates for 100 Manufacturing Industries, Journal of Industrial Economics 35(4), 567-581. Foster, L., Haltiwanger, J. C., and Syverson, C., 2012, The Slow Growth of New Plants: Learning about Demand? National Bureau of Economic Research Working Papers No. 17853. Graham, John R., and Campbell Harvey, 2001, The Theory and Practice of Corporate Finance: Evidence from the Field, Journal of Financial Economics 60, 187-243 Gupta, P., Hasan, R., and Kumar, U., 2008, What constrains Indian manufacturing? Macroeconomics Working Papers 22162, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research. Guiso, L., P. Sapienza, and L. Zingales, 2004. The Role of Social Capital in Financial Development. American Economic Review 94 (3), 526-556. Harris, John R., and Michael P. Todaro. 1970. “Migration, Unemployment and Development: A Two‐ Sector Analysis.” American Economic Review 60, no. 1: 126‐42. Hanson, James A., 2001. Indian Banking: Market Liberalization and the Pressures for Institutional and Market Framework Reform. Center for Research on Economic Development and Policy Reform Working Paper No. 104, Stanford University. Hasan, R. and Jandoc, K. R. L., 2012, Labor Regulations and the Firm Size Distribution in Indian Manufacturing. Columbia Program on Indian Economic Policies Working Paper No. 2012-3. Hasan, R., Mitra, D., and Ramaswamy, K. V., 2007. Trade Reforms, Labor Regulations, and Labor-Demand Elasticities: Empirical Evidence from India. Review of Economics and Statistics 89 (3), 466-481. Hsieh, Chang-Tai and Peter J. Klenow (2013), "The Lifecycle of plants in India and Mexico,” Quarterly Journal of Economics forthcoming. Jayaratne, J. and Strahan, P. 1996. The Finance-Growth Nexus: Evidence from Bank Branch Deregulation. Quarterly Journal of Economics 111 (3), 639-670. La Porta, R., F. Lopez de Silanes, and A. Shleifer (2002) “Government ownership of banks,” Journal of Finance 57, 265-301. La Porta, Rafael and Andrei Shleifer (2008), "The Unofficial Economy and Economic Development," Brookings Papers in Economic Activity, 275-352. 42 Lins, Karl V. & Servaes, Henri & Tufano, Peter, 2010, What drives corporate liquidity? An international survey of cash holdings and lines of credit, Journal of Financial Economics 98(1), 160-176. Rajan, R. and Zingales, L., 1998, Financial Dependence and Growth. American Economic Review 88 (3), 559-586. 43 Figure 1: Establishment Employment by Age – Sample Estimates in 120 Developing Countries 5 Employment(Age<5=1) 3 2 1 4 <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+ Age Source: Enterprise Surveys across 120 developing countries Figure 2: Establishment Employment by Age - Population Estimates in 120 Developing Countries 6 5 Employment(Age<5=1) 3 2 1 4 <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+ Age Source: Enterprise Surveys across 120 developing countries 44 Figure 3: Establishment Employment by Age – Manufacturing in 120 developing countries 8 6 Employment(Age<5=1) 2 4 0 <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+ Age Source: Enterprise Surveys across 120 developing countries Figure 4: Establishment Employment by Age – Robustness Tests 5 Employment(Age<5=1) 2 31 4 <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+ Age Drop former Socialist countries Drop firms with govt. ownership Drop firms formed before independence Source: Enterprise Surveys across 120 developing countries 45 Figure 5: Establishment Employment by Age - Normalize by Average Employment at Birth 8 6 Avg<5=1 4 2 0 <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+ Age Source: Enterprise Surveys across 120 developing countries Figure 6: Establishment Employment by Age – Two Snapshots 5 Employment(Age<5=1) 2 3 1 4 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 25-26 27-28 29+ Age Employment last year Employment 3 years ago Source: Enterprise Surveys across 120 developing countries 46 Figure 7: Firm Size and Age – Sample Estimates 2004/05 2000/01 5 1994/95 1989/90 1983/84 Employment(Age<5=1) 3 2 1 4 <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+ Age Source: ASI Data for following individual census years: 1983/84, 1989/90, 1994/95, 2000/01, 2004/05 Figure 8: Firm Size and Age – Population Estimates 5 2004/05 2000/01 1994/95 1989/90 1983/84 4 Employment(Age<5=1) 3 2 1 <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+ Age Source: ASI Data for following individual census years: 1983/84, 1989/90, 1994/95, 2000/01, 2004/05 47 Figure 9: Firm Size and Age – Census Sample 5 2004/05 2000/01 1994/95 1989/90 1983/84 4 Employment(Age<5=1) 3 2 1 <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+ Age Source: ASI Data for following individual census years: 1983/84, 1989/90, 1994/95, 2000/01, 2004/05 Figure 10: Firm Size and Age – Pooled Regression Sample 200 150 Employment 100 50 0 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+ Age Source: ASI Data pooled from the following census years: 1983/84, 1989/90, 1994/95, 2000/01, 2004/05 48 Figure 11: Size of young firms over the years 100 Employment in firms younger than 5 years old 60 70 80 90 50 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Census Year Source: ASI Data pooled from the following census years: 1983/84, 1989/90, 1994/95, 2000/01, 2004/05 Figure 12: Firm Size and Age: Industry Heterogeneity Predictive Margins of Interaction Coefficients Predictive Margins of Interaction Coefficients 500 300 400 250 Employment (Linear Prediction) Employment (Linear Prediction) 200 300 150 200 100 100 50 <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+ <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+ Age Age Large Firm Dominated Industries Capital Intensive Industries Small Firm Dominated Industries Labor Intensive Industries Source: ASI Data pooled from the following census years: 1983/84, 1989/90, 1994/95, 2000/01, 2004/05 49 Figure 13: Firm Size and Age: Small/Large Firm and Labor/Capital Intensive 500 Predictive Margins of Interaction Coefficients Employment (Linear Prediction) 100 200 300 400 <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+ Age Capital Intensive, Large Firm Dominated Capital Intensive, Small Firm Dominated Labor Intensive, Large Firm Dominated Labor Intensive, Small Firm Dominated Source: ASI Data pooled from the following census years: 1983/84, 1989/90, 1994/95, 2000/01, 2004/05 Figure 14: Firm Size and Age: External Finance Dependence Predictive Margins of Interaction Coefficients 400 Employment (Linear Prediction) 200 300 100 <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+ Age Low Dep. on Extfin High Dep. on Extfin Source: ASI Data pooled from the following census years: 1983/84, 1989/90, 1994/95, 2000/01, 2004/05 50 Figure 15: Firm Size and Age: Role of Financial Development 300 Predictive Margins of Interaction Coefficients Employment (Linear Prediction) 100 150 200 50 250 <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+ Age Not Financially Developed Financially Developed Source: ASI Data pooled from the following census years: 1983/84, 1989/90, 1994/95, 2000/01, 2004/05 Figure 16: Firm Size and Age: Role of Financial Development across Industries Employment (Linear Prediction) Employment (Linear Prediction) Employment (Linear Prediction) Large-firm, Labor Intensive Large-firm, Capital Intensive Small-firm, Labor Intensive 50 100 150 200 250 300 100 200 300 400 500 600 50 100 150 200 250 + + + <5 9 <5 <5 4 9 4 9 4 9 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 -1 -1 -2 -2 -3 -3 -1 -1 -2 -2 -3 -3 -1 -1 -2 -2 -3 -3 40 40 40 5- 5- 5- 10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35 Age Age Age Low Dependence on External Finance High Dependence on External Finance Employment (Linear Prediction) Employment (Linear Prediction) Employment (Linear Prediction) Small-firm, Capital Intensive 50 100 150 200 250 100 200 300 400 500 50 100 150 200 250 + + + <5 9 <5 <5 4 9 4 9 4 9 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 -1 -1 -2 -2 -3 -3 -1 -1 -2 -2 -3 -3 -1 -1 -2 -2 -3 -3 40 40 40 5- 5- 5- 10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35 Age Age Age Not Financially Developed Financially Developed Source: ASI Data pooled from the following census years: 1983/84, 1989/90, 1994/95, 2000/01, 2004/05 51 Figure 17: Firm Size and Age: Alternate Indicators of Financial Development Commercial Bank Deposits/SDP Total Bank Branches per 1000 persons 300 300 250 250 Employment (Linear Prediction) Employment (Linear Prediction) 200 200 150 150 100 100 50 50 <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+ <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+ Age Age Not Financially Developed Financially Developed Source: ASI Data pooled from the following census years: 1983/84, 1989/90, 1994/95, 2000/01, 2004/05 Figure 18: Firm Size and Age: Role of Financial Development in Flexible vs Inflexible States Flexible Labor Regulation Rigid Labor Regulation 400 300 250 300 200 Employment Employment 200 150 100 100 50 0 <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+ <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+ Age Age Not Financially Developed Financially Developed Source: ASI Data pooled from the following census years: 1983/84, 1989/90, 1994/95, 2000/01, 2004/05 52 Figure 19: Firm Size and Age: Role of Financial Development after De-licensing 250 200 After de-licensing of industries Employment 150100 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Age Not Financially Developed Financially Developed Source: ASI Data pooled from the following census years: 1983/84, 1989/90, 1994/95, 2000/01, 2004/05 Figure 20: Firm Size and Age: Role of Financial Development after Liberalization After Liberalization 200 150 Employment 100 50 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Age Not Financially Developed Financially Developed Source: ASI Data pooled from the following census years: 1983/84, 1989/90, 1994/95, 2000/01, 2004/05 53 Figure 21: Financial Institutions and Intensive (IM) versus Extensive Margin (EM) 350.00 0.25 300.00 Employees / Establishments 0.2 250.00 % of firms 0.15 200.00 150.00 0.1 100.00 0.05 50.00 0.00 0 <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+ IM-Developed IM-Under-developed EM-Developed EM-Underdeveloped Source: ASI Data pooled from the following census years: 1983/84, 1989/90, 1994/95, 2000/01, 2004/0 Figure 22: Establishment Employment by Age – Informal Sector in India Unorganized Manufacturing Rural and Urban(Indices) 1 Employment(Age<5=1) .8 .9 .7 <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+ Age Source: NSS 1994/95 54 Figure 23: Establishment Employment by Age – Contract Workers in India 3 2.5 Employment(Age<5=1) 1.5 12 .5 <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+ Age All employees Contract Workers Source: ASI 1994/95 55 Table 1: Summary Statistics and Correlations – Cross-country Sample The variables are defined as follows: Establishment Size is the number of permanent, full-time employees in the establishment where permanent, full-time employees are defined as all paid employees that are contracted for a term of one or more fiscal years and/or have a guaranteed renewal of their employment contract and that work 8 or more hours per day. Establishment Size Ratio is the establishment size of each firm scaled by the number of full-time employees when it started operations. Establishment Age is defined as the number of years since the establishment began operations in the country and consist of 9 age dummies for the following age bins: <5, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20- 24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, and 40+. Manufacturing is a dummy variable that takes the value 1 for firms in the manufacturing sector and 0 otherwise. Panel A: Summary Statistics Std. Variable N Mean Dev. Min Max Establishment Size 53821 69.728 143.899 3 1300 Establishment Size Ratio 45314 6.078 22.054 5.00E-06 1250 Establishment Age 53821 3.590 2.358 1 9 Manufacturing 53797 0.550 0.497 0 1 Panel B: Correlations Establishment Establishment Size Establishment Size Ratio Age Establishment Size Ratio 0.337*** Establishment Age 0.227*** 0.125*** Manufacturing 0.118*** -0.000 0.151*** *, **, and *** represent significance at 10%, 5%, and 1% levels respectively 56 Table 2: Institutional Variation across Indian States Panel A presents data on financial development across different states of India for each of the census years in our sample. Credit/SDP is the ratio of Total Bank Credit to Net State Domestic Product. FD is a dummy variable that takes the value 1 for state-years that are at or higher than the median value of Credit/SDP across states in a given census year. Panel B classifies states based on the stringency of labor regulations and is from Gupta, Hasan, and Kumar (2008). Flexible is a dummy variable that takes 1 for states with flexible labor regulations and 0 for states with rigid labor market regulations. Panel A: Financial Development across States Year 1983 1989 1994 2000 2004 State Credit/SDP FD Credit/SDP FD Credit/SDP FD Credit/SDP FD Credit/SDP FD Assam 0.073 0 0.118 0 0.102 0 0.119 0 0.171 0 Bihar 0.120 0 0.145 0 0.144 0 0.166 0 0.259 0 Uttar Pradesh 0.149 0 0.169 0 0.156 0 0.172 0 0.267 0 Haryana 0.187 0 0.184 0 0.155 0 0.181 0 0.273 0 Gujarat 0.190 1 0.245 1 0.210 1 0.296 1 0.322 0 West Bengal 0.273 1 0.287 1 0.283 1 0.238 1 0.342 0 Orissa 0.115 0 0.168 0 0.155 0 0.172 0 0.357 0 Punjab 0.229 1 0.221 1 0.231 1 0.286 1 0.364 1 Rajasthan 0.150 0 0.176 0 0.145 0 0.206 0 0.374 1 Madhya Pradesh 0.122 0 0.180 0 0.166 0 0.197 0 0.418 1 Andhra Pradesh 0.222 1 0.272 1 0.262 1 0.316 1 0.438 1 Kerala 0.293 1 0.345 1 0.330 1 0.366 1 0.555 1 Karnataka 0.291 1 0.385 1 0.330 1 0.383 1 0.666 1 Tamil Nadu 0.351 1 0.396 1 0.424 1 0.522 1 0.733 1 Maharashtra 0.477 1 0.417 1 0.497 1 0.659 1 1.148 1 Panel B: Stringency of Labor Regulations across States State name Flexible State Andhra Pradesh 1 Delhi 1 Gujarat 1 Haryana 1 Himachal Pradesh 1 Karnataka 1 Madhya Pradesh 1 Maharashtra 1 Punjab 1 Rajasthan 1 Uttar Pradesh 1 Assam 0 Bihar 0 Chhattisgarh 0 Goa 0 Jharkhand 0 Kerala 0 Orissa 0 Tamil Nadu 0 Uttaranchal 0 West Bengal 0 57 Table 3: Summary Statistics and Correlations –India Sample The variables are defined as follows: Establishment Size is the total number of workers which includes workers employed directly, workers employed through contractors, supervisory and managerial staff, other employees, working proprietors, unpaid family workers, and unpaid working members if cooperative factory. Establishment Size Ratio is the ratio of each firm’s establishment size scaled by the average establishment size of all firms in its birth cohort year. Age Dummies consists of dummy variables for the following 9 age bins - <5, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, and 40+ - and is defined as the year of the survey - year of initial production reported by the firms. Small Firm Industry takes the value 1 if industry’s share of employment in firms with less than 20 employees is ≥ median value of the Index of small firm domination from Beck, Demirguc-Kunt, Laeven, and Levine (2008) and takes the value 0 if it is < the median index value. EFD is a dummy variable that takes the value 1 if industry’s dependence on external finance is ≥ median value of the Index of External Finance Dependence and takes the value 0 if it is < the median of the Index of External Finance Dependence. The Index of External Finance Dependence is computed for US industries over the period 1980-2005following the procedure in Rajan and Zingales (1998). Labor Intensive Industries is a dummy variable that takes the value 1 for labor intensive industries and 0 for capital intensive industries and is from Hasan and Jandoc (2012). FD is dummy variable that takes value 1 for financially developed states and 0 otherwise. Flexible state is a dummy variable that takes the value 1 for states with flexible labor regulations and 0 for states with stringent labor regulations and is from Gupta, Hasan, and Kumar (2008). Panel A: Summary Statistics Variable N Mean Std. Dev. Min Max Establishment Size 221029 121.51 238.36 1 1616 Establishment Size Ratio 106362 1.38 2.64 0.01 30.44 Age Dummies 228904 3.78 2.40 1 9 Small Firm Industry 217596 0.62 0.48 0 1 Labor Intensive 228904 0.23 0.42 0 1 EFD 227123 0.42 0.49 0 1 FD 208963 0.73 0.44 0 1 Flexible State 220811 0.69 0.46 0 1 a and b represent significance at 1% and 5% levels respectively. Panel B: Correlation Matrix Establishment Establishment Age Small Firm Labor EFD FD Size Size Ratio Dummies Industry Intensive Establishment Size Ratio 0.962*** Age Dummies 0.221*** 0.132*** Small Firm Industry -0.101*** -0.085*** 0.025*** Labor Intensive -0.04*** -0.004 -0.085*** 0.063*** EFD -0.066*** -0.053*** -0.007*** -0.019*** -0.163*** FD 0.024*** 0.012*** -0.022*** -0.01*** -0.050*** 0.001 Flexible State -0.021*** 0.014*** -0.107*** -0.054*** -0.051*** 0.073*** 0.073*** *, **, and *** represent significance at 10%, 5%, and 1% levels respectively. Table 4: Establishment Size and Age – Cross-Country Sample 58 This table shows results from the following regression: Establishment Size /Size Ratio = α + β1 Age Dummies + β2 Ownership Dummies + β3 Age x Ownership Dummies + β4Year Dummies + β5Country Dummies + e. Establishment Size is the number of permanent, full-time employees in the establishment where permanent, full-time employees are defined as all paid employees that are contracted for a term of one or more fiscal years and/or have a guaranteed renewal of their employment contract and that work 8 or more hours per day. Establishment Size Ratio is the establishment size of each firm scaled by the number of full-time employees when it started operations. Age Dummies consist of 9 age dummies for the following age bins: <5(reference category), 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30- 34, 35-39, and 40. Manufacturing is a dummy variable that takes the value 1 for firms in the manufacturing sector and 0 otherwise. Year Dummies consist of dummies for each of the years in which the Enterprise Survey is conducted. All regressions are estimated by ordinary least squares. Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. The square brackets in col. 1 containa a ratio of the mean size of the particular age bin to the mean size in the age bin with youngest (<5) firms. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Size Establishment Size Size Size Size Size Size Ratio Size Ratio Ratio Ratio Non- Manufacturing Manufacturing Non-Manufacturing Manufacturing 5-9 13.424*** 9.849*** 12.382*** 7.047*** 0.812*** 0.609*** 0.421* 0.664* (1.388) (1.376) (2.361) (1.517) (0.191) (0.211) (0.234) (0.347) 1.375 10-14 30.411*** 21.077*** 28.663*** 12.834*** 2.942*** 2.127*** 1.496*** 2.663*** (1.618) (1.638) (2.682) (1.901) (0.279) (0.301) (0.262) (0.549) 1.849 15-19 36.483*** 26.157*** 29.525*** 23.267*** 4.615*** 3.696*** 2.700*** 4.701*** (1.916) (1.976) (3.067) (2.482) (0.345) (0.359) (0.362) (0.643) 2.018 20-24 41.206*** 30.670*** 35.970*** 25.650*** 5.024*** 4.161*** 3.589*** 4.940*** (2.634) (2.691) (3.700) (4.000) (0.598) (0.596) (0.550) (1.340) 2.150 25-29 44.286*** 35.494*** 39.902*** 31.548*** 4.791*** 4.173*** 4.099*** 3.943*** (2.947) (3.043) (4.175) (4.372) (0.488) (0.514) (0.678) (0.678) 2.236 30-34 58.577*** 46.687*** 51.136*** 43.465*** 5.318*** 4.398*** 4.223*** 4.463*** (3.863) (3.915) (5.263) (5.674) (0.507) (0.511) (0.630) (0.846) 2.635 35-39 69.747*** 59.877*** 70.089*** 43.997*** 7.078*** 6.276*** 6.830*** 5.260*** (4.851) (4.871) (6.674) (6.661) (0.993) (0.994) (1.395) (1.092) 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Size Establishment Size Size Size Size Size Size Ratio Size Ratio Ratio Ratio Non- Manufacturing Manufacturing Non-Manufacturing Manufacturing 2.947 40+ 135.520*** 122.361*** 142.259*** 87.720*** 11.134*** 9.767*** 10.345*** 8.623*** (3.754) (3.790) (5.131) (5.523) (0.819) (0.812) (1.018) (1.402) 4.783 Constant 35.828*** 52.000*** 9.907** 2.473 3.050*** -0.212 1.219*** 0.943*** (0.973) (5.221) (4.734) (2.964) (0.163) (0.593) (0.248) (0.221) N 53821 53797 29614 24183 45314 45292 24491 20801 Adjusted R-square 0.058 0.110 0.103 0.085 0.017 0.034 0.040 0.029 *, **, and *** represent significance at 10%, 5%, and 1% levels respectively. 60 Table 5: Establishment Size and Age – India Sample This table shows results from the following regression: Establishment Size/Size Ratio = α + β1 Age Dummies + β2 State Dummies + β3Year Dummies + β4Industry Dummies + e. Establishment Size is the total number of workers which includes workers employed directly, workers employed through contractors, supervisory and managerial staff, other employees, working proprietors, unpaid family workers, and unpaid working members if cooperative factory. Establishment Size Ratio is the ratio of each firm’s establishment size scaled by the average establishment size of all firms in its birth cohort year. Age Dummies consist of 9 age dummies for the following age bins: <5(reference category), 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, and 40+. Year Dummies consist of dummies for each of the years in which the census is conducted. State Dummies are 32 dummies for states in which the establishments are located. Industry dummies are 3 digit NIC dummies for manufacturing industries. All regressions are estimated by ordinary least squares. Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. The square brackets in cols. 1 and 2 contain a ratio of the mean size of the particular age bin to the mean size in the age bin with youngest (<5) firms. (1) (2) (3) (4) Establishment Size Establishment Size Establishment Size Establishment Size Ratio Ratio 5-9 11.531*** 12.777*** 0.377*** 0.421*** (1.026) (1.026) (0.016) (0.016) [1.149] [1.258] 10-14 21.942*** 24.367*** 0.636*** 0.833*** (1.189) (1.195) (0.023) (0.024) [1.284] [1.493] 15-19 34.544*** 37.649*** 0.884*** 1.200*** (1.452) (1.465) (0.040) (0.042) [1.447] [1.762] 20-24 48.060*** 53.217*** 1.419*** 1.862*** (1.816) (1.814) (0.075) (0.076) [1.622] [2.076] 25-29 66.018*** 70.194*** (2.370) (2.351) [1.855] [2.420] 30-34 89.781*** 93.613*** (3.142) (3.101) [2.163] [2.894] 35-39 110.703*** 114.692*** (4.068) (3.985) [2.434] [3.320] 40+ 214.261*** 207.637*** (3.335) (3.349) [3.775] [5.200] Constant 77.205*** 49.436** 1.000*** 0.282 (0.717) (25.092) (0.009) (0.385) State Fixed Effects NO YES NO YES Year Fixed Effects NO YES NO YES Industry Fixed Effects NO YES NO YES N 221029 221020 106362 106362 Adjusted R-square 0.057 0.107 0.018 0.063 *, **, and *** represent significance at 10%, 5%, and 1% levels respectively. 61 Table 6: Technological differences across industries – India Sample Panel A shows results from the following regression: Establishment Size = α + β1 Age Dummies + β2 Labor Intensive Dummy+ β3 Small Firm Dominated Dummy + β4 EFD + β5 Age Dummies x Labor Intensive Dummy + β6 Age Dummies x Small Firm Dominated + β7 Age Dummies x EFD + β8 Age Dummies x Labor Intensive Dummy x Small Firm Dominated Dummy + β9Year Dummies + β10 State Dummies + e. In Panel B, we present ratios of the predicted margins of the interaction coefficients (from the regressions in panel A) of each age bin with that of the youngest firms (<5) as an estimate of growth rates. Establishment Size is the total number of workers which includes workers employed directly, workers employed through contractors, supervisory and managerial staff, other employees, working proprietors, unpaid family workers, and unpaid working members if cooperative factory. Age Dummies consist of 9 age dummies for the following age bins: <5(reference category), 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, and 40+. Year Dummies consist of dummies for each of the years in which the census is conducted. Labor Intensive Dummy takes the value 1 for labor intensive industries and 0 for capital intensive industries and is from Hasan and Jandoc (2012). Small Firm Dominated Industry is from Beck et al. (2008) and takes the value 1 for small firm (≤20 employees) dominated industries and 0 otherwise. EFD takes the value 1 for industries that are highly dependent on external finance and 0 for industries that are not highly dependent on external finance. State Dummies are 32 dummies for states in which the establishments are located. All regressions are estimated by ordinary least squares. Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. Panel A: (1) (2) (3) (4) Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Size Size Size Size 5-9 15.213*** 12.532*** 19.265*** 7.398*** (1.884) (1.216) (2.177) (1.322) 10-14 33.317*** 22.839*** 34.450*** 13.887*** (2.281) (1.385) (2.539) (1.510) 15-19 52.117*** 35.269*** 55.066*** 22.635*** (2.877) (1.681) (3.173) (1.814) 20-24 70.595*** 52.684*** 77.838*** 34.073*** (3.573) (2.107) (3.993) (2.291) 25-29 95.773*** 70.069*** 102.336*** 45.453*** (4.803) (2.713) (5.282) (2.921) 30-34 114.397*** 95.959*** 125.371*** 66.157*** (5.997) (3.610) (6.751) (3.880) 35-39 154.768*** 118.498*** 171.340*** 89.405*** (7.919) (4.590) (8.886) (5.231) 40+ 360.350*** 234.465*** 407.587*** 151.009*** (7.258) (3.885) (8.273) (3.710) Small Firm Industry -13.650*** -18.131*** (1.572) (1.840) 5-9 x Small Firm Industry -7.588*** -10.143*** (2.252) (2.615) 10-14 x Small Firm Industry -20.697*** -18.396*** (2.664) (2.993) 15-19 x Small Firm Industry -32.065*** -30.378*** (3.308) (3.684) 20-24 x Small Firm Industry -38.986*** -39.601*** (4.110) (4.625) 25-29 x Small Firm Industry -52.444*** -50.693*** (5.448) (6.050) 30-34 x Small Firm Industry -47.235*** -46.413*** (6.997) (7.928) 35-39 x Small Firm Industry -74.887*** -83.104*** (9.099) (10.212) 40+ x Small Firm Industry -231.268*** -268.560*** (7.958) (9.032) Labor Intensive Industry 10.239*** 2.527 (1.555) (2.995) 62 (1) (2) (3) (4) Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Size Size Size Size 5-9 x Labor Intensive Industry -8.146*** -19.618*** (2.244) (4.245) 10-14 x Labor Intensive Industry -9.875*** -5.310 (2.743) (5.853) 15-19 x Labor Intensive Industry -14.820*** -15.620** (3.440) (7.523) 20-24 x Labor Intensive Industry -30.227*** -40.982*** (4.178) (8.740) 25-29 x Labor Intensive Industry -33.089*** -36.561*** (5.612) (12.611) 30-34 x Labor Intensive Industry -48.415*** -58.239*** (7.096) (14.313) 35-39 x Labor Intensive Industry -48.894*** -87.864*** (9.646) (19.055) 40+ x Labor Intensive Industry -115.782*** -254.272*** (7.610) (15.383) Labor Intensive Industry x Small Firm Industry 12.701*** (3.558) 5-9 x Labor Intensive Industry x Small Firm Industry 17.484*** (5.070) 10-14 x Labor Intensive Industry x Small Firm Industry -2.761 (6.692) 15-19 x Labor Intensive Industry x Small Firm Industry 3.060 (8.495) 20-24 x Labor Intensive Industry x Small Firm Industry 18.496* (9.999) 25-29 x Labor Intensive Industry x Small Firm Industry 5.958 (14.001) 30-34 x Labor Intensive Industry x Small Firm Industry 7.321 (16.370) 35-39 x Labor Intensive Industry x Small Firm Industry 55.759** (22.035) 40+ x Labor Intensive Industry x Small Firm Industry 209.643*** (17.456) EFD 1.086 (1.469) 5-9 x EFD 6.190*** (2.067) 10-14 x EFD 13.199*** (2.403) 15-19 x EFD 19.643*** (2.954) 20-24 x EFD 26.549*** (3.698) 25-29 x EFD 37.353*** (4.822) 30-34 x EFD 42.218*** (6.385) 63 (1) (2) (3) (4) Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Size Size Size Size 35-39 x EFD 42.497*** (8.220) 40+ x EFD 157.612*** (7.345) Constant 67.859*** 48.003* 68.821*** 58.993** (24.826) (24.729) (25.189) (24.353) State Fixed Effects YES YES YES YES Year Fixed Effects YES YES YES YES Industry Fixed Effects NO NO NO NO N 210044 221020 210044 219282 Adjusted R-Square 0.093 0.070 0.099 0.077 *, **, and *** represent significance at 10%, 5%, and 1% levels respectively. Panel B: Ratio of Predictive Margins of each age bin to the reference group (<5 firms) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Low High Large- Small- Large- Small- Depende Dependenc Firm, Firm, Firm, Firm, nce on e on Large- Small Capital Capital Labor Labor External External Age Firm Firm Capital Labor Intensive Intensive Intensive Intensive Finance Finance <5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5-9 1.17 1.10 1.16 1.05 1.22 1.13 1.00 1.08 1.09 1.17 10-14 1.38 1.17 1.30 1.15 1.40 1.23 1.33 1.09 1.18 1.34 15-19 1.59 1.27 1.46 1.24 1.63 1.36 1.44 1.14 1.29 1.53 20-24 1.80 1.43 1.69 1.26 1.89 1.56 1.41 1.19 1.43 1.76 25-29 2.09 1.59 1.92 1.43 2.18 1.75 1.73 1.25 1.58 2.04 30-34 2.30 1.91 2.26 1.55 2.44 2.15 1.75 1.33 1.84 2.36 35-39 2.76 2.08 2.56 1.81 2.97 2.28 1.93 1.67 2.14 2.66 40+ 5.11 2.74 4.08 2.38 5.69 3.02 2.71 2.12 2.93 4.89 64 Table 7: Role of Financial Development – India Sample The regression equation estimated in Panel A is Establishment Size = α + β1 Age Dummies + β2FD + β3 FD x Age Dummies + β4 Year Dummies + β5 Industry Dummies + β6 Log SDP/Capita + e. In Panel B, we present ratios of the predicted margins of the interaction coefficients (from the regressions in panel A) of each age bin with that of the youngest firms (<5) as an estimate of growth rates. Establishment Size is the total number of workers which includes workers employed directly, workers employed through contractors, supervisory and managerial staff, other employees, working proprietors, unpaid family workers, and unpaid working members if cooperative factory. Age Dummies consist of 9 age dummies for the following age bins: <5(reference category), 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, and 40+. FD is dummy variable that takes value 1 for financially developed states and 0 otherwise. Year Dummies consist of dummies for each of the years in which the census is conducted. Industry dummies are 3 digit NIC dummies for manufacturing industries. All regressions are estimated by ordinary least squares. Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. Panel A: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Size Size Size Size Size Size Size Large Firm Small Firm Large Firm Small Firm Not Dependent on Dominated, Dominated, Dominated, Dominated, Dependent on External Labor Labor Capital Capital External Finance Intensive Intensive Intensive Intensive Finance 5-9 14.331*** 15.889** 5.316 24.638*** 8.513*** 11.700*** 14.200*** (1.823) (7.263) (3.687) (4.062) (2.604) (2.135) (3.049) 10-14 30.379*** 33.735*** 8.990** 47.782*** 21.930*** 23.330*** 34.817*** (2.197) (8.894) (4.533) (5.106) (2.955) (2.490) (3.780) 15-19 41.611*** 22.287** 12.440** 65.657*** 28.207*** 28.903*** 47.337*** (2.703) (10.490) (5.507) (6.354) (3.622) (3.039) (4.748) 20-24 56.823*** 35.436*** 26.174*** 86.911*** 39.571*** 37.154*** 70.568*** (3.443) (11.974) (7.775) (8.265) (4.552) (3.945) (6.147) 25-29 68.594*** 49.792*** 30.665*** 105.893*** 46.905*** 42.034*** 88.580*** (4.488) (17.946) (10.150) (11.049) (5.610) (4.905) (8.245) 30-34 88.962*** 37.314*** 52.918*** 126.531*** 71.326*** 64.148*** 107.396*** (5.882) (14.458) (15.155) (14.266) (7.589) (6.665) (10.619) 35-39 102.120*** 24.865* 96.669*** 166.647*** 65.038*** 75.633*** 123.904*** (7.319) (12.891) (19.919) (18.463) (8.560) (8.396) (13.250) 40+ 210.194*** 166.776*** 144.789*** 467.598*** 151.684*** 176.468*** 332.947*** (5.565) (21.469) (15.116) (17.174) (5.028) (5.398) (12.991) FD 6.439*** 58.656*** 18.656*** 11.155*** 3.492 13.047*** 9.382*** (1.694) (6.378) (3.594) (3.533) (2.533) (2.049) (2.750) 5-9 x FD -3.168 -17.247** 0.249 -10.257** -0.993 -7.743*** -2.620 (2.286) (8.463) (5.140) (4.968) (3.287) (2.844) (3.706) 10-14 x FD -9.143*** -3.477 -4.803 -20.888*** -10.945*** -15.101*** -12.742*** (2.686) (11.160) (6.167) (6.000) (3.650) (3.273) (4.446) 15-19 x FD -5.745* 16.050 -4.692 -16.293** -5.709 -11.049*** -7.385 (3.277) (13.587) (7.531) (7.477) (4.391) (3.936) (5.561) 20-24 x FD -3.739 -3.805 -22.296** -10.747 -1.917 -5.904 -11.727* (4.127) (15.791) (9.580) (9.616) (5.478) (5.004) (7.105) 25-29 x FD 6.109 24.540 -18.736 0.444 8.547 5.667 -3.214 (5.375) (23.588) (12.286) (12.834) (6.815) (6.308) (9.493) 30-34 x FD 11.472 47.720** -40.640** 4.708 14.481 5.865 6.771 (7.079) (23.270) (17.018) (16.453) (9.375) (8.478) (12.315) 65 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Size Size Size Size Size Size Size Large Firm Small Firm Large Firm Small Firm Not Dependent on Dominated, Dominated, Dominated, Dominated, Dependent on External Labor Labor Capital Capital External Finance Intensive Intensive Intensive Intensive Finance 35-39 x FD 22.965** 97.683*** -61.149*** 17.203 33.776*** 25.683** 15.948 (8.932) (28.157) (23.278) (21.439) (10.893) (11.084) (15.347) 40+ x FD -0.685 -5.424 -69.092*** -70.629*** -23.561*** -41.980*** -19.764 (6.974) (27.594) (17.674) (19.779) (7.005) (7.358) (15.090) Log SDP/Capita 3.325* -38.255*** -4.200 -6.697* 4.516** 6.395*** -7.087** (1.795) (7.329) (3.319) (4.063) (2.304) (2.126) (2.935) Constant -15.480 288.294*** 78.652*** 110.535*** 10.728 -7.156 109.595*** (13.822) (55.267) (25.320) (31.338) (17.561) (16.116) (22.576) State Fixed Effects NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Industry Fixed YES NO NO NO NO NO NO Effects Year Fixed Effects YES YES YES YES YES YES YES N 201796 14121 27662 58965 90974 108303 91801 Adjusted R-square 0.105 0.067 0.026 0.131 0.045 0.049 0.091 *, **, and *** represent significance at 10%, 5%, and 1% levels respectively. Panel B: Ratio of Predictive Margins of each age bin to the reference group (<5 firms) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Large-Firm Small-Firm Large-Firm Small-Firm Low High Dominated, Dominated, Dominated, Dominated, Dependence Dependence Full Labor Labor Capital Capital on External on External Age FD Sample Intensive Intensive Intensive Intensive Finance Finance <5 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5-9 0 1.19 1.15 1.09 1.26 1.11 1.16 1.16 10-14 0 1.41 1.41 1.12 1.51 1.29 1.32 1.40 15-19 0 1.56 1.32 1.17 1.74 1.40 1.41 1.57 20-24 0 1.76 1.50 1.35 1.96 1.53 1.50 1.84 25-29 0 1.92 1.78 1.44 2.20 1.65 1.59 2.09 30-34 0 2.20 1.54 1.71 2.43 1.99 1.89 2.31 35-39 0 2.37 1.27 2.30 2.87 1.89 2.04 2.50 40+ 0 3.83 3.64 2.94 6.32 3.11 3.43 5.10 <5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5-9 1 1.14 0.98 1.06 1.16 1.11 1.05 1.14 10-14 1 1.26 1.32 1.05 1.28 1.16 1.10 1.25 15-19 1 1.44 1.41 1.09 1.53 1.32 1.22 1.47 20-24 1 1.66 1.37 1.03 1.79 1.51 1.37 1.67 25-29 1 1.92 1.76 1.13 2.14 1.76 1.58 2.00 30-34 1 2.24 1.85 1.14 2.40 2.18 1.84 2.34 35-39 1 2.55 2.20 1.38 2.96 2.33 2.20 2.62 40+ 1 3.59 2.63 1.83 5.25 2.75 2.61 4.65 66 Table 8: Role of Financial Development – India Sample - Robustness The regression equation estimated in this table is Establishment Size = α + β1 Age Dummies + β2FD + β3 FD x Age Dummies + β4 Year Dummies + β5 Industry Dummies + β6 Log SDP/Capita + e. Establishment Size is the total number of workers which includes workers employed directly, workers employed through contractors, supervisory and managerial staff, other employees, working proprietors, unpaid family workers, and unpaid working members if cooperative factory. Age Dummies consist of 9 age dummies for the following age bins: <5(reference category), 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, and 40+. In cols. 6 and 7 we use dummies for each year of age. FD is dummy variable that takes value 1 for financially developed states and 0 otherwise and is defined by Total Bank Credit/SDP in cols. 1, 4-9. In Cols. 2 and 3 we use alternate measures of financial development namely Bank Deposits/SDP and Branches/1000 persons respectively. In cols. 4 and 5 we split the sample into states with states with flexible (pro-employer) labor regulation and states with rigid labor regulations respectively. In cols. 6 and 7 we focus on early life-cycle by looking at firms born after de-licensing of industries (col.6) and after liberalization in 1991 (col.7). The de-licensing of industries varies by industry-year. Year Dummies consist of dummies for each of the years in which the census is conducted. Industry dummies are 3 digit NIC dummies for manufacturing industries. All regressions are estimated by ordinary least squares. Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Size Establishment Size Establishment Size Size Size Size Size Above 90th Alternate Measure Alternate Measure Firms born percentile of size of FD: Deposits/ of FD: Branches/ Flexible Inflexible Firms born after after distribution SDP 1000 per States States de-licensing Liberalization 5-9 44.421** 10.512*** 14.297*** 16.760*** -1.962 (18.046) (1.502) (1.575) (2.020) (4.232) 10-14 78.741*** 25.548*** 29.738*** 32.465*** 10.783** (18.952) (1.785) (1.872) (2.454) (5.017) 15-19 112.084*** 38.209*** 40.179*** 43.732*** 22.989*** (19.963) (2.244) (2.266) (3.059) (5.846) 20-24 143.166*** 56.284*** 54.926*** 57.591*** 41.469*** (21.191) (2.885) (2.767) (3.943) (7.175) 25-29 213.063*** 67.442*** 68.158*** 67.917*** 57.572*** (24.056) (3.732) (3.530) (5.223) (8.902) 30-34 245.911*** 94.524*** 92.119*** 90.014*** 73.105*** (26.879) (5.096) (4.547) (6.995) (10.953) 35-39 199.345*** 125.308*** 115.839*** 97.663*** 103.137*** (29.328) (6.655) (6.078) (8.782) (13.270) 40+ 284.614*** 194.276*** 210.234*** 256.951*** 171.069*** (18.084) (4.836) (4.538) (8.451) (7.970) FD -46.502*** -4.516*** -3.839** 7.049*** -21.824*** 23.852 14.996 (17.177) (1.698) (1.885) (1.945) (4.689) (16.910) (20.575) 5-9 x FD -8.142 4.243* -3.988* -5.741** 15.755*** 67 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Size Establishment Size Establishment Size Size Size Size Size Above 90th Alternate Measure Alternate Measure Firms born percentile of size of FD: Deposits/ of FD: Branches/ Flexible Inflexible Firms born after after distribution SDP 1000 per States States de-licensing Liberalization (21.429) (2.210) (2.195) (2.636) (4.877) 10-14 x FD -24.319 -1.578 -10.588*** -11.090*** 14.600** (22.360) (2.537) (2.525) (3.115) (5.680) 15-19 x FD -21.482 0.226 -4.348 -8.680** 20.307*** (23.587) (3.085) (3.069) (3.863) (6.587) 20-24 x FD -16.547 -2.342 -0.729 -5.020 19.844** (25.083) (3.853) (3.818) (4.892) (8.094) 25-29 x FD -60.795** 10.857** 9.780** 3.573 29.529*** (27.924) (5.005) (4.967) (6.490) (10.027) 30-34 x FD -30.693 5.584 10.499 3.347 44.583*** (31.155) (6.663) (6.573) (8.630) (12.660) 35-39 x FD 25.928 -10.728 5.143 20.275* 40.031*** (34.000) (8.584) (8.426) (11.099) (15.380) 40+ x FD 55.745** 29.195*** -1.033 -35.073*** 33.266*** (22.028) (6.744) (6.919) (10.420) (9.637) 1 year 6.585 9.971 (12.186) (17.144) 2 years 15.490 21.404 (12.194) (17.100) 3 years 25.653** 30.796* (12.359) (17.154) 4 years 25.079** 35.437** (12.416) (17.687) 5 years 24.661* 44.715** (12.736) (17.843) 6 years 23.386* 32.721* 68 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Size Establishment Size Establishment Size Size Size Size Size Above 90th Alternate Measure Alternate Measure Firms born percentile of size of FD: Deposits/ of FD: Branches/ Flexible Inflexible Firms born after after distribution SDP 1000 per States States de-licensing Liberalization (12.443) (17.279) 7 years 25.538** 29.796* (12.768) (17.520) 8 years 42.140*** 59.748*** (13.417) (18.592) 9 years 46.552*** 62.719*** (13.632) (18.317) 10 year 30.092** 46.310** (14.511) (18.467) 11 years 64.580*** 75.627*** (16.976) (20.585) 12 years 34.580** 55.468*** (15.058) (19.381) 13 years 56.401*** 58.154*** (16.476) (19.060) 14 years 58.519*** (22.397) 15 years 39.881** (18.112) 16 years -8.188 (15.044) 17 years 74.473** (33.531) 18 years 61.745** (25.785) 19 years 102.363*** 69 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Size Establishment Size Establishment Size Size Size Size Size Above 90th Alternate Measure Alternate Measure Firms born percentile of size of FD: Deposits/ of FD: Branches/ Flexible Inflexible Firms born after after distribution SDP 1000 per States States de-licensing Liberalization (29.397) 1 year x FD -7.333 -13.751 (17.455) (21.238) 2 years x FD -9.831 -14.822 (17.405) (21.158) 3 years x FD -16.507 -17.973 (17.548) (21.242) 4 years x FD -29.842* -31.605 (17.561) (21.776) 5 years x FD -21.415 -23.449 (17.957) (22.005) 6 years x FD -16.269 -6.011 (17.765) (21.675) 7 years x FD -7.698 8.038 (18.130) (21.967) 8 years x FD -26.276 -19.989 (18.480) (22.742) 9 years x FD -29.345 -24.090 (18.730) (22.541) 10 years x FD -21.840 -20.060 (19.715) (22.728) 11 years x FD -42.661* -32.858 (22.311) (25.233) 12 years x FD -3.930 1.660 (21.283) (24.820) 13 years x FD -26.654 1.197 70 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Establishment Size Establishment Size Establishment Size Size Size Size Size Above 90th Alternate Measure Alternate Measure Firms born percentile of size of FD: Deposits/ of FD: Branches/ Flexible Inflexible Firms born after after distribution SDP 1000 per States States de-licensing Liberalization (22.208) (24.327) 14 years x FD -60.840** (27.057) 15 years x FD -33.606 (24.493) 16 years x FD 26.937 (27.568) 17 years x FD -69.032* (39.521) 18 years x FD -42.525 (34.115) 19 years x FD -88.526** (34.508) Log(SDP/Capita) 16.608* 6.812*** 11.195*** 6.795*** 22.466*** 13.529*** 7.594** (9.555) (1.841) (2.051) (2.092) (5.530) (2.897) (3.144) State Fixed Effects NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Industry Fixed Effects YES YES YES YES YES NO YES Year Fixed Effects YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Constant 333.851*** -36.349** -70.096*** -43.029*** -152.354*** -63.601** -15.537 (75.096) (14.216) (15.628) (16.237) (40.376) (30.189) (34.821) N 21114 201796 201796 140100 61696 41055 30844 Adjusted R-square 0.137 0.105 0.105 0.103 0.127 0.007 0.077 *, **, and *** represent significance at 10%, 5%, and 1% levels respectively 71 Appendix A: ASI Sampling Design Year Census Sector Sample Sector (Definition borrowed verbatim from the Ministry of Statistics) 1983-84 • All units with ≥ 50 workers and using The rest of the universe was covered on sampling design adopting power or ≥ 100 workers without using State x 3 digit industry group as stratum so as to cover all the units power in a span of two consecutive years (50% samples in alternate years). • All electricity undertakings • All industrial units in 12 less industrially developed States/Union Territories* 1989-90 • All units with ≥ 100 workers with/without The rest of the universe was covered on sampling design adopting power State X 3 digit industry group as stratum so as to cover all the units • All electricity undertakings in a span of three years. • All industrial units in 12 less industrially In any stratum, if the number of units was less than 20, then the developed States/Union Territories* entire stratum was enumerated completely along with census factories. In any stratum if no. of unit is between 21 & 60, a minimum sample of size 20 was selected by Circular Systematic Sampling. For all other units a uniform sampling fraction of 1/3 was adopted. 1994-95 • All units with ≥ 100 workers with/without The rest of the universe was covered on sampling design adopting power State X 3 digit industry group as stratum so as to cover all the units • All electricity undertakings in a span of three years. • All industrial units in 12 less industrially In any stratum, if the number of units was less than 20, then the developed States/Union Territories* entire stratum was enumerated completely along with census factories. In any stratum if no. of unit is between 21 & 60, a minimum sample of size 20 was selected by Circular Systematic Sampling. For all other units a uniform sampling fraction of 1/3 was adopted. 1998-99 • All industrial units in 5 less industrially After identifying Census sector factories, rest of the factories were developed States/Union Territories ** arranged in ascending order of States, NIC-98 (4 digit), number of • Units having ≥200 workers and all factories workers and district and properly numbered. The Sampling was covered under Joint Returns taken within each stratum (State X Sector X 4-digit NIC) with a minimum of 8 samples in each stratum in the form of 2 sub- samples. For the first time, all electricity undertakings other than captive units, Government Departmental undertakings such as Railway Workshops, P & T workshops etc. were kept out of coverage of ASI. 2000-01 • All industrial units in 5 less industrially After identifying Census sector factories, rest of the factories were developed States/Union Territories ** arranged in ascending order of States, NIC-98 (4 digit), number of • Units having ≥100 workers and all factories workers and district and properly numbered. The Sampling fraction covered under Joint Returns was taken as 12% within each stratum (State X Sector X 4-digit NIC) with a minimum of 8 samples except for the State of Gujarat where 9.5% sampling fraction was used. For the States of Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Goa and Pondicherry, a minimum of 4 samples per stratum was selected. For the States of Bihar and Jharkhand, a minimum of 6 samples per stratum was selected. The entire sample was selected in the form of two independent sub-sample using Circular Systematic Sampling method. 2004-05 • All industrial units in 6 less industrially Remaining units are arranged in order of their number of workers developed States/Union Territories *** and samples are then drawn circular systematically considering • Units having ≥100 workers and all factories sampling fraction of 20% within each stratum (State x Sector x 4- covered under Joint Returns digit NIC) for all the states. An even number of units with a • All units belonging to the strata (State x 4- minimum of 4 are selected and evenly distributed in two sub- digit of NIC-04) having less than or equal to samples. The sectors considered here are Biri, Manufacturing and 4 units are also considered as Census Sector Electricity. units. * Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Chandigarh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Tripura, Daman & Diu, Pondicherry Dadra & Nagar Haveli, and Andaman & Nicobar Islands ** Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Tripura, and Andaman & Nicobar Islands. *** Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Tripura, Sikkim, and Andaman & Nicobar Islands. 72 Appendix B: Sample and Population Sizes in the ASI/NSS Survey Sample Population ASI 1983/84 59000 95,133 ASI 1989/90 49485 49,485 ASI 1994/95 57933 117,290 ASI 1999/00 33515 174,263 ASI 2004/05 49340 164,265 NSS 1994/95 120609 10,497,371 (Informal) 73 Appendix C: Concordance between US-SIC and ISIC-Revision 2 ISIC Rev. 2 ISIC Industry Description SIC 311-312 Food products 201,202,203,204,205,206, 207, 209 313 Beverages 208 314 Tobacco 21 321 Textiles 22 322 Wearing apparel, except footwear 23, 315 323 Leather products 311,316,317,319 324 Footwear, except rubber or plastic 313, 314 331 Wood products, except furniture 24 332 Furniture, except metal 25 except 2514 341 Paper and products 26 342 Printing and publishing 27 351 Industrial chemicals 281,286,287,282 352 Other chemicals 283,284,284, 285, 289 353 Petroleum refineries 291 354 Miscellaneous petroleum and coal products 295,299 355 Rubber products 301,302,305,306 356 Plastic products 308 361 Pottery, china, earthenware 326 362 Glass and products 321,322,323, 369 Other non-metallic mineral products 325,327,324,328,329 371 Iron and steel 331,332 372 Non-ferrous metals 333, 334, 335, 336 381 Fabricated metal products 34, 2514 382 Machinery, except electrical 35 383 Machinery, electric 36 384 Transport equipment 37 385 Professional and scientific equipment 38 390 Other manufactured products 39 74 Appendix D: Employment Categories in ASI 1994/95 and NSS 1994/95 Surveys Panel A: ASI Data Sl. Average number of Item No. persons worked 1 Men Workers Employed 2 Women directly 3 Children 4 Sub-total (1+2+3) 5 Employed through contractors 6 Total Workers (4+5) 7 Supervisory & managerial staff 8 Other employees 9 Total (6 to 8) 10 Working proprietors 11 Unpaid family members 12 If cooperative factory unpaid working members 13 Total (9 to 12) Panel B: NSS Data Average number (modal value) Sl. Item of persons per working day No. during the reference month 1 Men 2 Hired workers (other Women 3 than household workers) Boys Children 4 Girls 5 Men 6 Women 7 Boys 8 Paid Children House-hold workers Girls 9 Men 10 Women 11 Boys Children 12 Unpaid Girls 13 All workers 14 Supervisory & Men 15 managerial staff Women 16 Other employees Men 17 Women 18 Working proprietors Men 19 Women 20 If co-operative society Men 21 unpaid working Women members 22 All employees (13 to 21) 75