13. Is the leapfrog pattern observed at the country level (figure 2.12) also observed for firms? A constraint to address this question with FAT data is the lack of a time series that allows one to observe adoption of a given technology by firms over time. Yet, under the assumption that larger firms are earlier adopters, it is possible to observe the pattern of adoption across firm size as a continuum variable. Given that only one point in time in the data can be observed (around the latest year of figure 2.12), one would expect: (a) a gap between mobile and fixed-line telephone use, with firms being more likely to use mobile phones; and (b) a smaller gap between mobile and fixed-line phone use among earlier adopters (larger firms). Panel a of figure 2.13 suggests that both conditions hold. On average, a very large share of firms is using mobile phones for business purposes, and there is no significant difference across firm size, after controlling for other characteristics, such as country fixed effects. 14. The question also asks the firm to compare with firms that are global technology leaders in their sector of activity. 15. The self-assessment question is asked before any of the technology adoption questions to prevent any bias in the self-assessment from potential framing. 16. These results are similar when using the actual technology sophistication index instead of quintiles of the distribution of the index within countries.
References Aghion, P., R. Blundell, R.Griffith, P. Howitt, and S. Prantl. 2009. “The Effects of Entry on Incumbent Innovation and Productivity.” Review of Economics and Statistics 91 (1): 20–32. Battisti, G., and P. Stoneman. 2005. “The Intra-Firm Diffusion of New Process Technologies.” International Journal of Industrial Organization 23 (1): 1–22. Bloom, N., and J. Van Reenen. 2007. “Measuring and Explaining Management Practices across Firms and Countries.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 122 (4): 1351–408. Camerer, C., and D. Lovallo. 1999. “Overconfidence and Excess Entry: An Experimental Approach.” American Economic Review 89 (1): 306–18. Cirera, X., D. Comin, M. Cruz, and K. M. Lee. 2020a. “Anatomy of Technology in the Firm.” NBER Working Paper 28080, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Cirera, X., D. Comin, M. Cruz, and K. M. Lee. 2020b. “Technology within and across Firms.” CEPR Discussion Paper 15427, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Washington, DC. Comin, D., and B. Hobijn. 2004. “Cross-Country Technology Adoption: Making the Theories Face the Facts.” Journal of Monetary Economics 51 (1): 39–83. Demsetz, H. 1997. “The Firm in Economic Theory: A Quiet Revolution.” American Economic Review 87 (2): 426–29. Gort, M., and S. Klepper. 1982. “Time Paths in the Diffusion of Product Innovations.” Economic Journal 92 (367): 630–53. Grover, A., S. V. Lall, and W. F. Maloney. 2022. Place, Productivity, and Prosperity: Revisiting Spatially Targeted Policies for Regional Development. World Bank Productivity Project series. Washington, DC: World Bank. Grover Goswami, A., D. Medvedev, and E. Olafsen. 2019. High-Growth Firms: Facts, Fiction, and Policy Options for Emerging Economies. World Bank Productivity Project series. Washington, DC: World Bank. Hsieh, C.-T., and P. J. Klenow. 2009. “Misallocation and Manufacturing TFP in China and India.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 124 (4): 1403–48. Maloney, W. F., and A. Zambrano. 2021. “Learning to Learn: Experimentation, Entrepreneurial Capital, and Development.” Policy Research Working Paper 9890, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Facts about Technology Adoption and Use in Developing Countries 67
