WPS5869


Policy Research Working Paper                         5869




     Do Crises Catalyze Creative Destruction?
                 Firm-level Evidence from Indonesia

                            Mary Hallward-Driemeier
                                  Bob Rijkers




The World Bank
Development Research Group
and Development Economics Vice Presidency
November 2011
Policy Research Working Paper 5869


  Abstract
  Using Indonesian manufacturing census data (1991–                                 survival was stronger in provinces with comparatively
  2001), this paper rejects the hypothesis that the East                            lower reductions in minimum wages, but not due
  Asian crisis unequivocally improved the reallocative                              to reduced entry, changing loan conditions, or
  process. The correlation between productivity and                                 firms connected to the Suharto regime suffering
  employment growth did not strengthen and the crisis                               disproportionately. On the bright side, firms that entered
  induced the exit of relatively productive firms. The                              during the crisis were relatively more productive, which
  attenuation of the relationship between productivity and                          helped mitigate the reduction in aggregate productivity.




  This paper is a product of the Development Research Group and the Development Economics Vice Presidency. 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 author may be contacted at mhallward@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
           Do Crises Catalyze Creative Destruction?

                         Firm-level Evidence from Indonesia



                                        Mary Hallward-Driemeier*


                                                Bob Rijkers**




    Key words: Financial crisis, creative destruction, firm survival, productivity decompositions,
    capital market imperfections
    JEL Codes: G01, O47, J21, D22



*
  Office of the Chief Economist, World Bank. ** Development Research Group, World Bank. We would like to
thank Andrew Waxman for assistance in the preparation of the dataset and paper, and Ana Fernandes, Fitria
Fitrani, Leo Iacovone, Kai Kaiser, Alex Korns, David Newhouse, Rifa Rufiadi and William Wallace for their
assistance in obtaining the data and in discussing the policy environment in Indonesia. We are also indebted to
Mushfiq Mobaraq and Denni Purbasari for generously sharing their data on political connectedness. We also
thank seminar participants at the IZA/World Bank Conference on Economic Development, the World Bank
Economists’ Forum, a World Bank Macroeconomics and Growth seminar, the 2010 NEUDC conference at
MIT, Eric Bartelsman, John Giles, Pierella Paci, Luis Serven, and two anonymous referees for their useful
comments. Jagadeesh Sivadasan kindly shared the code used to implement the Ackerberg Caves Frazer
procedure. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the
World Bank, its Executive Board or member countries. Correspondence can be sent to Mary Hallward-
Driemeier, mhallward@worldbank.org.
1. Introduction

        While crises are periods of intensified adjustment, firm-level evidence on the impact of

crises on resource allocation is limited. Moreover, their impact is theoretically uncertain. The

idea that crises may accelerate the Schumpetarian (1939) process of creative destruction by

“cleansing� out unproductive arrangements and freeing up resources for more productive uses

features prominently in macro-models (see e.g. Hall, 1995, Caballero & Hammour, 1994, 1999

and Gomes et al., 1997). On the other hand, some recent papers suggest that, rather than being

cleansing, crises “scar� the economy and undermine long-run productivity growth by

exacerbating market imperfections and destroying productive firms (see Barlevy, 2002, and

Ouyang, 2009). Which view is correct matters for policy, since at issue is whether or not there is

a tradeoff between minimizing the short-term impact of crises and maximizing long-run growth

prospects; if crises are cleansing policies to dampen short-term impacts may obstruct long-run

recovery and be not only costly, but also counterproductive. By contrast, if crises are scarring,

policies to minimize short-term impacts are consistent with maximizing long-run growth

prospects (see Paci et al., forthcoming). Given the critical role of the reallocative process in

facilitating recovery and growth, and the paucity of available firm-level studies on the impact of

crises on resource allocation, empirically discriminating between these competing paradigms is

important.

        This paper uses plant-level manufacturing census data from Indonesia to examine the

impact of the East Asian crisis on the process of creative destruction. Aggregate productivity

growth decompositions help assess macro-level trends in the contributions of entry, exit and

reallocation to productivity growth during and after the crisis. These decompositions are a

prelude to firm-level analysis of exit and employment growth patterns, which assesses whether

and how firm dynamics during the crisis were different from those operating in pre- and post-

crisis periods. Thus, we examine both the impact of the crisis on resource allocation and the

reallocative process itself.

                                                2
       Previous work on allocative efficiency has largely avoided periods of crisis, and work on

crises has rarely examined firm responses. By using firm-level data to examine the impact of a

major crisis on resource allocation this paper combines and contributes to several strands of

literature that have evolved fairly separately up until this point. The available evidence on the

impact of crises on resource allocation typically relies on aggregate data. The few previous

attempts to empirically validate the predictions of the cleansing paradigm using firm-level data –

discussed in detail in section 2 – have either failed to examine changes in the reallocative process

itself or suffer methodological shortcomings. Second, existing plant-level studies of reallocation

dynamics have demonstrated that business cycles are important determinants of both the pattern

and pace of reallocation (see the surveys by Bartelsman & Doms, 2000, Caves, 1998, and

Syverson, 2010) but typically deliberately exclude crisis-periods. It is therefore not clear to what

extent the conclusions based on them generalize to crisis times. Third, cross-country studies

based on aggregate data suggest that plant-dynamics are a key determinant of the depth and

duration of crises (Bergoeing et al. 2005, Collier and Goderis 2009), but do not examine how

these dynamics matter. Fourth, micro-studies of the impact of crises on labor market outcomes

mostly rely on household and labor market data (see e.g. McKenzie 2003, 2004; Fallon & Lucas,

2002; Manning, 2000, Beegle et al. 1999), which are ill-suited for analyzing the impact of crises

on reallocation dynamics and labor demand. Firm-level data are better suited for this purpose

and enable us to document heterogeneity in firm vulnerability and adjustment patterns.

       Examining the impact of the East Asian crisis on the Indonesian manufacturing sector

provides an interesting case study of how financial crises reverberate through the real economy.

Lessons could be relevant for recovery from the current global crisis, which is also characterized

by a sharp contraction of demand, reduced access to credit, and uncertainty (although with less

dramatic depreciations). In addition, our analysis may be relevant for those concerned with the

impact of transitions to democracy, such as those currently taking place in the Middle East, on



                                                 3
private sector dynamics, as we are able to assess whether the regime change that accompanied

the crisis differentially impacted firms connected with the Suharto regime.1

           The main findings can be summarized as follows: the data do not unequivocally support

the cleansing paradigm. The crisis led to a spike in exit, a slowdown in entry, and excessive

employment reallocation. Productive firms on average experienced lower employment losses, but

the correlation between productivity and employment growth did not strengthen. Rather than

raising the productivity threshold for survival, the crisis was more indiscriminate in terms of the

productivity of firms driven out of business. Firms more vulnerable to changing credit market

conditions were much more likely to exit during the crisis, but the attenuation of the link

between productivity and survival did not increase with vulnerability to changing loan

conditions. The attenuation was also not an artifact of reduced entry rates or driven by political

transition. The results are robust to excluding firms with connection to the Suharto regime.

Moreover, if anything, among the politically connected firms, productivity became a more

important determinant of firm survival. By contrast, the attenuation was particularly pronounced

in provinces with comparatively high minimum wages, suggesting that labor regulations

obstructed efficiency enhancing reallocation. The effects are not all negative, however. The

protective power of productivity against exit was restored post-crisis, and the crisis appears to

have weeded out the weakest potential entrants; while entry rates were lower during the crisis,

those firms that entered were on average much more productive, which helped mitigate the loss

in aggregate productivity.

           The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The next section reviews related

literature and describes the context. Section 3 summarizes our hypotheses and explains our

approach. Section 4 describes the data, while section 5 presents descriptive statistics on job flows

and decompositions of aggregate productivity growth. Section 6, which constitutes the core of

the paper, presents firm survival and employment growth models. A final section concludes.

1   We use the data on political connections collected by Mobaraq and Purbasari, 2008.

                                                           4
2.   Related Literature and Context


2.1 Related Literature

        According to Schumpeter (1939), business cycles are driven by a process of creative

destruction by which innovative, high-productivity firms drive relatively unproductive firms out

of business. Some prominent macro-models predict that recessions may speed up this process

by “cleansing� out unproductive firms and freeing up resources for more productive uses (see

e.g. Caballero & Hammour, 1994, 1999). While longitudinal manufacturing firm-level studies

provide empirical evidence that the creative destruction process facilitates productivity growth,

they also raise questions about how this process varies over time. Decompositions of aggregate

productivity growth only weakly support the hypothesis that allocative efficiency increases during

cyclical downturns (see, inter alia, Griliches & Regev, 1995, and Baily et al. 1992). Yet such studies

typically exclude extreme economic events and it is therefore uncertain whether lessons based on

them apply during times of crisis.


        In the presence of market imperfections downturns may hamper, rather than facilitate,

adjustments, and protract the recovery process (see e.g. Loayza et al., 2005). Distortionary labor

market regulations and policies governing firm dynamics appear particularly detrimental to the

efficiency of the reallocative process (see e.g. Collier and Goderis, 2009, Haltiwanger, Scarpetta

and Schweiger, 2008). Barlevy (2002, 2003), moreover, has pointed out that crises can obstruct

the process of creative destruction by exacerbating credit market imperfections, which may hurt

efficient firms disproportionately as such firms are likely to have higher financing needs,

contradicting the creative destruction hypothesis. Empirical evidence supporting the idea that

crises exacerbate credit constraints is provided by Blalock, Gertler and Levine (2008) who, using

the same dataset as considered in this paper, show that foreign owned firms, which are arguably




                                                  5
less vulnerable to liquidity constraints, fared much better during the crisis than comparable

domestically owned firms.2

         Discriminating between the competing predictions of the cleansing and scarring

paradigms requires firm-level analysis on the impact of crises on resource allocation, as it

requires one to analyze the link between productivity, exit and firm growth. Although such

analysis is scant, there are a few studies that shed light on the debate. Liu and Tybout (1996)

compare the performance of continuing plants and exiting plants in Chile and Colombia from

1980-1985 but find no evidence for systematic covariance of the efficiency gap between these

two groups of firms over the business cycle in either country, even though Chile suffered a

recession in 1982. Exit rates of Chilean firms only increased modestly during the recession.

Casacuberta and Gandelsman (2009) examine the impact of the 2002 banking crises in Uruguay

on resource allocation. Even during the crisis, productivity was negatively correlated with exit,

although the evidence suggests the crisis may have attenuated the link between productivity and

exit somewhat. Nishimura, et al. (2005) use a cohort analysis comparing productivity of entrants

and survivors to examine the impact of the Japanese recession on productivity growth and find

that the 1996/97 banking crisis induced the exit of some relatively efficient firms among the

youngest cohorts. Similarly, Eslava et al. (2010) demonstrate that Colombian firms dependent on

external credit were more likely to exit during the 1998-2001 recessions, even if they were highly

productive. On the other hand, using manufacturing data from Russia, Brown and Earle (2002)

show that the recession induced by the transition from communism to a market based economy

coincided with an improvement in the reallocative process.

          In short, theoretical models yield competing predictions regarding the impact of crises

on resource allocation and the empirical evidence on the impact of crises on firm dynamics is

limited and ambiguous.

2 Similarly Oh et al. (2009) find that the Korean credit guarantee scheme for SMEs implemented in response to the
Asian crisis stifled the creative destruction process by enabling relatively inefficient firms to survive and maintain
their size. By contrast, Borensztein and Lee (2002) find evidence that in response to the East Asian crisis Korean
banks reallocated credit from conglomerate (chaebol) firms to relatively more efficient firms.

                                                          6
2.2 Context: The Indonesian Crisis

        The East Asian crisis struck after an extended period of industrialization and economic

growth, which was in part driven by expansion of labor-intensive exports (Dwor-Frecault et al.,

1999). After a reduction in FDI flows in response to the depreciation of the Thai Baht, the

Rupiah depreciated dramatically, precipitating a sharp increase in inflation rates. Interest rates

were raised to defend the currency, which exacerbated the decline in demand. GDP growth

contracted severely in 1997, and fell in absolute terms by over 13% in 1998. Manufacturing was

one of the first and hardest hit sectors due to its greater reliance on imported inputs, exposure to

changes in foreign demand (particularly given the importance of intra-regional trade) and greater

reliance on external financing, often in foreign currency, which became an enormous burden

post-devaluation. The drop in manufacturing output both preceded and exceeded the drop in

aggregate GDP. In fact, the census data suggest that manufacturing suffered its largest decline in

1997 already.

        The crisis also led to the end of the Suharto regime, which exposed firms with ownership

connections to Suharto to greater competitive pressure (Fisman, 2001; Mobarak & Purbasari,

2008). To the extent that such firms had been able to generate high profits (and consequently

record high productivity) during the Suharto era by virtue of such connections, the removal of

Suharto might attenuate the relationship between observed productivity and firm survival, even

though the likely concomitant reduction of cronyism associated with connectedness is efficiency-

enhancing rather than scarring. By virtue of having detailed information on political

connectedness with the Suharto regime at the firm-level compiled by Mobaraq and Purbasari

(2008) we are able to explore this issue.

        The fall of Suharto also sparked pro-labor pressures and precipitated the introduction of

more stringent labor market regulation. During the New Order government minimum wages had

been low and enforcement was fairly lax. In real terms, they collapsed during the crisis, yet they

                                                 7
recovered very quickly afterwards. Moreover, enforcement became more stringent (World Bank,

forthcoming). In short, Indonesian labor markets during the Suharto areas were flexible but

became more rigid post-crisis. In our empirical analysis we will explore the impact of such

changing labor regulations on the reallocative process.

       Indonesia provides a very useful testing ground to examine the impact of crises on

resource reallocation. The unexpected nature of the crisis facilitates identification of firm

responses and Indonesia has a very detailed manufacturing level census, discussed in detail in

section 4, which allows us to measure productivity, entry and exit dynamics whilst controlling

for a rich set of firm characteristics. Moreover, although the extent to which reallocation

dynamics in developing countries resemble those in developed countries is an actively researched

issue (see e.g. Aw et al. (2002) and Eslava et al. (2004) for evidence of the importance of creative

destruction in Taiwan, China and Colombia respectively), in their comparative analysis of

harmonized firm-level data from 17 developing and developed countries Bartelsman et al (2004)

conclude that reallocation dynamics in Indonesia are very similar to those operating in developed

countries and other Asian economies. Thus, our findings are likely to be relevant for other

countries.



3. Hypotheses and Approach


3.1 Hypotheses

       The cleansing and scarring paradigms yield competing testable predictions at both the

macro- and the micro-level. If the cleansing view is correct, one would expect crises to accelerate

the weeding out of unproductive firms, resulting in a stronger association between productivity

and survival at the micro-level; in other words, unproductive firms would be disproportionately

affected. Furthermore the correlation between firm‟ productivity and employment growth would

be expected to strengthen, as less productive firms should contract more in response to shocks.


                                                 8
At the macro-level, one would expect to see a corresponding increase in the contribution of exit

and, possibly, entry to aggregate productivity growth as well as stronger correlations between

productivity and changes in market share.

        By contrast, if crises are scarring, one would anticipate the efficiency of resource

allocation to deteriorate, and the link between productivity, exit and employment growth to

attenuate, undermining aggregate allocative efficiency. To the extent that these scarring effects

arise because of increased credit market imperfections, one might expect firms more reliant on

finance to be more severely affected by the crisis, and the attenuation of the link between

productivity and survival to be especially strong for firms more vulnerable to changing loan

conditions. Likewise, if they are driven by labor market regulation, one would expect these

effects to be particularly strong for firms located in provinces with more stringent labor

regulations. Finally, if attenuation is driven by regime change, one would expect the attenuation

effect to be strongest for firms with connections to the Suharto regime.



3.2 Macro-level Analysis: Decomposing Productivity Growth

        To assess whether crises catalyze or retard efficiency enhancing re-allocation, and to

analyze how industry dynamics during crises differ from pre- and post-crisis dynamics, the

evolution of aggregate productivity is decomposed using an extended version of the Foster-

Haltiwanger-Krizan decomposition (1998) proposed by Earle and Brown (2008):




                      “within�                      “between�                           “cross�


                “proportionate entry�        “disproportionate entry�                    “exit�



where Pt represents average productivity at time t,      denotes changes between period t-k and

period t,   represents the productivity of firm i at time t, and        is the market share of firm i at

                                                9
time t.    denotes the set of incumbent firms surviving from period t-1 to period t,                 denotes the

set of entrants and      the set of firms that exited. The first term in this decomposition represents

the “within� effect, the contribution of within-establishment productivity growth of surviving

firms, weighted by initial market share. The second term reflects the “between-effect�, the

contribution of market share reallocation to productivity growth. The third term represents the

“cross-effect�, i.e. the covariance between the within and the between effect. The fourth terms

captures the “proportionate entry effect�, the change in average sector productivity weighted by

entrants‟ market share. The fifth term measures the “disproportionate� entry effect, defined as

the difference between entrants‟ productivity and average sector productivity in year t. As

explained by Brown and Earle (2008), the latter term provides a better measure of the relative

contribution of entrants than the entry term in the original FHK decomposition which covaries

with aggregate productivity growth because it is the sum of                        the disproportionate and

proportionate entry terms.3 The final term presents the contribution of exit.

          If crises catalyze creative destruction, one would expect the relative contribution of

within-firm adjustment to aggregate productivity growth to be proportionately smaller than

during less turbulent times. Rather, one would expect to see an increase in the „between‟ term -

relatively more productive firms gaining market share - as well as higher contributions from exit

and proportionate entry and increases in the „cross term‟ - firms that experiencing larger

productivity losses suffering simultaneous reductions in market share. Since the process of

creative destruction may take time we present decompositions using both one- and three-year

time horizons. The longer time horizon offers the additional advantage of shielding against the

impact of measurement error (since the signal to noise ratio is higher over longer time horizons).

This is important because aggregate productivity growth decompositions are very sensitive to

measurement error. Suppose, for example, that output is measured with error. This will result in

3 This implies that the entry effect can be positive (or negative) even if the average productivity of entrants is
identical to that of incumbents in each year; in years where average productivity growth increases the contribution
of net entry will be exaggerated, but in years where it decreases the relative contributions of entrants will be
underestimated.

                                                        10
a spuriously high “cross� term and an underestimation of the “within�, and to a lesser extent

“between� terms. Thus, our decompositions will have to be interpreted cautiously.



3.3 Micro-level Analysis

3.3.1 Firm Survival: Basic Test

To examine whether crises catalyze creative destruction and to examine how the determinants of

firm-survival varied over time, a discrete-time proportional hazards survival model is used (Cox,

1972).   Period-specific hazard rates,              are modelled as a function of firm productivity,

and other covariates        which we interact with dummies for the crisis and the recovery, to assess

how during the crisis and subsequent recovery periods the relationship between exit and

covariates differed from the pre-crisis process. Our estimable equation is:




                                                                   +



where Crisis is a dummy variable for 1997 and 1998 and                                a dummy for the period

1999-2001.4 This testing strategy is very general as all parameters of the hazard function are

allowed to vary over time. The proportional hazard specification is convenient since it enables us

to test whether firms with certain characteristics were disproportionately more or less likely to exit

in certain periods.

         Under the null hypothesis of no short-run differential effect of crises on creative

destruction,              . If crises catalyze creative destruction,                   , while               if they

hamper it. At the risk of belaboring the point if                      , this does not mean that crises are not

weeding out productive firms; whether this happens also depends on                       . The interaction term


4Alternatively we used year dummies to allow greater flexibility in capturing changes over time. The results are very
consistent.

                                                         11
tells us whether productive firms were overrepresented amongst the exiters relative to other

periods.



3.3.2 Accounting for Attenuation: Finance, Labor Market Regulations, Reduced Entry and Regime Change

         Salient explanations for the attenuation between productivity and survival are credit

market imperfections and labor market frictions impeding efficient adjustment, reduced entry

and regime change. To test these explanations a difference-in-difference approach is used.

Although we do not observe which firms are credit constrained and which ones are not, we

compare the pre-crisis, crisis, and post-crisis performance of firms that are likely to differ in their

exposure to changing credit market conditions by exploiting information on differences in

dependence on external finance following Rajan and Zingales (1998) and asset tangibility

following Braun (2003). These measures capture different aspects of firms‟ financing needs.

Indicators of external financing dependence predominantly relate to firms‟ long-run financing

needs, whereas measures of tangibility are likely to correlate with access to credit since assets

which are more tangible offer investors more protection against default from borrowers (as they

offer more collateral).5

         We include indicators of financial characteristics,             ,   interacted with period dummies,

and, moreover, interactions of these measures with our productivity measure.




    +




5  Our results are also robust to using alternative measures of access to finance such as liquidity needs (Raddatz,
2006), which capture firms‟ short-term financing needs, as well as measures of reliance on loans to finance
investment. Results are omitted to conserve space, but available from the authors upon request.

                                                        12
        If changing credit conditions are driving the attenuation effect, one would expect that

firms more exposed to such changes to be more likely to exit.              and that the attenuation

would be especially pronounced for firms more vulnerable to such changing conditions,

 . The protective impact of productivity should become stronger once exposure to changing

credit market conditions is accounted for.

        Analogous regressions are run using real minimum wages,                as a proxy for labor

market regulation. Minimum wages are a suitable proxy for labor regulation because they are

politically salient, because they increased substantially in the aftermath of the crisis, and because

they varied both over time and by province, which facilitates identification of their impact. The

null hypothesis is that minimum wages do not affect reallocation dynamics (



        In addition, we examine the impact of reduced entry. Having fewer entrants could result

in an attenuation of the link between productivity and exit in aggregate since entrants tend to be

both less productive and more likely to exit. We examine this possibility by including dummies

for whether or not a firm was an entrant and allowing for a differential relationship between

productivity and survival for entrants.

        Finally, we assess to what extent the attenuation is driven by firms that had been

benefiting from ownership connections with Suharto losing their privileged status. If this is the

explanation for the attenuation effect, the attenuation should be especially strong for firms with

such connections.



3.3.3 Employment Growth

        To examine which firms grow fastest and to assess whether or not employment growth

became more strongly associated with productivity during the crisis, or whether, as is the case

with survival, the link between employment and productivity was attenuated, we estimate the

following employment growth model:

                                                 13
where             is firm growth from period t to t+1 and                is a firm-fixed effect. Under the null

hypothesis that the crisis did not improve the allocative efficiency of employment re-allocation

amongst continuing firms                             , whereas                        (                0) under the

alternative hypothesis that the crisis enhanced (diminished) the importance of productivity as a

determinant of firm growth.

         Serial correlation in the error term, in conjunction with the presence of lagged size as an

explanatory variable would render OLS estimates of the employment growth equation biased. To

address this concern, we also use a Fixed Effects estimator. The fixed effects transformation is

biased due to the correlation between the transformed error and the transformed explanatory

variables (Nickell, 1981), but as the OLS and Fixed Effects estimators are biased in opposite

directions, they provide a confidence interval within which the true parameters lie (Bond 2002).6


4. Data

         The Indonesian Manufacturing Census (1991-2001) collected by the Indonesian

Statistical Agency, BPS (Badan Pusat Statistik), provides the empirical basis for our analysis. It

contains information on all Indonesian manufacturing establishments with more than 20

employees and spans the pre- and post- crisis periods, as well as the crisis itself. It has very

detailed information on employment, inputs and outputs, industrial classification, exporting,

ownership, investment behavior, and the capital stock, which we measure as the replacement

value of machinery and equipment at the end of the calendar year. Employment is measured as

the average number of workers per day. We augmented the data with industry-level measures of

6 While the Difference and Systems GMM estimators developed by Arellano and Bond (1991) are in principle
capable of yielding unbiased estimates, these estimators are not well suited for our data; the difference GMM
estimator is likely to result in poorly behaved estimates when variables are highly persistent as is the case with our
data (for surviving firms the correlation between lnL t and lnLt-1 is 0.98 – both in crisis and non-crisis years), while
the Systems GMM estimators relies on a mean stationarity assumption that is palpably undesirable in the context of
a crisis (See Roodman, 2006, for a discussion). We therefore eschew this approach.

                                                          14
financial dependence, asset tangibility, employment turnover, and the natural rate of

establishment entry obtained from secondary sources (e.g. Braun, 2003, and Micco and Pages,

2004), and information on provincial level minimum wages (World Bank, forthcoming).

         In addition, we complemented the data with two measures of political connectedness

constructed by Mobaraq and Purbasari (2008). The first builds on an insight by Fisman (2001)

and identifies firms traded on the Jakarta Stock Exchange (henceforth JSX) whose stock returns

responded negatively to news reports about Suharto‟s health. Mobaraq and Purbasari (2008)

identify the major shareholders on the boards of these firms, and all conglomerates run by these

entrepreneurs, as well as firms owned by these conglomerates and classify those as connected.

This measure, however, may only identify those firms for whom connections mattered or

spuriously include firms for whom an adverse stock market valuation spuriously coincided with

news reports about Suharto‟s health. The second proxy, which is an indicator of whether a firm

has a relative of Suharto on its board, overcomes these limitations. For more information see

Mobaraq and Purbasari (2008).

         The survey design impacts the definitions of key explanatory variables. Entry is defined

as entry into the survey; it is when establishments cross the 20 employee threshold, not

necessarily when they began operations. Conversely, exit is defined as exit from the survey; we

cannot distinguish whether firms go out of business or continue operating with fewer than 20

employees.7      Information on the capital stock was not collected in 1996. We use data from

1991-95 to predict the capital stock based on output, investment, material inputs, labor usage,

ownership characteristics, whether or not the firm exports, province and lagged capital.8                      We

also confirmed the robustness of our results by omitting 1996 from the regressions.




7 As establishments are not required to report their closure, exit is inferred from establishments ceasing to file
reports to BPS. We do not count as exits temporary lapses in reporting. Temporary exits account for 0.6% of all the
data.
8 For firms that enter in 1996, we use data from 1997-2000 to backcast their capital stock using the same set of

explanatory variables (but using leads rather than lags where appropriate).

                                                        15
         Our preferred proxy for productivity is value-added per worker.9 We also examine the

robustness of our results using TFP computed by means of the Solow and Ackerberg-Caves-

Frazer procedures.10 It should be noted that, in addition to conventional endogeneity concerns,

our TFP estimates may be biased because our capital measure, which is partially imputed, is not

perfectly synchronized with output and employment measures, which creates potential bias in

TFP estimates. The magnitude of this bias is correlated with the size of price movements and is

likely to peak during crisis times, when prices were most volatile. Although value-added per

worker is only a partial productivity measure, it does not suffer this drawback. Moreover, it is

available for a larger number of observations.

         Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that measuring productivity in volatile times is

tricky. Measurement error might induce a spurious attenuation in the relationship between

productivity and firm survival and employment growth, and could thus bias our regressions

against finding evidence for cleansing. Productivity growth decompositions are even more

vulnerable to measurement error as they rely on the accurate measurement of both productivity

and market share of all firms. To ensure our results are not an artifact of measurement error, we

have removed all anomalous observations from our dataset (see the Appendix for a detailed

discussion on how anomalous observations were identified). In addition, we conduct a large

number of robustness checks, presented in section 6.2 below, including using a range of

alternative productivity proxies, focusing exclusively on long-run survival using pre-crisis

productivity (to avoid having to rely on measures of productivity obtained during the crisis) and

controlling for sector-specific shocks (to check our results are not driven by inappropriate



9 In our analysis we will use the log of value added per worker. Over the entire sample period on average 10.1% of
all firms reported negative value added. In 1997, 10.2% of all firms reported negative value-added while in 1998
12.2% of all firms reported negative value-added. These firms are excluded from analyses that use the log of value-
added per worker as a proxy for productivity.
10 Of the two, the Solow method is our preferred TFP estimator in this particular context since it does not require

lagged information on factor inputs and can thus be computed for a greater number of observations. Moreover, the
ACF estimator assumes productivity evolves according to a Markov process, thereby implicitly assuming
stationarity, which may not be appropriate in the context of a crisis. By contrast, the Solow procedure allows factor
shares to vary over time.

                                                         16
deflators). See the Appendices for more information on the construction of our data and key

explanatory variables.



5. A Bird’s Eye View of Reallocation: Job Flows and Aggregate Productivity Dynamics

5.1 Job Flows, Entry and Exit

        Table 1 and Figure 2 present aggregate entry, exit and employment growth statistics.

Average exit over the entire period is 8.8% while average entry is 11.1%. Firm exit spiked during

the crisis - in 1997 10.8% of firms exited, while in 1998, 11.2% of all firms exited - and dropped

precipitously during the recovery in 1999 and 2000, to peak again in 2001 (see Appendix A4).

Employment growth followed a similar trend, but did not spike in 2001; before the crisis,

manufacturing employment grew quite rapidly. The crises induced substantial job losses; on

average firms shrank employment by 1.4% in 1997 and by 3.7% in 1998. Employment growth

recovered in 1999 and 2000, but dropped in 2001.

        The high job losses during the crisis were driven both by a slowdown in job creation and

by a spike in job destruction, and predominantly accounted for by employment adjustment by

incumbents (see figure 2). The share of job flows accounted for by firm entry and exit is likely to

be underestimated, however, since we only observe firms with at least 20 employees. The

amount of gross reallocation far exceeded the amount required to achieve net employment

adjustment, leading to enormous excess churning. The increase in excess churning attests to the

importance of heterogeneity across firms: even during the crisis, almost a third of all firms

reported expanding employment. Nevertheless, a striking feature of the data is how persistent

employment is; over the entire period considered on average 21% of firms did not change their

labor input each year. The figure also shows a longer trend towards lower job creation, both in

aggregate and in net creation rates.



5.2 Decomposing Aggregate Productivity Growth

                                                17
        Figure 3 presents a decomposition of the annual growth in average value added per

worker. The decomposition is a weighted average of industry-specific decompositions conducted

at the 2-digit industry level with weights proportional to each industry‟s contribution to total

output. The crisis is associated with a pronounced increase in the contributions of the cross,

between and disproportionate entry terms, as well as a decrease in the contributions of

proportionate entry, exit, and within firm productivity growth.

        The decomposition is only partially consistent with the cleansing paradigm. On the one

hand, the improvement in the contribution of the cross term in conjunction with the decreased

contribution of the within term suggests that those firms that experienced the largest declines in

productivity also suffered the largest reductions in market share, although the magnitude of the

cross term may be upwards biased because of measurement error. The between term was

generally negative, but became less so during the crisis (and was only positive, just, in 1998); the

contribution of reallocation of market share from less productive to more productive firms was

very modest (though measurement error may bias the between term downwards). The increase

in the disproportionate entry term indicates is also indicative of cleansing. Even though there

were fewer entrants, they were on average more productive than incumbents and this helped

mitigate the overall loss in average productivity. On the other hand, the more negative

contribution of exit during the crisis, which was especially pronounced in 1997, suggests that

relatively productive firms were more likely to exit, which is indicative of scarring.

        Figure 4 displays the same decomposition using a 3-year time window used to minimize

measurement error and avoid underestimation of the contributions of entry and exit.

Lengthening the window to three years does smooth out the series and increases the

contributions of entry and exit, thus underscoring that the long-run contribution of turnover to

productivity growth is likely to exceed its initial contribution (see e.g. Liu and Tybout, 1996).

However, using a longer window does not substantially alter the qualitative pattern of results.



                                                 18
         Figure 5 presents a similar graph using TFP as our proxy for productivity. The graph

resembles Figure 4, although the relative magnitude of the decrease in the contribution of the

within term is larger, whereas the improvements in the between, cross, and proportionate entry

terms appear smaller.

         Overall, the aggregate productivity decompositions only partially support the cleansing

hypothesis. The facts that relatively productive firms appear to have suffered somewhat less, that

the correlation between changes in productivity and changes in market share strengthened and

that entrants were relatively more productive than incumbents are consistent with the cleansing

hypothesis. However, the contribution of exit to aggregate productivity growth also became

negative, contradicting the cleansing hypothesis. Bear in mind, however, that the results obtained

using these decompositions have to be interpreted with caution as they are vulnerable to

measurement error.




6. Firm-level Analysis


6.1 Firm Survival

6.1.1 Descriptive Statistics

         Table 2 presents summary statistics for survivors and exiting firms, disaggregated by time

period. Firms that exit are on average less productive, smaller, younger, smaller, less capital

intensive, employ proportionately more unskilled workers, less likely to be government owned,

more likely to be foreign owned, and less likely to export than firms that survive.

         Comparing across columns enables one to examine how average productivity differences

between surviving firms and exiting firms evolved over time. The productivity gap between

exiting and surviving firms narrowed during the crisis; before the crisis the difference in the

average log value-added of surviving firms compared to exiting firms was about .370. It

narrowed to .205 during the crisis, yet increased to .487 during the recovery. These productivity


                                                19
gaps between exiting and continuing firms are significantly different from each other at the 1%

level. The shrinking of the gap between productivity and exit accounts for an aggregate average

loss of value added per worker of about 4% over the course of the crisis (since the exit rates in

both 1997 and 1998 were approximately 12% and the gap narrowed by approximately 17%).

        Demeaning value-added per worker by sector or by sector-year yields a similar, but

slightly less dramatic, pattern. Thus, the aggregate attenuation effect is due to a combination of

more productive sectors being more severely impacted by the crisis, as well as a decrease in the

productivity differential between continuing and surviving firms within sectors. TFP proxies

exhibit a similar pattern.

        Table 2 furthermore shows that young and small firms were especially vulnerable during

the crisis, whereas exporters were less likely to exit (compared to other years), perhaps because

of favorable exchange rate movements. During the crisis, survivors were not, on average, more

likely to operate in sectors highly dependent on external finance, whereas pre- and post-crisis

they were, suggesting that the crisis hit sectors more dependent on external finance relatively

harder. Similarly, firms in sectors with higher liquidity needs and lower levels of assets tangibility

appear to have been particularly exposed. In short, firms‟ financial characteristics were correlated

with vulnerability to the crisis.



6.1.2 Modeling Survival – Baseline Results

        Table 3 present our baseline firm-survival model, which models firm exit as a function of

the log of the age of the firm, firm size and its square to allow for non-linearity in the size-

survival relationship, the proportion of blue collar workers in the total workforce (the “unskilled

ratio�), foreign and government ownership, whether or not the firm exports and productivity.

All these variables are interacted with crisis and recovery period dummies to assess which firms

were more vulnerable to the crisis. In addition, industry, year, and province dummies are

included to eliminate time, industry and location effects. The first column uses value-added per

                                                 20
worker as our proxy for productivity and is our preferred specification. The second column uses

TFP estimated by means of the Solow method, while the third column uses TFP estimated by

means of the ACF procedure. Note that using TFP leads to a substantial reduction in sample

size, especially when we use the ACF estimates (inter alia because TFP can only be computed for

firms for whom we have information on their current and lagged capital stock).

        The results are consistent with the descriptive statistics presented in the previous section

and other studies of firm survival in developing countries and this dataset (see Bernard and

Sjoholm 2003, Frazer, 2005, Söderbom and Teal, 2006); size, age, and productivity all increase

the probability of survival.    Interestingly, foreign owned firms are less likely to exit while

exporters are more likely to exit, ceteris paribus.

        However, these effects are not stable over time. Starting with the result of focal interest,

the conditional correlation between productivity and crisis seems to be attenuated by the crisis;

the crisis-productivity interaction term is always positive and significant at the 1% level,

regardless of which productivity proxy we use. This is not consistent with cleansing; while more

productive firms remain less likely to exit the protective impact of productivity is significantly

weaker than it was pre-crisis. On the bright side, the attenuation effect did not last; post-crisis

the conditional correlation between productivity and survival is not significantly different from

what it had been before the crisis; the protective impact of productivity is restored post-crisis.

        Young and small firms were especially vulnerable to the crisis. By contrast, exporting

firms did relatively well, perhaps because they benefited from increased international

competitiveness due to the depreciation of the rupiah; although exporting was associated with a

higher propensity to exit during other periods, exporters were not ceteris paribus more likely to

exit during the crisis. During the recovery, some of these effects were reversed; firm-age was

even less strongly correlated with exit than it had been before the crisis, while exports were once

again more likely to exit than non-exporters ceteris paribus.



                                                  21
6.1.3 Robustness

        Tables 4, 5 and 6 present alternative specifications and robustness checks. To conserve

space, we only report the coefficients on our preferred productivity proxies, but the regressions

include all explanatory variables that are included in table 3, unless indicated otherwise.

        First, to alleviate concerns that the weakened association between productivity and exit is

an artifact of the difficulties of measuring productivity during turbulent times Row A of Table 4

presents models which use deeper lags of value-added per worker and TFP as our productivity

proxy. Since productivity is very strongly correlated over time (the autocorrelation coefficients

on log value added per worker and the Solow residual are .85 and .79 respectively), lagged

productivity is a good proxy for current productivity. Moreover, because it is measured during

non-crisis times it is arguably less vulnerable to measurement error. While the differences in the

protective power of productivity become somewhat smaller, the pattern of results is robust to

using these lagged productivity measures. We interpret this as strong evidence that the

attenuation effect is genuine and not driven by measurement error. Incidentally, since lagged

productivity measures are not available for entrants, this table also demonstrates that the

attenuation effect is not solely driven by differential survival dynamics for entrants.

        Second, we discretize our productivity measure into terciles, defined by sector and year.

The resulting ranking is arguably less sensitive to measurement error. Moreover, it is ordinal

which helps shield against the impact of mismeasurement that is common across all firms in a

sector in a given year, such as using inappropriate deflators. Row B of Table 4 presents

specifications that only control for productivity, province and industry dummies, “Empty�

Models, and ones that controls for all other covariates “Full� Models. The results demonstrate

that while all firms are much more likely to exit during the crisis, firms in higher productivity

terciles suffered the largest increases in exit propensity. Thus, the crisis decreased the survival

prospects of both productive and unproductive firms, yet hit productive firms disproportionately

hard. By contrast, the cleansing hypothesis predicts that such firms should have suffered

                                                 22
relatively less.

         Third, we use alternative specifications, which are presented in Row A of table 5.

Controlling for capital intensity11 does not alter the pattern of results as shown in columns 1 and

2 in Row A in Table 5. Columns 3 and 4 furthermore demonstrate that the results are robust to

inclusion of sector-year dummies, which control for sector specific shocks and also shield against

the impact of using inappropriate deflators. Note that the attenuation effect weakens. Thus, it

seems that it is partially, but not exclusively, the result of more productive sectors being more

severely impacted by the crisis.

         Fourth, Row B shows that the pattern of results remains when we include anomalous

observations (see Appendix B) that we have excluded from our estimation sample. The results

are also robust to dropping all plants for which at least one of the observed values is anomalous

(we typically exclude such anomalous observations but do not drop other plant-year

observations from plants characterized by such outliers).

         Fifth, by setting arbitrary size thresholds for exit and examining how our results change,

we assess whether it is likely that our results are due to sample selection bias because we are only

observing firms with 20 or more employees. Row C aggravates such sample selection bias by

excluding firms with, respectively, fewer than 30 (columns 1 and 2) and 50 (columns 3 and 4)

employees and defining a firm as having exited when it either disappears from the data altogether

or fails to report having more than, respectively, 29 or 49 employees in any of the subsequent

years. The results are robust to using different exit thresholds and, if anything, using higher

thresholds for exit reduces the attenuation effect; to the extent there is sample selection bias

because we are only observing firms with more than 20 employees it appears to be making it

harder to reject cleansing.

         Finally, to address the concern that exit is a protracted process and that by focusing on


11 Our preferred specifications do not control for capital because controlling since this would introduce sample
selection bias as the response rate for capital is far lower for measures of the capital stock than for other variables.
It is also missing in the 1996 data, requiring it to be estimated for that year (see Appendix).

                                                          23
short-term effects, we are missing the action, Table 6 presents estimates using longer time

horizons using our baseline model but without crisis and recovery interaction terms. The top

row presents models of the likelihood of being in business in 1996 for firms operating in 1993

and juxtaposes those with models of the likelihood of being in business in 1999 conditional on

operating in 1996. The bottom row presents models of surviving from 1991 until 1996 and from

1996 to 2001. The pattern of results does not change when longer time-horizons are considered;

productivity offers less protection during the crisis than it did pre-crisis, ceteris paribus.

Incidentally, this exercise also offers another check against the influence measurement error;

since our productivity measures are based on the pre-crisis periods, they are not vulnerable to

potential mismeasurement of productivity during crisis times.



6.2 Accounting for Attenuation

        Given the robust evidence for the attenuation effect, we now examine the most

prominent possible explanation for this effect, namely credit market failures, 12 labor regulations,

reduced entry and political regime change.



6.2.1 Finance and Firm Survival

        Tables 7 present regressions that examine the link between firm survival and firm‟s

financial characteristics. The relationship between firm survival and external financing

dependence, proxied by the share of assets that is financed with external funds (following Rajan

and Zingales, 1998) is examined in the top half of the table. The bottom half focuses on asset

hardness using Braun (2003)‟s indicator of asset tangibility. The usefulness of the U.S. based

external financing dependence and asset tangibility measures relies critically on the assumption

that the US rankings can be extrapolated to Indonesia, which in turn depends on the assumption



12They may also explain the attenuation between firm growth and productivity and explain reduced entry (see e.g.
Aghion et al., 2007 for evidence on the impact of credit constraints on firm entry and growth).

                                                      24
that there are certain technological factors that are industry-specific.13 The other explanatory

variables are the same as those presented in Table 3, although the first six columns exclude

industry dummies, but control for a sector‟s financial dependence, competitiveness and

contestability, proxied by the Herfindahl index, the “natural� rate of entry and of employment

turnover.

         The results provide ample evidence that changing credit conditions were an important

driver of firm exit during the crisis; firms operating in industries more dependent on external

finance and with lower asset tangibility were ceteris paribus significantly more likely to exit

during the crisis, both in absolute terms and relative to other periods as is evidenced between the

significant interactions between the crisis dummy and these financial characteristics. These

results hold using both productivity proxies. However, controlling for these financial

characteristics does not eliminate the attenuation effect.

         In addition, the protective impact of productivity in industries more dependent on

external finance rose significantly (columns 2 and 4). By contrast, the crisis interactions between

productivity and asset hardness as well as liquidity needs are not statistically significant (columns

2 and 4). Thus, it appears that firms in sectors that are more sensitive to changing credit

conditions were hit harder but this does not account for the observed attenuation of the

conditional correlation between productivity and survival.

         In summary, firms more exposed to fluctuations in credit market conditions were hit

harder by the crisis, yet these effects cannot fully account for the attenuation of the link between

productivity and exit during the crisis. If anything, to the extent that the crisis had a differential

impact on firms with different financial characteristics, it induced a cleansing effect amongst

firms more exposed to the changing credit conditions.




13 The impact of liquidity needs proxied by the inventories to sales ratio (following Raddatz (2006)) do not rely on
this assumption as this measures was constructed using the SI data. Again, while not shown, the results with this
measure give the same results.

                                                        25
6.2.2 Labor Regulations

        Table 8 presents survival models that control for provincial level real minimum wages

and allow their impact to vary over time (the baseline models presented in columns 1 and 3) as

well as to interact with productivity (the extended specifications presented in columns 2 and 4).

Since our models include province dummies, the impact of minimum wages is essentially

identified off within-province temporal variation in real minimum wage levels.

        The baseline models demonstrate suggest that firm survival was not on average strongly

correlated with minimum wage levels before and during the crisis, though post-crisis firms facing

higher minimum wages were less likely to exit. Controlling for minimum wages does not reduce

the attenuation effect. Yet, the extended specifications suggests that the baseline specifications

hide significant heterogeneity; firms in provinces with higher minimum wages are on average less

likely to exit yet the odds ratio associated with the interaction between value added per worker

and demeaned province level minimum wage levels is significantly larger than 1, indicating that

highly productive firms are more likely to exit when minimum wages are relatively high. Labor

regulation thus appears to interfere with market selection. Importantly, this distortionary effect is

especially pronounced during the crisis; the crisis interaction term between minimum wages and

productivity is strongly statistically significant using both log value added per worker and the

Solow residual, indicating that relatively productive firms confronted with relatively low

reductions in real minimum wages were proportionately more likely to exit. Note also that

including this interaction reduces the coefficient on the crisis-productivity interaction term. In

other words, labor regulations appear to provide a partial explanation for the attenuation effect.



6.2.3 Reduced Entry

        Table 9 presents regressions that include a dummy for whether or not a firm is an

entrant, interacted with period dummies and productivity. The results suggest that while entrants‟

survival is typically less strongly correlated with productivity, this result was not different during

                                                 26
the crisis. Allowing for differential productivity-survival dynamics for entrants does not reduce

the attenuation effect. Thus, the attenuation effect documented in this paper is not simply an

artifact of reduced entry.



6.2.4 Connectedness and Creative Destruction

        Another possible explanation of the attenuation effect is that the fall of Suharto may

have hurt firms affiliated with the Suharto regime disproportionately (see Fisman, 2001, and

Mobaraq and Purbasari, 2008). If these firms were highly productive, their exit may result in an

attenuation of the link between productivity and survival. Table 10 examines this possibility. The

data on political connectedness are available for firms in 1997, constructed using JSX and board

membership information from 1995-1997. Thus, to test the role of political connections, we

look at survival patterns from 1997 to 2001, controlling too for factors in our baseline

specifications presented in Table 3.14 Also note that relatively few firms are identified as being

politically connected to Suharto; 210 firms that are connected based on the stock market

response to, and 97 firms have a Suharto family member on their Boards, which may make it

hard to estimate the effects with precision. Row A uses the connectedness measure that is based

on the response of the Jakarta Stock Exchange to news about Suharto‟s health and the business

networks of those adversely affected by this news, while Row B uses as a proxy for connections

whether a firm had a Suharto family member on its board. Row C combines these two

definitions. The baseline regressions presented in columns 1 and 3 merely control for

connectedness, while the extended specifications presented in columns 2 and 4 additionally

include interactions between connectedness and productivity.

        The baseline regressions demonstrate that firms with political connections to Suharto

were not, on average, more likely to exit over the period 1997-2001 ceteris paribus. However, the

extended models suggest that, amongst firms with connections to the Suharto regime, the least
14 Since the proxy for connectedness is in part based on stock market reactions over the period 1995-1997,
conditioning on connectedness in prior periods might thus induce survivor bias.

                                                   27
productive ones were most at risk of exiting as the correlation between productivity and survival

strengthened, while being connected per se became associated with an increased risk of exit.

Note, however, that the estimated coefficients in these regressions are large and imprecisely

estimated, reflecting the fact that few firms were identified as being politically connected. Thus,

the attenuation effect does not appear to be driven by regime change.



6.3 Employment Growth

        Firm survival and employment growth are determined by the same data generating

process, notably the one determining firm-size, and we therefore use the same explanatory

variables as in the firm survival models. The results are presented in Table 11. Columns 1 and 3

present OLS specifications, whilst columns 2 and 4 present Fixed Effects models, which

effectively estimate deviations from growth trends. Columns 1 and 2 use value added per worker

as the proxy for productivity, whereas columns 3 and 4 use TFP, measured by the Solow

residual.

        It is very difficult to predict employment growth as evidenced by the consistently low

R2s, even though we are including a rich set of firm characteristics and dummy variables. The

results are generally consistent with the literature on firm growth: younger firms, smaller firms

and more productive firms grow faster (see for example, Bigsten and Gebreeyesus, 2007). The

crisis appears to have attenuated the link between employment growth and productivity

somewhat (column 1), but this finding is not very robust; it does not obtain when we estimate

the growth model by OLS and use TFP as a proxy for productivity or control for Fixed Effects

and use value-added per worker as our productivity proxy. The finding that more productive

firms that survived were not less likely to shed labor, ceteris paribus, suggests that employment

reallocation amongst surviving firms was not especially efficiency enhancing during the crisis.

Interestingly, the relationship between productivity and employment growth appears to continue

to be attenuated post-crisis.

                                                28
       Other results accord with intuition; exporters fared significantly better during the crisis,

whereas large firms shed more labor, in part because such firms were less likely to go out of

business (our regressions are conditional on firm survival). Government firms also appear to

have shed less labor.



7. Conclusion

       While crises are recognized to be periods of intensified adjustment and aggregate studies

suggest that firm dynamics are a key determinant of the depth and duration of crises, firm-level

evidence on their impact on the efficiency of resource allocation is scant. Perhaps because of the

paucity of the empirical evidence, there is an active debate as to whether or not crises have a

silver lining by improving resource allocation. On the one hand, a host of macroeconomic

models are predicated on the idea that the additional competitive pressure induced by the crisis

will hurt inefficient producers disproportionately. They predict that the crisis will “cleanse� out

unproductive firms and reallocate resources towards more efficient producers. On the other

hand, a series of recent papers point out that, in the presence of market imperfection, these

conclusions may be overturned and that crises may “scar� the economy by driving productive

firms out of business.

       Using Indonesian manufacturing census data from 1991-2001 to examine the impact of

the East Asian crisis on resource allocation, this paper rejects the hypothesis that the crisis

unequivocally improved the reallocative process. Decompositions of aggregate productivity

growth reveal that firms that suffered the largest productivity losses also suffered the largest

reductions in market share. In addition, market share reallocation between firms contributed

more positively to average productivity than during non-crisis times, although the magnitude of

this contribution was modest and only positive in absolute terms in 1998.           However, the

correlation between productivity and employment growth did not strengthen, which is

concerning given the excessive amount of job reallocation taking place during the crisis. More

                                                29
worryingly, the link between productivity and exit of existing firms was significantly attenuated

during the crisis, suggesting that the crisis was less discriminating in terms of the productivity of

firms driven out of business. Fortunately, post-crisis the link between firm survival and

productivity was restored suggesting that the crisis did not permanently scar the Schumpetarian

process of creative destruction. In addition, although there were fewer entrants, the

contributions of entrants rose; the firms that entered were typically more productive than

incumbents and this helped mitigate the loss in productivity. In other words, the crisis appears to

have weeded out the weakest potential entrants, which helped mitigate the loss in aggregate

productivity.

        Labor market imperfections more so than credit market imperfections help account for

the attenuation effect. Firms in sectors more dependent on external finance and with lower levels

of asset tangibility were indeed disproportionately more likely to exit during the crisis. However,

controlling for these financial characteristics did not reduce the conditional attenuation effect,

suggesting that changing credit market conditions do not account for the attenuated link

between productivity and exit. By contrast, labor regulations provide a possible explanation for

the attenuation of the link between productivity and firm survival; during the crisis productivity

was a relatively less important determinant of survival in provinces with high minimum wages,

suggesting that labor regulations possibly distorted the adjustment process.            Finally, the

attenuation is not a statistical artifact due to a reduction in entry, nor is it driven by firms that

had been able to achieve high profits by virtue of their connections with Suharto being

differentially impacted; if anything the crisis induced a cleansing effect amongst these firms.

        This work has focused on the impact of the East Asian crisis on Indonesia. As the

fourth most populous country and widely portrayed as a „tiger cub‟ with a bright future,

understanding the crisis dynamics in Indonesia is of inherent interest. Focusing on a developing

country may be testing the cleansing hypothesis in a context where it is more likely to be

rejected. However, with crises more prevalent in developing countries, this can be a particularly

                                                 30
relevant case to examine.    The shock that hit Indonesia was also large -- although the recent

financial crisis shows that far more developed countries have not been immune to significant

financial shocks. Assessing the extent to which our findings generalize to other crisis-episodes is

a promising area for further research.




                                                31
References

Ackerberg, D., K. Caves, and G. Frazer, “Structural identification of production functions�
      UCLA Mimeo, (2005).

Aghion, P., T. Faulty, and S. Scarpetta, “Credit Constraints as Barriers to the Entry and Post-
       Entry Growth of Firms� Economic Policy 22 (2007), 731-779.

Arellano, M., and S. Bond, “Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and
       an application to employment equations� Review of Economic Studies 58 (1991), 277-297.

Aswicahyono, H., “A Survey of Micro-data Analyses in Indonesia.� in J. Corbett and S. Umezaki
      Deepening East Asian Economic Integration (Jakarta, Indonesia: Economic Research Institute
      for ASEAN and East Asia., 2008).

Aw, B., Chung, S. and Roberts, M. “Output, and Failure: A Comparison of Taiwanese and
        Korean Manufacturers� NBER Working Paper No. 8766, (2002).

Baily, M., Hulten, C. and D. Campbell, “The Distribution of Productivity in Manufacturing
        Plants� Brookings Papers: Microeconomics (1992), 187–249.

Balasubramanian, N. and Sivadasan, J. “What happens when firms patent? New evidence from
       US Economic Census data� University of Michigan Mimeo (2009).

Barlevy, G., “The sullying effect of recessions� Review of Economic Studies 69 (2002), 65–96.

Barlevy, G., “Credit market frictions and the allocation of resources over the business cycle.�
        Journal of Monetary Economics 50 (2003), 1795-1818

Bartelsman, E., J. Haltiwanger and S. Scarpetta. “Microeconomic Evidence of Creative
       Destruction in Industrial and Developing Countries� World Bank Policy Research
       Working Paper No. 3464, (2004).

Bartelsman, E. and M. Doms “Understanding Productivity: Lessons from Longitudinal
       Microdata.� Journal of Economic Literature 38 (2000), 569-95.

Beegle, K. E. Frankenberg, D. Thomas “Measuring Change in Indonesia.� RAND Working Paper
        No. 99-07 (1999).

Bergoeing, R., N. Loayza and A. Repetto, “Slow Recoveries.� Journal of Development Economics 75
       (2004), 473-506.

Bernard, A. and F.Sjoholm, "Foreign Owners and Plant Survival," NBER Working Papers No.
               10039 (2003).

Bigsten, A. and Gebreeyesus, M., “The Small, the Young, and the Productive: Determinants of
        Manufacturing Firm Growth in Ethiopia� Economic Development and Cultural Change 55
        (2007), 813-840.

Blalock, G., P. Gertler and D. Levine, “Financial Constraints on Investment in an Emerging
        Market Crisis� Journal of Monetary Economics 55 (2008), 568-591.

                                                32
Bloom, N. “The Impact of Uncertainty Shocks� Econometrica 77 (2009), 623-685.

Bond, S., “Dynamic panel data models: A guide to micro data methods and practice.� Institute
       for Fiscal Studies Working Paper 09/02 (2002).

Borensztein, E. and J. Lee, “Financial Crisis and Credit Crunch in Korea: Evidence from Firm-
       Level Data� Journal of Monetary Economics. 49 (2002), 853-875.

Braun, M. “Financial Contractibility and Asset Hardness�, UCLA Mimeo, 2003.

Brown, D. and Earle, J., “Gross Job Flows in Russian Industry Before and After Reforms: Has
       Destruction Become More Creative?� Journal of Comparative Economics, 30 (2002), 96-133.

Brown, D. and Earle, J., “Understanding the Contributions of Reallocation to Productivity
       Growth: Lessons from a Comparative Firm-Level Analysis� IZA Working Paper No
       3683 (2008).

Caballero R. and M. Hammour, “The Cleansing Effect of Creative Destruction.�
               American Economic Review 84 (1994), 1350-68.

Caballero R. and M. Hammour., “Improper Churn: Social Costs and Macroeconomic
       Consequences. MIT Mimeo (1999).

Casacuberta, C. and N. Gandelman, “Protection, openness, and factor adjustment : evidence
       from the manufacturing sector in Uruguay� Interamerican Development Bank Working
       Paper. (2009)

Caves, R., “Industrial Organization and New Findings on the Turnover and Mobility of Firms.�
       Journal of Economic Literature 36 (1998),1947-82.

Chan, R., ''A Study on the Effects of Financial Constraints on Firms in Developing Countries'',
       Mimeo. University of Michigan. (2009).

Collier, P. and B. Goderis, “Structural Policies for Shock-Prone Developing Countries" Oxford
         Economic Papers, 61 (2009), 703-726.

Cox, R., “Regression Models and Life Tables� Journal of the Royal Statistic Society 34 (1972), 187-
       202.

Davis, S., J. Haltiwanger, and S. Schuh, Job Creation and Destruction. (Cambridge, USA: MIT Press,
        1996).

Dunne, T., Roberts, M. and L. Samuelson, “The Growth and Failure of U.S. Manufacturing
      Plants.� Quarterly Journal of Economics 104 (1998), 671-98.

Dwor-Frecault, D., Colaco, F. and M. Hallward-Driemeier. Asian Corporate Recovery (Washington
      DC :World Bank: 1999)




                                                  33
Eslava, M., J. Haltiwanger, J., A. Kugler, and M.Kugler. "The effects of structural reforms on
        productivity and profitability enhancing reallocation: evidence from Colombia," Journal of
        Development Economics, Elsevier, 75(2), (2004), 333-371.

Eslava, M., A. Galindo, M. Hofstetter and A. Izquierdo, 2010. "Scarring Recessions and Credit
        Constraints: Evidence from Colombian Firm Dynamics," Universidad de Los
        Andes/CEDE Working Paper No. 007711.

Fallon, P. and R. Lucas, “The Impact of Financial Crises on Labor Markets, Household
        Incomes, and Poverty: A Review of Evidence.� World Bank Research Observer 17 (2002),
        21-45.

Fisman, R., “Estimating the Value of Political Connections� American Economic Review 91 (2001),
       1095-1102.

Foster, L., Haltiwanger,J. and C. Krizan, “Aggregate Productivity Growth: Lessons from
        Microeconomic Evidence,� NBER Working Paper No. 6803 (1998).

Foster, L., Haltiwanger, J. and C. Syverson, "Reallocation, Firm Turnover, and Efficiency:
        Selection on Productivity or Profitability?" American Economic Review 98 (2008), 394–425.

Frazer, G., “Which Firms Die? A Look at Manufacturing Firm Exit in Ghana� Economic
        Development and Cultural Change 53 (2005), 585-617.

Gomes, J., Greenwood, J. and S. Rebelo, “Equilibrium Unemployment.� University of
      Rochester Mimeo (1997)

Griliches, Z. and H. Regev, “Firm productivity in Israeli industry: 1979–1988.� Journal of
        Econometrics. 65 (1995). 175–203.

Haltiwanger, J., Scarpetta, S., and H. Shweiger “Assessing Job Flows Across Countries: The Role
      of Industry, Firm Size and Regulations� NBER Working Paper No. 8766, (2008).

Hall, R. “Lost jobs� Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1 (1995), 221-256.

Liu, L. and Tybout, J. “Productivity Growth in Chile and Colombia: The Role of Entry, Exit,
        and Learning� in M. Roberts and J. Tybout Industrial Evolution in Developing Countries.
        (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1996).

Loayza, N., G. Perry, L. Serven, “Schumpeter in the Tropics: Regulation and Macro
       Performance.� World Bank Mimeo, (2005).

Manning, C., “The Impact of Financial Crises on Labor Markets, Household Incomes, and
      Poverty: A Review of Evidence.� Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 36(2000), 105-136.

McKenzie, D., “ How do Households Cope with Aggregate Shocks? Evidence from the Mexican
     Peso Crisis� World Development 31 (2003), 1179–1199.

McKenzie, D., “Aggregate Shocks and Urban Labor Market Responses: Evidence from
     Argentina's Financial Crisis� Economic Development and Cultural Change 52 (2004), 719–758.


                                                 34
Mobarak, A. and D. Purbasari, “Protection For Sale to Firms: Evidence From Indonesia� Yale
      University Mimeo (2008).

Micco, A. and Pages, C. "Employment Protection and Gross Job Flows: A Differences-in       -
       Differences Approach," RES Working Papers No. 4365, (2004).

Nickell, S., “Biases in Dynamic Models with Fixed Effects� Econometrica 49 (1981), 1417-1426.

Nishimura, K., T. Nakajima and K. Kiyota, “Does the natural selection mechanism still work in
      severe recessions? Examination of the Japanese economy in the 1990� Journal of Economic
      Behavior & Organization 58 (2005), 53-78.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development “Input-Output Tables.�
       Directorate  for    Science,  Technology    and   Industry,  OECD.     Paris.
       http://www.oecd.org/document/3/0,3343,en_2649_34445_38071427_1_1_1_1,00.html
       Last accessed 01/15/2010. (1995, 2002).

Ouyang, M., “The Scarring Effect of Recessions� The Journal of Monetary Economics 56 (2009),
      184-199.

Paci, P, Revenga, A. and B. Rijkers, “Coping with Crises: Policies to Protect Employment and
        Earnings� World Bank Research Observer (forthcoming).

Raddatz, C. "Liquidity Needs and Vulnerability to Financial Underdevelopment" Journal of
       Financial Economics 80 (2006), 677-722.

Rajan, R and Zingales, L “Financial Dependence and Growth� The American Economic Review 88
        (1998), 59-586.

Roodman, D. “How to Do xtabond2: An Introduction to “Difference� and “System� GMM in
     Stata� Center for Global Development Working Paper No. 103, (2006).

Schumpeter, J. Business Cycles. (New York:McGraw-Hill, 1939).

Söderbom, M., F. Teal, and A. Harding, "The Determinants of Survival Among African
      Manufacturing Firms" Economic Development and Cultural Change 54 (2006), 533–56.

Syverson, C., “What Determines Productivity?� NBER Working Paper No 15712, (2010).

World Bank. Indonesia Jobs Report (Jakarta: World Bank, forthcoming).




                                              35
Tables and Figures


Figure 1: Firm Entry and Exit

   0.2
                                                                                 Exit rate          Entry rate

  0.15


   0.1


  0.05


    0
             1992     1993    1994   1995    1996     1997    1998       1999    2000        2001




Figure 2: Aggregate Job Flows

   800000


   600000
                                                                                              JC incumbents
   400000                                                                                     JC entrants
                                                                                              Total JC
   200000
                                                                                              JD incumbents
                                                                                              JD exiting firms
         0
               1992    1993   1994   1995   1996    1997   1998   1999    2000                Total JD
  -200000                                                                                     Net JC
                                                                                              Excess Churning
  -400000


  -600000




                                                     36
Figure 3: FHK Decomposition of the growth of real value added per worker, output
market share

   0.400
   0.300
                                                                                                   Within
   0.200
                                                                                                   Between
   0.100
                                                                                                   Cross
   0.000
                                                                                                   Proportionate Entry
   -0.100     1992    1993   1994   1995    1996    1997     1998    1999     2000   2001
                                                                                                   Disproportionate Entry
   -0.200
                                                                                                   Exit
   -0.300
    -0.400
Note:
-decompositions are conducted at the 2-digit industry level and subsequently aggregated with weights proportional
to each industry‟s contribution to total output.

Figure 4: FHK Decomposition – using three year window – real value added per worker

   0.6

   0.4                                                                                             Within
                                                                                                   Between
   0.2
                                                                                                   Cross
     0
                                                                                                   Proportionate Entry
            1992     1993    1994   1995     1996    1997     1998     1999     2000    2001
  -0.2
                                                                                                   Disproportionate Entry
  -0.4                                                                                             Exit

   -0.6
Note:
-decompositions are conducted at the 2-digit industry level and subsequently aggregated with weights proportional
to each industry‟s contribution to total output.

Figure 5: FHK Decomposition of the growth of TFP (Solow method), output market
share

    0.080
    0.060
    0.040                                                                                           Within
    0.020                                                                                           Between
    0.000
                                                                                                    Cross
   -0.020 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
                                                                                                    Proportionate Entry
   -0.040
   -0.060                                                                                           Disproportionate Entry
   -0.080                                                                                           Exit
   -0.100
   -0.120
Note:
-decompositions are conducted at the 2-digit industry level and subsequently aggregated with weights proportional
to each industry‟s contribution to total output.


                                                        37
  Table 1: Entry, Exit and employment growth

                                        Entry, Exit and Employment Growth
                                        Employment Growth                          Employment Growth
                                            (Survivors)                                (Survivors)
              Entry          Exit          mean             sd              % negative   No emp      % positive
                                                                           emp change      change  emp change
   1992      14.54%  9.74%                  2.12%         32.02%               30.03%     12.66%       41.49%
   1993      10.51%  9.02%                  4.27%         28.78%               28.34%     13.31%       46.98%
   1994      11.70%  7.41%                  2.13%         26.94%               29.75%     18.52%       39.37%
   1995      17.96%  6.19%                  0.80%         24.70%               26.14%     20.35%       34.69%
   1996      14.41%  8.97%                  0.61%         23.49%               28.44%     22.73%       33.38%
   1997       8.07% 10.78%                 -1.41%         24.60%               36.29%     22.40%       32.39%
   1998       7.93% 11.21%                 -3.74%         26.90%               44.05%     16.48%       30.55%
   1999       7.61%  5.06%                  0.60%         25.30%               30.17%     28.34%       32.14%
   2000       5.65%  5.20%                  0.76%         24.02%               26.11%     37.72%       29.54%
   2001       9.36% 13.66%                 -0.81%         25.37%               33.28%     29.20%       26.46%
Note:
-entry and exit are defined as entry into the survey and exit from the survey (see the Appendix)
- entry and exit statistics are based on the raw data; all other statistics are based on the sample that excludes outliers




                                                                     38
 Table 2.A Descriptive Statistics (Means), by period

                                             Descriptive Statistics – by period (1 of 2)
Period                                                               Pre-crisis        Crisis                               Recovery
                                              All                              7.757               7.968                                   8.019
                                              Surviving(1)                     7.787               7.991                                   7.996
ln (V/L)
                                              Exiting(2)                       7.417               7.786                                   7.509
                                              Difference(1-2)              0.370***           0.205***                                 0.487***
                                              All                             -0.133               0.070                                   0.112
ln (V/L)                                      Surviving(1)                    -0.110               0.093                                   0.079
 (demeaned by sector)                         Exiting(2)                      -0.395              -0.119                                  -0.299
                                              Difference(1-2)              0.284***            0.212***                                0.378***
                                              All                              0.000               0.000                                   0.000
ln (V/L)                                      Surviving(1)                     0.022               0.023                                   0.031
(demeaned by sector-year)                     Exiting(2)                      -0.256              -0.184                                  -0.351
                                              Difference(1-2)              0.278***           0.206***                                 0.383***
                                              All                              2.277               2.483                                   2.400
                                              Surviving(1)                     2.281               2.475                                   2.348
TFP - Solow
                                              Exiting(2)                       2.230               2.557                                   2.357
                                              Difference(1-2)              0.051***         -0.082***                                     -0.009
                                              All                             -0.075               0.118                                   0.039
TFP – Solow                                   Surviving(1)                    -0.070               0.117                                  -0.009
(demeaned by sector)                          Exiting(2)                      -0.137               0.129                                  -0.036
                                              Difference(1-2)              0.067***               -0.012                                  0.026*
                                              All                              0.000              -0.000                                   0.000
TFP – Solow                                   Surviving(1)                     0.004              -0.002                                   0.002
(demeaned by sector-year)                     Exiting(2)                      -0.057               0.015                                  -0.038
                                              Difference(1-2)              0.062***               -0.016                                 0.040**
                                              All                              8.981               9.089                                   9.081
Ln (Y/L)                                      Surviving(1)                     9.013               9.120                                   9.073
                                              Exiting(2)                       8.623               8.839                                   8.502
                                              Difference(1-2)              0.390***            0.281***                                0.572***
                                              All                              6.726               6.767                                   6.735
                                              Surviving(1)                     6.728               6.768                                   6.737
TFP-ACF
                                              Exiting(2)                       6.701               6.756                                   6.711
                                              Difference(1-2)               0.027**                0.012                                   0.026
                                              All                            11.409              11.682                                   13.349
                                              Surviving(1)                   11.554              11.981                                   13.165
Firmage
                                              Exiting(2)                       9.817               9.261                                  12.443
                                              Difference(1-2)              1.737***           2.720***                                 0.722***
                                              All                              4.216               4.149                                   4.178
                                              Surviving(1)                     4.254               4.211                                   4.216
lnL
                                              Exiting(2)                       3.801               3.655                                   3.644
                                              Difference(1-2)              0.453***           0.557***                                 0.571***
                                              All                              0.856               0.861                                   0.860
                                              Surviving(1)                     0.855               0.860                                   0.861
Unskilled Ratio                               Exiting(2)                       0.871               0.875                                   0.889
                                              Difference(1-2)             -0.016***           -0.016***                               -0.028***
Notes:
-*,** and *** indicate the significance of the difference between surviving and exiting firms, where *=90%confidence interval, **=95%
confidence interval, ***=99% confidence interval for two-tailed t-test
-- Bold differences indicate 90% confidence level in rejecting that the difference between surviving and existing firms in the indicated period is
not different from the difference between surviving and exiting firms pre-crisis. Bold and underlined indicates to the 95% confidence level.
- “Exiting� implies the firm is not in the data in year t+1, “surviving� implies the firm is present in year t+1. For example, firms that disappear
from the data in 1997 are marked as exiting in 1996. Accordingly, “crisis� refers to the years 1996 and 1997, and the “pre-crisis� and “recovery�
periods to the years before and after that respectively.




                                                                         39
Table 2.B Descriptive Statistics (Means, continued), by period
                                     Descriptive Statistics – by period (2 of 2)
Period                                            Pre-crisis          Crisis                                Recovery
                               All Descriptive Statistics – by period (1 of 2) 0.057
                                                               0.050                                                         0.072
                               Surviving(1)                    0.053                0.060                                    0.074
Foreign Owned
                                     Descriptive Statistics – by period (1 of 2) 0.032
                               Exiting(2)                      0.025                                                         0.038
                               Difference(1-2)             0.028***             0.029***                                 0.036***
                               All Descriptive Statistics – by period (1 of 2) 0.025
                                                               0.031                                                         0.021
                               Surviving(1)                    0.032                0.026                                    0.020
Government Owned
                                     Descriptive Statistics – by period (1 of 2) 0.014
                               Exiting(2)                      0.019                                                         0.012
                               Difference(1-2)             0.013***             0.012***                                 0.008***
                               All                             0.164                0.157                                    0.135
                               Surviving(1)                    0.166                0.164                                    0.129
Exporter
                               Exiting(2)                      0.144                0.103                                    0.094
                               Difference(1-2)             0.022***             0.061***                                 0.035***
                               All                             6.819                6.712                                    6.619
                               Surviving(1)                    6.837                6.750                                    6.650
Ln (K/L)
                               Exiting(2)                      6.598                6.383                                    5.928
                               Difference(1-2)             0.239***             0.367***                                 0.721***
                               All                             0.163                0.169                                    0.227
Financial dependence           Surviving(1)                    0.164                0.169                                    0.231
(RZ)                           Exiting(2)                      0.146                0.174                                    0.193
                               Difference(1-2)             0.019***                -0.005                                0.038***
                               All                             0.048                0.048                                    0.048
                               Surviving(1)                    0.048                0.048                                    0.049
Liquidity Needs
                               Exiting(2)                      0.046                0.049                                    0.045
                               Difference(1-2)             0.002***             -0.001**                                 0.003***
                               All                             0.314                0.313                                    0.316
                               Surviving(1)                    0.315                0.315                                    0.316
Tangibility
                               Exiting(2)                      0.304                0.298                                    0.316
                               Difference(1-2)             0.011***             0.016***                                     0.000
                               All                             4.152                4.594                                    4.344
                               Surviving(1)                    4.152                4.593                                    4.301
Minimum Wages
                               Exiting(2)                      4.153                4.604                                    4.325
                               Difference(1-2)                -0.002           -0.012***                                -0.024***
Notes:
-*,** and *** indicate the significance of the difference between surviving and exiting firms, where *=90%confidence interval,
**=95% confidence interval, ***=99% confidence interval for two-tailed t-test
- Bold differences indicate 90% confidence level in rejecting that the difference between surviving and existing firms in the
indicated period is not different from the difference between surviving and exiting firms pre-crisis. Bold and underlined indicates
to the 95% confidence level.
- “Exiting� implies the firm is not in the data in year t+1, “surviving� implies the firm is present in year t+1. For example, firms
that disappear from the data in 1997 are marked as exiting in 1996. Accordingly, “crisis� refers to the years 1996 and 1997, and the
“pre-crisis� and “recovery� periods to the years before and after that respectively.




                                                                       40
Table 3: Firm Survival
                                        Logistic Survival model:
                                             Baseline Model
                                  Odds Ratios: Relative Probability of Exit
                                        Value-Added            TFP -Solow                           TFP- ACF
                                           coef/se                coef/se                            coef/se
ln(V/L)                                    0.834***
                                            (0.011)
Crisis*ln(V/L)                             1.187***
                                            (0.025)
Recovery*ln(V/L)                             0.990
                                            (0.020)
TFP (Solow)                                                       0.755***
                                                                   (0.033)
Crisis*TFP (Solow)                                                1.556***
                                                                   (0.090)
Recovery*TFP (Solow)                                               1.111*
                                                                   (0.069)
TFP (Solow)                                                                                          0.724***
                                                                                                      (0.034)
Crisis*TFP (Solow)                                                                                   1.144**
                                                                                                      (0.071)
Recovery*TFP (Solow)                                                                                   1.075
                                                                                                      (0.059)
lnfirmage                                      0.829***                   0.832***                   0.813***
                                                (0.013)                    (0.015)                    (0.017)
Crisis*lnfirmage                               0.845***                   0.869***                     0.975
                                                (0.021)                    (0.031)                    (0.048)
Recovery*lnfirmage                             1.154***                     1.069                    1.131**
                                                (0.032)                    (0.044)                    (0.055)
lnL                                            0.243***                   0.273***                   0.237***
                                                (0.024)                    (0.027)                    (0.026)
Crisis*lnL                                     0.565***                   0.588***                     0.810
                                                (0.091)                    (0.103)                    (0.164)
Recovery*lnL                                   0.530***                   0.301***                   0.458***
                                                (0.084)                    (0.064)                    (0.082)
ln L2                                          1.111***                   1.095***                   1.111***
                                                (0.011)                    (0.010)                    (0.013)
Crisis*ln L2                                   1.046***                   1.046***                     1.004
                                                (0.018)                    (0.018)                    (0.023)
Recovery*ln L2                                 1.051***                   1.101***                   1.055***
                                                (0.017)                    (0.023)                    (0.020)
Unskilled Ratio                                0.764**                      1.113                      0.847
                                                (0.081)                    (0.161)                    (0.124)
Crisis*Unskilled Ratio                         1.468**                      0.987                      1.396
                                                (0.245)                    (0.221)                    (0.410)
Recovery*Unskilled Ratio                       1.880***                   1.799**                    3.577***
                                                (0.324)                    (0.485)                    (1.240)
Foreign Owned                                  0.826**                    0.703***                    0.821*
                                                (0.076)                    (0.074)                    (0.090)
Crisis*Foreign Owned                             1.217                     1.365*                      1.464
                                                (0.172)                    (0.227)                    (0.375)
Recovery*Foreign Owned                         1.419**                      1.299                      1.266
                                                (0.194)                    (0.254)                    (0.293)
Government Owned                                 0.955                      0.936                      0.804
                                                (0.105)                    (0.112)                    (0.136)
Crisis*Government Owned                          1.206                      1.424                      1.726
                                                (0.225)                    (0.307)                    (0.617)
Recovery*Government Owned                      1.482**                      1.269                      1.519
                                                (0.292)                    (0.477)                    (0.609)
Exporter                                       1.314***                   1.279***                   1.285***
                                                (0.059)                    (0.063)                    (0.071)
Crisis*Exporter                                0.690***                   0.677***                   0.611***
                                                (0.052)                    (0.060)                    (0.089)
Recovery*Exporter                              0.834**                    1.308***                   1.372***
                                                (0.065)                    (0.129)                    (0.144)
Province Dummies                                  Yes                       Yes                         Yes
Period Dummies                                    Yes                       Yes                         Yes
Industry Dummies                                  Yes                       Yes                         Yes
N                                              153,115                    95,966                      73,196
Pseudo R2                                       0.075                      0.072                       0.058
Notes
- *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Standard errors for specifications that use TFP as a proxy for productivity (columns 2
and 3) are bootstrapped using 100 replications




                                                                     41
 Table 4: Robustness Checks I: Lagged Productivity

                                           Logistic Survival model:
                            Robustness Checks: Alternative productivity measures
                                    Odds Ratios: Relative Probability of Exit
                                         Value Added                                   TFP-Solow
                                coef/se              coef/se                 coef/se             coef/se
                                            A Lagged Productivity
Lag-length                      One year             Two years                One year           Two years
ln(V/L) t-1                     0.866***
                                 (0.014)
Crisis*ln(V/L) t-1              1.157***
                                 (0.028)
Recovery*ln(V/L) t-1            0.956**
                                 (0.021)
ln(V/L) t-2                                          0.907***
                                                      (0.017)
Crisis*ln(V/L) t-2                                   1.120***
                                                      (0.031)
Recovery*ln(V/L) t-2                                   0.979
                                                      (0.024)
TFP (Solow) t-1
                                                                                  0.740***
Crisis*TFP (Solow) t-1                                                             (0.033)
                                                                                  1.470***
Recovery*TFP (Solow)                                                               (0.091)
t-1                                                                                1.114*
TFP (Solow) t-2                                                                    (0.072)
                                                                                                          0.767***
Crisis*TFP (Solow) t-2                                                                                     (0.049)
                                                                                                          1.492***
Recovery*TFP (Solow)                                                                                       (0.114)
t-2                                                                                                       1.380***
Controls                            Yes                Yes                Yes                                Yes
N                                 134,318            110,583            70,595                             58,733
Pseudo R2                          0.080              0.076              0.081                              0.078
                                B Coarse Productivity Ranking (by sector-year)
Model                              Empty               Full              Empty                                Full
Low Productivity                 1.724***           1.330***           1.375***                            1.341***
(1st tercile)                     (0.059)            (0.049)            (0.060)                             (0.058)
Medium Productivity              1.172***             0.970             0.920*                             0.905**
( 2nd tercile)                    (0.042)            (0.036)            (0.041)                             (0.041)
Crisis*Low                       1.365***           6.390***            1.091*                             5.604***
    Productivity                  (0.049)            (2.604)            (0.050)                             (2.787)
Crisis*Medium                    1.424***           6.887***           1.508***                            7.508***
    Productivity                  (0.057)            (2.814)            (0.086)                             (3.807)
Crisis*High                      1.478***           7.600***           1.542***                            7.925***
    Productivity                  (0.061)            (3.105)            (0.081)                             (3.946)
Recovery *Low                    1.100***           4.149***           0.683***                           12.051***
    Productivity                  (0.037)            (1.704)            (0.036)                             (7.050)
Recovery*Medium                   0.922**           3.557***           0.815***                           14.301***
   Productivity                   (0.037)            (1.465)            (0.056)                             (8.490)
Recovery* High                   0.858***           3.792***           0.730***                           13.380***
   Productivity                   (0.037)            (1.561)            (0.049)                             (7.971)
Controls                            No                 Yes                No1                                 Yes
N                                 153,115            153,115            95,966                              95,966
Pseudo R2                          0.024              0.074              0.020                               0.072
 Notes
 - *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Standard errors for specifications that use TFP as a proxy for productivity (columns 3 and 4)
 are bootstrapped using 100 replications
 - Controls include province, period and industry dummies as well as the following variables and their interactions with crisis and
 recovery dummies; lnL, lnL2 Unskilled Ratio, Foreign Owned, and Government Owned.
 - 1 The “empty� model presented in row B does include province dummies
 - “Low Productivity�, “High productivity� and “Medium Productivity� denote firms in the bottom, middle and top productivity
 terciles (this ranking obviously varies with the productivity proxy used).



                                                                42
Table 5: Robustness Checks II: Alternative Specifications, Sample Restrictions and Exit
Treshholds
                          Logistic Survival model: Additional Robustness Checks
                                    Odds Ratios: Relative Probability of Exit
                                   VA             TFP (Solow)                 VA             TFP (Solow)
                                coef/se              coef/se               coef/se             coef/se
                                         A Alternative Specifications
                           Controlling for ln(K/L)                    Including sector year dummies
 ln(V/L)                        0.823***                                   0.837***
                                 (0.014)                                    (0.012)
 Crisis*ln(V/L)                 1.212***                                   1.125***
                                 (0.035)                                    (0.027)
 Recovery*ln(V/L)                 1.000                                      0.986
                                 (0.030)                                    (0.022)
 TFP (Solow)                                         0.671***                                  0.747***
                                                      (0.027)                                   (0.050)
 Crisis*TFP (Solow)                                  1.642***                                  1.508***
                                                      (0.099)                                   (0.152)
 Recovery*TFP                                          0.967                                     1.146
 (Solow)                                              (0.068)                                   (0.135)
 Ln(K/L)                         1.020*              0.929***
                                 (0.011)              (0.012)
 Crisis* Ln(K/L)                0.953**               1.041*
                                 (0.019)              (0.023)
 Recovery* Ln(K/L)              0.903***             0.900***
                                 (0.018)              (0.021)
 Controls                            Yes                    Yes                    Yes                     Yes
 N                                111,331               95,966           153,115                         95,966
 Pseudo R2                          0.078                0.074             0.082                          0.078
                                       B Alternative Sample Restrictions
                                        Excluding firms with outliers             Raw Data
 ln(V/L)                          0.830***                               0.836***
                                   (0.014)                                (0.010)
 Crisis*ln(V/L)                   1.229***                               1.170***
                                   (0.032)                                (0.022)
 Recovery*ln(V/L)                   0.989                                  1.026
                                   (0.026)                                (0.018)
 TFP (Solow)                                           0.731***
                                                        (0.036)                                         0.943***
 Crisis*TFP (Solow)                                    1.629***                                          (0.016)
                                                        (0.115)                                         1.148***
 Recovery*TFP                                            1.149                                           (0.031)
 (Solow)                                                (0.114)                                           1.047
 Controls                            Yes                    Yes                    Yes                     Yes
 N                                 67,250                 37,871                 180,660                108,752
 Pseudo R2                          0.068                  0.083                   0.069                  0.069
                                           C Different Exit Tresholds
                                        30 people treshold                             50 people treshold
 ln(V/L)                          0.827***                                       0.827***
                                   (0.010)                                        (0.010)
 Crisis*ln(V/L)                   1.160***                                       1.150***
                                   (0.021)                                        (0.021)
 Recovery*ln(V/L)                   1.008                                          0.984
                                   (0.017)                                        (0.017)
 TFP (Solow)                                             0.828***                                       0.943***
                                                          (0.029)                                        (0.016)
 Crisis*TFP (Solow)                                      1.375***                                       1.148***
                                                          (0.074)                                        (0.031)
 Recovery*TFP                                             1.107*                                          1.047
 (Solow)                                                  (0.058)                                        (0.035)
  Controls                           Yes                    Yes                      Yes                    Yes
  N                               153,115                  95,966                 153,115                 95,966
  Pseudo R2                         0.073                   0.076                  0.056                   0.055
Notes
- *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Standard errors in specifications that use TFP as a proxy for productivity (columns 2 and 4)
and/or control for capital per worker (Row A) are bootstrapped using 100 replications
- Controls include province, period and industry dummies (except when sector-year dummies are included- in which case
industry and period dummies were dropped) as well as the following variables and their interactions with crisis and recovery
dummies; lnL, lnL2 Unskilled Ratio, Foreign Owned, and Government Owned.
Table 6: Long-run Survival

                                                               43
Table 6: Long-Run Survival

                                       Logistic Survival model:
                                 Odds Ratios: Relative Probability of Exit
                                          VA                                      TFP (Solow)
                               coef/seTFP (Solow)
                                                coef/se                    coef/se          coef/se
  3 Year Window
                              Pre-Crisis              Crisis              Pre-Crisis               Crisis
 Survival Period (from        1993-1996            1996-1999              1993-1996              1996-1999
 ln(V/L)
 – to)                         0.791***             0.939***
                                (0.019)              (0.019)
 TFP (Solow)                                                               0.757***                 1.009
                                                                            (0.052)                (0.066)
 lnfirmage                     0.818***             0.696***               0.832***               0.693***
                                (0.021)              (0.015)                (0.027)                (0.020)
 lnL                           0.261***             0.114***               0.271***               0.123***
                                (0.041)              (0.015)                (0.045)                (0.017)
 ln L2                         1.096***             1.177***               1.090***               1.166***
                                (0.018)              (0.016)                (0.018)                (0.016)
 Unskilled Ratio               0.650**              0.740**                  0.841                  0.806
                                (0.115)              (0.103)                (0.172)                (0.134)
 Foreign Owned                  0.800*                0.950                0.685**                  0.925
                                (0.108)              (0.106)                (0.101)                (0.123)
 Government                      1.110                1.249                  0.984                1.369**
 Owned                          (0.175)              (0.191)                (0.189)                (0.208)
 Exporter                      1.666***               0.905                1.496***                 0.912
                                (0.117)              (0.060)                (0.117)                (0.066)
 Province Dummies                 Yes                  Yes                    Yes                    Yes
 Period Dummies                   Yes                  Yes                    Yes                    Yes
 Industry Dummies                 Yes                  Yes                    Yes                    Yes
 N                              14,109               18,025                 10,161                 11,655
 Pseudo R2                       0.078                0.109                  0.063                  0.118

  5 Year Window
                              Pre-Crisis              Crisis              Pre-Crisis               Crisis
 Survival Period (from        1991-1996            1996-2001              1991-1996              1996-2001
 ln(V/L)
 – to)                         0.811***             0.885***
                                (0.017)              (0.016)
 TFP (Solow)                                                               0.723***                 1.055
                                                                            (0.040)                (0.068)
 lnfirmage                     0.917***             0.767***               0.909***               0.760***
                                (0.021)              (0.015)                (0.026)                (0.019)
 lnL                           0.356***             0.137***               0.387***               0.151***
                                (0.050)              (0.016)                (0.056)                (0.020)
 ln L2                         1.072***             1.156***               1.060***               1.143***
                                (0.015)              (0.013)                (0.015)                (0.015)
 Unskilled Ratio               0.702**                0.951                  1.029                  1.027
                                (0.115)              (0.120)                (0.161)                (0.164)
 Foreign Owned                 0.725**                1.055                0.629***                 0.962
                                (0.095)              (0.100)                (0.092)                (0.107)
 Government                      0.903               1.246*                  1.057                  1.253
 Owned                          (0.123)              (0.165)                (0.131)                (0.194)
 Exporter                      1.339***               1.047                1.256***                 1.046
                                (0.089)              (0.060)                (0.095)                (0.071)
  Province Dummies                Yes                  Yes                    Yes                    Yes
  Period Dummies                  Yes                  Yes                    Yes                    Yes
  Industry Dummies                Yes                  Yes                    Yes                    Yes
  N                             12,489               18,025                  9,278                 11,655
  Pseudo R2                      0.076                0.106                  0.063                  0.105
Notes
- *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Standard errors in specifications that use TFP as a proxy for productivity (columns 3 and
4) are bootstrapped using 100 replications




                                                             44
Table 7: Finance and Firm Survival

                            Logistic Survival model: Additional Robustness Checks
                                      Odds Ratios: Relative Probability of Exit
                                                    VA                                    TFP (Solow)
                                        coef/se               coef/se            coef/se             coef/se
                                           A Financial dependence (RZ)
                                        Baseline             Extended            Baseline            Extended
 RZ_                                      0.988               0.313***            1.184**              0.914
 fin_dependence                          (0.070)               (0.108)            (0.092)             (0.349)
 Crisis*                                1.329**               6.727***             1.167               1.049
 RZ_fin_dependence                       (0.148)               (3.818)            (0.156)             (0.696)
 Recovery*                              0.745***                1.198            0.446***             0.169**
 RZ_fin_dependence                       (0.077)               (0.567)            (0.067)             (0.133)
 ln(V/L)                                0.836***              0.819***
                                         (0.011)               (0.012)
 Crisis*ln(V/L)                         1.160***              1.194***
                                         (0.026)               (0.029)
 Recovery*ln(V/L)                         0.991                 0.999
                                         (0.021)               (0.023)
 RZ*ln(V/L)                                                   1.168***
                                                               (0.053)
 Crisis*RZln(V/L)                                             0.805***
                                                               (0.059)
 Recovery*RZln(V/L)                                             0.939
                                                               (0.059)
 TFP (Solow)                                                                     0.780***            0.759***
                                                                                  (0.029)             (0.040)
 Crisis*TFP (Solow)                                                              1.592***            1.578***
                                                                                  (0.098)             (0.138)
 Recovery*TFP (Solow)                                                             1.173**              1.052
                                                                                  (0.081)             (0.112)
 RZ*TFP (Solow)                                                                                        1.126
                                                                                                      (0.196)
 Crisis*RZ*TFP (Solow)                                                                                 1.028
                                                                                                      (0.270)
 Recovery*RZ*TFP (Solow)                                                                               1.549
                                                                                                      (0.531)
 Controls                                  Yes                   Yes                Yes                 Yes
 N                                      153,115               153,115             95,966              95,966
 Pseudo R2                                0.074                 0.074              0.071               0.071
                                                  B Tangibility
                                        Baseline             Extended            Baseline            Extended
 Tangibility                              0.962               7.892**              1.297               3.230
                                         (0.203)               (8.020)            (0.341)             (2.844)
 Crisis*tangibility                     0.341***                0.298            0.329***             0.022**
                                         (0.115)               (0.511)            (0.141)             (0.034)
 Recovery*Tangibility
 R                                      2.651***              0.018**              1.082               0.405
                                         (0.851)               (0.029)            (0.484)             (0.766)
 ln(V/L)                                0.836***              0.911**
                                         (0.011)               (0.039)
 Crisis*ln(V/L)                         1.161***              1.150**
                                         (0.025)               (0.080)
 Recovery*ln(V/L)                         0.981               0.799***
                                         (0.020)               (0.054)
 Tangibility *ln(V/L)                                         0.759**
                                                               (0.099)
 Crisis*Tangibility*ln(V/L)                                     1.026
                                                               (0.222)
 Recovery*Tangibility*ln(V/L)                                 1.934***
                                                               (0.398)
 TFP (Solow)                                                                     0.786***              0.892
                                                                                  (0.030)             (0.106)
 Crisis*TFP (Solow)                                                              1.581***              1.116
                                                                                  (0.100)             (0.222)
 Recovery*TFP (Solow)                                                             1.170**              1.021
                                                                                  (0.082)             (0.266)
 Tangibility *TFP (Solow)                                                                              0.674
                                                                                                      (0.233)
 Crisis* Tangibility *TFP                                                                             2.923*
 (Solow)                                                                                              (1.736)
 Recovery* Tangibility *TFP                                                                            1.527
 (Solow)                                                                                              (1.139)
 Controls                                  Yes                   Yes                Yes                 Yes
 N                                      153,115               153,115             95,966              95,966
 Pseudo R2                                0.074                 0.074              0.070               0.070
Notes: *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Standard errors in specifications that use TFP as a proxy for
productivity (columns 3 and 4) are bootstrapped using 100 replications. Controls include province, period
and industry dummies as well as the following variables and their interactions with crisis and recovery
dummies; lnL, lnL2 Unskilled Ratio, Foreign Owned, and Government Owned.



                                                            45
Table 8: Minimum Wages and Firm Survival

                                     Logistic Survival model:
                               Labor Regulations and Firm Survival
                               Odds Ratios: Relative Probability of Exit
                                             VA                                   TFP (Solow)
                                Levels              TFP (Solow)
                                                    Interacted             Levels           Interacted
                               coef/se               coef/se              coef/se            coef/se
ln(V/L)                        0.820***              0.847***
                                (0.011)               (0.014)
Crisis*ln(V/L)                 1.189***                1.049
                                (0.026)               (0.036)
Recovery*ln(V/L)                1.040*                 1.005
                                (0.021)               (0.023)
MW*ln(V/L)                                           1.194***
                                                      (0.062)
MW*Crisis*ln(V/L)                                    1.176***
                                                      (0.064)
MW*Recovery*ln(V/L)                                  0.819***
                                                      (0.049)
TFP (Solow)                                                               0.753***             0.746***
                                                                           (0.031)              (0.034)
Crisis*TFP (Solow)                                                        1.555***             1.417***
                                                                           (0.094)              (0.144)
Recovery*TFP (Solow)                                                        1.111               1.137*
                                                                           (0.074)              (0.081)
MW*TFP (Solow)                                                                                   0.950
                                                                                                (0.137)
MW*Crisis*TFP                                                                                  1.489**
(Solow)                                                                                         (0.296)
MW*Recovery*TFP                                                                                0.492**
(Solow)                                                                                         (0.154)
Minimum Wage (log)               0.821               0.215***              0.725*                0.794
                                (0.111)               (0.088)              (0.124)              (0.280)
Crisis*Minimum Wage              0.958                 0.795                1.247                1.060
(log)                           (0.144)               (0.134)              (0.262)              (0.252)
Recovery*Minimum               0.168***              0.189***             0.117***             0.130***
Wage (log)                      (0.028)               (0.033)              (0.035)              (0.041)
Controls                          Yes                   Yes                  Yes                  Yes
N                              153,115               153,115               95,966               95,966
Pseudo R2                        0.076                 0.076                0.074                0.074
 Notes
 - *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1, standard errors in specifications that use TFP as a proxy for productivity
 (columns 3 and 4) are bootstrapped using 100 replications
 - Controls include province, period and industry dummies as well as the following variables and their interactions
 with crisis and recovery dummies; lnL, lnL2 Unskilled Ratio, Foreign Owned, and Government Owned.
 - MW denotes demeaned real minimum wages




                                                          46
Table 9: Entry and Attenuation

                                       Logistic Survival model:
                                      Entrants and Firm Survival
                                Odds Ratios: Relative Probability of Exit
                                     Value-added                               TFP (Solow)
                            coef/se              coef/se              coef/se            coef/se
                            0.836***             0.815***
ln(V/L)                      (0.011)              (0.012)
                            1.182***             1.204***
Crisis*ln(V/L)               (0.025)              (0.028)
                              0.988                1.007
Recovery*ln(V/L)             (0.020)              (0.021)
                                                 1.110***
Entrant* ln(V/L)                                  (0.031)
                                                   0.930
Crisis*Entrant*                                   (0.046)
ln(V/L)                                            0.977
Recovery*Entrant *                                (0.061)
ln(V/L)                                                               0.757***           0.730***
TFP (Solow)                                                            (0.031)             (0.032)
                                                                      1.554***           1.605***
Crisis*TFP (Solow)                                                     (0.093)             (0.107)
                                                                        1.109              1.130*
Recovery*TFP                                                           (0.075)             (0.079)
(Solow)                                                                                    1.141*
Entrant*TFP(Solow)                                                                         (0.082)
                                                                                            0.887
Crisis*Entrant*TFP                                                                         (0.129)
(Solow)                                                                                     1.028
Recovery*Entrant                                                                           (0.250)
*TFP(Solow)                                                                                1.141*
Entrant                     1.302***             0.599**              1.499***              1.118
                             (0.052)              (0.129)              (0.079)             (0.181)
Crisis*Entrant              0.577***               0.985              0.582***              0.758
                             (0.041)              (0.378)              (0.052)             (0.285)
Recovery*Entrant            0.591***               0.694              0.525***              0.482
                             (0.053)              (0.331)              (0.070)             (0.299)
Controls                       Yes                  Yes                   Yes                Yes
N                           153,115              153,115               95,966              95,966
Pseudo R2                     0.075                0.076                0.073               0.073
 Notes
 - *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1, standard errors in columns 3 and 4 are bootstrapped using 100 replications
 - Controls include province, period and industry dummies as well as the following variables and their interactions
 with crisis and recovery dummies; lnL, lnL2 Unskilled Ratio, Foreign Owed, and Government Owned.




                                                          47
Table 10: Connections and Creative Destruction

                                      Logistic Survival model:
                       The Impact of Political Connections on Survival 1997-2001
                               Odds Ratios: Relative Probability of Exit
                                                   VA                                   TFP (Solow)
                                      coef/se               coef/se            coef/se            coef/se
                                   A Connected – based on JSX response
                                      Baseline        Extended         Baseline                   Extended
 ln(V/L)‟96                          0.798***          0.802***
                                      (0.028)           (0.028)
 TFP (Solow)                                                            1.110                       1.147
                                                                       (0.186)                     (0.190)
 Connected, JSX regressions            1.513            92.554          1.374                    596.378***
                                      (0.586)         (255.060)        (0.643)                   (1,406.310)
 Connected, JSX regressions                              0.636
    * ln(V/L)‟96                                        (0.197)
 Connected, JSX regressions                                                                        0.078**
   *TFP (Solow)                                                                                    (0.082)
 Controls                                Yes                   Yes               Yes                 Yes
 N                                     11,877                11,877             6,957               6,957
 Pseudo R2                              0.101                 0.101             0.078               0.080

                                 B Suharto Family Member on the Board
                                     Baseline       Extended         Baseline                     Extended
 ln(V/L)‟96                         0.799***         0.801***
                                     (0.028)          (0.028)
 TFP (Solow)                                                           1.113                        1.125
                                                                      (0.107)                      (0.108)
 Connected, Suharto                   1.244            51.671          1.622                      117.730*
                                     (0.669)         (209.327)        (0.594)                     (338.755)
 Connected, Suharto                                     0.658
    * ln(V/L)‟96                                      (0.305)
 Connected, Suharto                                                                                 0.158
    * TFP (Solow)                                                                                  (0.204)
 Controls                                Yes                   Yes               Yes                 Yes
 N                                     11,877                11,877             6,957               6,957
 Pseudo R2                              0.101                 0.101             0.078               0.078

               C Suharto Family Member on the Board and/or JSX connection (A&B)
                                 Baseline        Extended        Baseline       Extended
 ln(V/L)‟96                      0.798***         0.804***
                                  (0.028)          (0.028)
 TFP (Solow)                                                       1.113          1.160
                                                                  (0.107)        (0.160)
 Connected (JSX/Suharto)           1.390         227.982**         1.622       1,871.488*
                                  (0.482)        (576.428)        (0.594)      (7,284.427)
 Connected, (JSX/Suharto)                         0.565**
    * ln(V/L)‟96                                   (0.164)
 Connected (JSX/Suharto)                                                          0.046
    * TFP (Solow)                                                                (0.093)
 Controls                           Yes              Yes            Yes            Yes
 N                                11,877           11,877          6,957          6,957
 Pseudo R2                          Yes              Yes           0.078          0.081
Notes
- *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1, standard errors in columns 3 and 4 block bootstrapped using 100 replications
- Controls include province dummies, as well as lnL, lnL2 Unskilled Ratio, Foreign Owned, Government Owned, Exporter.




                                                           48
Table 11: Employment Growth

                                            Employment Growth
                                           Dependent Variable: ∆lnL
                                           Ln (V/L)                              TFP (Solow)
                                  OLS      empvafe      FE                 OLS               FE
                                coef/se              coef/se              coef/se          coef/se
 ln(V/L)                        0.023***            0.009***
                                 (0.001)              (0.002)
 Crisis*ln(V/L)                 -0.005**               0.002
                                 (0.002)              (0.002)
 Recovery*ln(V/L)                -0.001              0.004**
                                 (0.002)              (0.002)
 TFP (Solow)                                                                0.004              0.025***
                                                                           (0.003)              (0.005)
 Crisis*TFP (Solow)                                                        -0.004             -0.018***
                                                                           (0.005)              (0.006)
 Recovery*TFP (Solow)                                                      -0.004             -0.021***
                                                                           (0.004)              (0.006)
 lnfirmage                     -0.018***             0.032***            -0.022***             0.028***
                                 (0.001)               (0.006)             (0.001)              (0.008)
 Crisis*lnfirmage                 -0.000             -0.009***              0.002              -0.012**
                                 (0.002)               (0.003)             (0.003)              (0.005)
 Recovery*lnfirmage                0.004              -0.011**            0.008***            -0.017***
                                 (0.002)               (0.005)             (0.003)              (0.007)
 lnL                           -0.069***             -0.570***           -0.028***            -0.490***
                                 (0.009)               (0.022)             (0.008)              (0.029)
 Crisis*lnL                    -0.118***             -0.133***           -0.124***            -0.128***
                                 (0.014)               (0.013)             (0.014)              (0.015)
 Recovery*lnL                    -0.023*             -0.082***           -0.038***            -0.085***
                                 (0.012)               (0.013)             (0.014)              (0.017)
 lnL2                           0.004***             0.014***               0.001               0.006*
                                 (0.001)               (0.002)             (0.001)              (0.003)
 Crisis*ln L2                   0.010***             0.011***             0.010***             0.010***
                                 (0.001)               (0.001)             (0.001)              (0.002)
 Recovery* L2                     0.002*             0.007***             0.003**              0.008***
                                 (0.001)               (0.001)             (0.001)              (0.002)
 Unskilled Ratio                   0.013               0.029**             -0.016                 0.025
                                 (0.010)               (0.014)             (0.011)              (0.018)
 Crisis*Unskilled Ratio            0.009                 0.013              0.023                 0.004
                                 (0.018)               (0.018)             (0.023)              (0.023)
 Recovery*Unskilled               -0.022                 0.013             -0.008                 0.014
 Ratio                           (0.014)               (0.017)             (0.016)              (0.021)
 Foreign Owned                  0.034***                -0.013            0.049***               -0.021
                                 (0.006)               (0.013)             (0.006)              (0.013)
 Crisis*Foreign Owned             -0.005             0.031***              -0.003              0.040***
                                 (0.011)               (0.012)             (0.012)              (0.013)
 Recovery*Foreign              -0.023***               0.023**           -0.031***              0.021*
 Owned                           (0.009)               (0.011)             (0.011)              (0.012)
 Government Owned                 -0.011                 0.000             -0.011                -0.005
                                 (0.009)               (0.013)             (0.008)              (0.016)
 Crisis*Government                0.032*                 0.010            0.042***                0.015
 Owned                           (0.017)               (0.018)             (0.013)              (0.022)
 Recovery*Government               0.001                -0.025              0.008                -0.028
 Owned                           (0.018)               (0.021)             (0.024)              (0.024)
 Exporter                       0.015***                -0.002            0.012***               -0.003
                                 (0.004)               (0.005)             (0.004)              (0.005)
 Crisis*Exporter                0.030***               0.018**            0.033***              0.018**
                                 (0.007)               (0.007)             (0.007)              (0.008)
 Recovery*Exporter                -0.007                 0.000              0.004                 0.002
                                 (0.006)               (0.008)             (0.006)              (0.008)
  Province Dummies                  Yes                   Yes                Yes                   Yes
  Period Dummies                    Yes                   Yes                Yes                   Yes
  Industry Dummies                  Yes                   Yes                Yes                   Yes
  N                             138,997               138,997              88,530               88,530
  R2                               0.029                 0.219              0.025                 0.213
  Adjusted R2                      0.029                 0.219              0.024                -0.048
Notes
- *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.00. Standard errors of specifications that use TFP as a proxy for productivity
(columns 3 and 4) are bootstrapped using 100 replications.




                                                        49
Appendix A: Data Appendix
A.1 Construction of panel
         Survei Industri (SI) from Indonesia‟s statistical bureau (Badan Pusat Statistik—BPS)
provides the plant-level data used in this paper. The SI is an annual census of all manufacturing
establishments with at least 20 employees. While the annual survey has been conducted going
back to 1975, field procedures for identifying new firms were dramatically improved over the
period from 1985 to 1990, making the accuracy of measuring entry prior to 1990 problematic
(see Ascwicahyono, 2008). As a result, this paper only considers the data post 1990. We use data
up until 2001, since data from later years are not immediately comparable due to changes in firm
identifiers, changing definitions of key explanatory variables, and province splits.
A.2 Construction of Key Explanatory Variables
Sector of main product In order to classify establishments by industry, BPS records the five-
digit International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC) for firms based on the product with
the largest production value in any given year. In 2001, BPS changed the classification of plants
from the second revision of the ISIC to the third. A consistent bridge between these different
coding systems was constructed based upon the inclusion of both codings in the dataset for the
2000 survey database. This bridge was corroborated using a bridge provided by BPS. In many
cases, the industry code provided in the dataset was truncated to four or fewer digits. Where
possible, if an adjacent year‟s reported industry for the same firm was available that was used to
fill in the truncated digits. Where plants produce multiple products or the production processes
allow changing from one product to another, we may expect to see the coded industry of
production change from year to year. In such cases, the mode sector code is used (with ties
going to the initial sector code reported).
Total labor for an establishment was defined as average number of production and non-
production workers per working day (in a given year). This measure comprises including both
temporary and permanent workers as well as paid and unpaid workers. BPS defines production
workers as workers who work directly in the production process or activities connected with this
process. All other workers are classified as and non-production. These definitions roughly
correspond to traditional definitions of blue- and white-collar workers, respectively (see below).
Blue collar workers the average number of all production and unpaid workers used per
working day.
White collar workers: the average number of all non-production workers used per working day.
Unskilled ratio. the share of blue collar workers (including unpaid production workers) as a
proportion of the total establishment employment.
The establishment-level total wage bill was constructed as the sum of cash wages/salary and in-
kind benefits for production and non-production workers deflated to 1993 rupiah using the
national consumer price index obtained from the World Development Indicators.
Capital is measured as the estimated value of machinery and equipment at December 31 of the
year in question. Where the estimated value was not available, the book value was used as
provided. These values were deflated to 1993 rupiah values on an annual basis using a price
deflator based on Wholesale Price Indices for new machinery and equipment. The
manufacturing survey does not include data on the value of the capital stock for 1996. We
imputed capital stock for 1996 using contemporaneous output, material inputs, labor usage,
ownership characteristics, a dummy for whether or not a firm invested interacted with the

                                               50
amount it invested, whether or not the firm exports, province and lagged capital for 1991-1995.
Using the same set of explanatory variables we backcasted capital for firms that entered in 1996.
Materials were defined using the total reported value of raw materials used by the firm during
the calendar year. These were deflated to 1993 rupiah using sector-specific deflators based on
Wholesale Price Indices provided to us by Peter Brummund weighted by the relevant input share
obtained from the OECD Input-Output Table Databases for 1995 and 2000 (for the period
1990-1995 we used the 1995 input-output table, for 2000 and 2001 we used the 2001 output
table and for the years 1995-2000 we constructed input-output tables based on linear
interpolation between the 1995 and 2000 tables).
Gross output/Good produced was measured as the total value of goods produced during the
calendar year, deflated by 2 digit sector-specific GDP deflators constructed on the basis of
Wholesale Price Indices provided to us by Peter Brummund.
Value-added was measured as goods produced during the calendar year minus materials used to
produce them.
Firm age was constructed using the difference between the survey year and the year the firm
reported the “start of commercial production�. Note that this year need not coincide with the
year the plant first appeared in the survey (because of the size requirement of having at least 20
employees).
Sector characteristics: 3-digit ISIC revision 3 industry-level measures for financial dependence,
turnover, the natural rate of entry are based on those presented in Rajan and Zingales (1998) and
Micco and Pages (2004). Note that these proxies are based on US industries.
The financial dependence measure is computed using Standard and Poor‟s Compustat database.
It is the industry-level median of the ratio of capital expenditures minus cash flow over capital
expenditures. The numerator and denominator are summed over all years for each firm before
dividing (to minimize measurement error). Cash flow is defined as the sum of funds from
operations, decreases in inventories, decreases in receivables, and increases in payables. Capital
expenditures include net acquisitions of fixed assets.
Liquidity Needs: Following Raddatz (2006) we use the industry level median of the inventories
to sales ratio over the period 1991-2001 as our proxy for liquidity needs.
Natural rate of entry is measured as the mean number of new firms between periods t-1 and t ,
divided by number of firms in period t, by two digit SIC code for the United States over the
period 1963-1982. Source: Table 5 in Dunne et al (1988).
Tangibility: we use Braun (2003)‟s indicators of asset tangibility, which he defines as the median
tangibility of all active U.S. based companies in the industry as contained in Computstat‟s annual
industrial files, where tangibility is defined as net property, plant and equipment divided by the
book value of assets.
Turnover (Excess employment reallocation) is defined as the sum of job creation and job
destruction at 4 digit SIC code, minus the absolute value of net job creation. As with job
reallocation, we compute the time average of the annual measures. Time average by sector for
period 1973-1993. Source: Job Flows data Davis, Haltiwanger and Schuh (1996).
Exporters were identified based upon reporting that the share of output exported was nonzero
and nonmissing, In 1997, the number of firms that reported to export was implausibly low and
the export variable was interpolated by defining firms to be exporters if they had been exporters

                                               51
in both the previous and the subsequent year. Firms that exited in 1998 were considered to be
exporters in 1997 if they had been exporting in 1996, while firms that entered in 1997 and
reported exporting in 1998 were also considered exporters in 1997.
Foreign owned firms are all firms that have 10 percent or more foreign ownership.
Government owned firms are firms that have any local or national government ownership.
Entry is defined as the first year an establishment is observed in the data. Firms may have been
in operation for several years prior to crossing the minimum threshold of 20 employees to be
included in the survey. Firm exit is defined as permanent exit from the dataset. Note that,
since the survey only includes firms with 20 or more employees, firms whose employment falls
below this threshold will be defined as having exited in case they do not reappear in the data
Minimum Wages provincial real monthly minimum wage, obtained from the World Bank
(forthcoming).
Connected, Suharto Dummy variable taking the value 1 if a firm had a relative of Suharto on
its board. See Mobaraq and Purbasari (2008) for details.
Connected, JSX Dummy variable for connectedness with the Suharto regime constructed by
Mobaraq and Purbasari (2008). Building on Fisman (2001) they identify firms traded on the
Jakarta Stock Exchange (henceforth JSX) whose stock returns responded negatively to
newsreports about Suharto‟s health. They moreover identify the major shareholders on the
boards of these firms, and all conglomerates run by these entrepreneurs, as well as firms owned
by these conglomerates and classify those as connected too.
Connected (JSX/Suharto) The maximum of connected, JSX and Connected, Suharto.


A.3 Cleaning of outliers
       The problem of non-persistent extreme values for many variables is widely discussed in
published work using the SI (see, for example, Blalock and Gertler, 2008). In some cases, these
values may be the result of key punch errors, where, for example, ownership share is recorded as
340 percent rather than 34 percent. Where shares (exports and ownership) were reported, these
were easily corrected, but for balance sheet variables, more extensive cleaning was required.
       We excluded observations that suffered from such key punch errors. In addition, we
excluded observations with implausibly large non-persistent changes in key explanatory variables
not accompanied by similar changes in other explanatory variables.


Appendix B: Estimating Productivity
Our preferred measure of productivity is value-added per worker, which is not sensitive to the
imputation of the capital stock and robust to the endogeneity concerns that plague Total Factor
Productivity (TFP) estimation. As alternative productivity measures we use the Solow method
and the Ackerberg-Caves- Frazer procedure (2005) to construct TFP proxies based on sector-
specific Cobb-Douglas production functions modeling production and non-production workers
as separate inputs (following Balasubramanian and Sivadasan, 2009, and Chan, 2009).
Table B.1 presents a correlation matrix between the different demeaned TFP measures and
Table B2 presents the estimated factor coefficients. All measures are positively correlated with


                                              52
     each other. Overall, the relative ranking of firms in terms of productivity is rather robust to using
     different methods of estimating productivity.


     Table 12: Correlation matrix productivity estimates:

Ï?                                                     ln(V/L)        ln(V/L)           ln(V/L)      TFP -    TFP –           TFP –
                                                                     (demeaned         (demeaned    Solow    Solow           Solow
                                                                     by sector)        by sector             (demeaned       (demeaned
                                                                                       year)                 by sector)      by sector
                                                                                                                             year)
ln(V/L)                                               1
ln(V/L) (demeaned by sector)                          0.88           1
ln(V/L) (demeaned by sector year)                     0.89           1.00              1
TFP - Solow                                           0.35           0.38              0.39         1
TFP – Solow (demeaned by sector)                      0.47           0.45              0.46         0.84     1
TFP – Solow (demeaned by sector year)                 0.46           0.48              0.48         0.81     0.96            1
TFP - ACF                                             0.35           0.22              0.22         0.25     0.30            0.30
     Note: all correlations are significant at the 1% significance level




     Table 13: Productivity Function – Estimated Factor Coefficients

                                                                   SOLOW RESIDUAL                                ACF
                                                                     (Gross output)                         (Value-added)
                                                                βK     βLblue   βLwhite            βM       βK      βLblue      βLwhite:
Sector
Food products and beverages                                      0.20           0.11     0.03      0.67     0.20      0.64          0.31
Tobacco products                                                 0.21           0.11     0.02      0.66     0.25      0.90          0.32
Textiles                                                         0.19           0.12     0.03      0.66     0.19      0.66          0.25
Wearing apparel; dressing and dyeing of fur                      0.22           0.15     0.03      0.60     0.15      0.76          0.21
Processing of leather; manufacture of luggage,                   0.25           0.14     0.03      0.58     0.13      0.82          0.14
handbags of products of wood and cork
Wood and                                                         0.24           0.11     0.03      0.62     0.15      0.77          0.23
Paper and paper products                                         0.22           0.09     0.03      0.66     0.25      0.52          0.38
Printing and reproduction of recorded media                      0.26           0.12     0.05      0.57     0.22      0.51          0.43
Coke, petroleum as well as chemicals and chemical                0.26           0.08     0.05      0.61     0.28      0.37          0.51
products as well as rubber and plastics products
Recycling                                                        0.21           0.10     0.04      0.65     0.22      0.57          0.32
Other non-metallic mineral products                              0.24           0.20     0.04      0.52     0.26      0.62          0.25
Basic metals as well as fabricated metal products,               0.24           0.10     0.04      0.62     0.27      0.56          0.34
except machinery
Machinery and equipment n.e.c.                                   0.25           0.13     0.04      0.58     0.21      0.54          0.41
Electrical machinery and apparatus n.e.c. as well as             0.26           0.09     0.04      0.61     0.22      0.59          0.40
office equipment and communication equipment
Radio, television                                                0.26           0.10     0.04      0.60     0.21      0.80          0.21
and medical instruments semi-trailers
Motor vehicles, trailers and                                     0.28           0.12     0.05      0.56     0.24      0.69          0.30
Other transport equipment                                        0.27           0.14     0.04      0.55     0.24      0.60          0.38
Furniture; manufacturing n.e.c.                                  0.23           0.17     0.04      0.57     0.12      0.74          0.21




                                                                           53