The manufacturing sectors of developing countries have traditionally been relatively protected. They have also been subject to heavy regulation, much of which has favored large firms. Accordingly, it is often argued that in these countries: (1) markets tolerate inefficient firms, so cross-firm productivity dispersion is high; (2) small groups of entrenched oligopolists exploit monopoly power in product markets; and (3) many small firms are unable or unwilling to grow, so important scale economies go unexploited. Drawing on plant and firm level studies, I assess each of these conjectures and find none to be systematically supported. However, many open issues remain.

This study examines the Morningstar rating system as a predictor of mutual fund performance for U.S. domestic equit funds. We also compare the predictive abilities of the Morningstar rating system with those of alternative predictors. The results indicate findings that are robust across different samples, ages and styles of funds, and performance measures. First, low ratings from Morningstar generally indicate relatively poor future performance. Second, there is little statistical evidence that Morningstar's highest-rated funds outperform the next-to-highest and median-rated funds. Third, Morningstar ratings, at best, do only slightly better than the alternative predictors in forecasting future fund performance.

Under the assumptions of the Consumption-based Capital Asset Pricing Model (CCAPM), Pareto optimal consumption allocations are characterized by each agent's consumption process being adapted to the filtration generated by the aggregate consumption process of the economy. The wealth processes of the agents, however, are adapted to the finer filtration generated by aggregate consumption and the conditional distribution of future aggregate consumption. Therefore, in order to achieve pareto optimal consumption allocations, a sufficiently varied set of assets must exist such that any wealth process adapted to this finer filtration can be implemented by dynamically trading in that set of assets. We provide sufficient conditions for the existence of such a set of assets based on dynamically trading contingent claims on aggregate consumption. In addition, we give sufficient conditions for the existence of equilibria in a dynamically effectively complete market in which agents are only able to trade in contingent claims on aggregate consumption, the market portfolio of firms, and a (numeraire) zero-coupon bond. We demonstrate the role of short- and long-term contingent claims on aggregate consumption for the implementation of Pareto optimal allocations inthe presence of short- and long-term risks. In addition, in the presence of personal risks, we demonstrate the role of insurance contracts.

This paper explains why firms with identical opportunities may use different technologies and offer different wages. Our key assumption is that workers must engage in costly search in order to gather information about jobs (Stigler (1961)). In equilibrium, some firms adopt high fixed cost, high productivity technologies, offer high wages, and fill job openings quickly. Other firms adopt less capital-intensive technologies and offer low wages, hiring mostly uninformed workers. In equilibrium, the amount of wage dispersion leaves workers indifferent about whether to gather information, and the fraction of informed workers leaves firms indifferent about their wage and technology choice. We show that worker search, which would appear to be a rent-seeking activity in partial equilibrium, may be efficiency-enhancing in general equilibrium.

Large clients create an economic dependence that may cause auditors to compromise their independence and report favorably to retain valuable clients. Economic dependence is measured as a client's size relative to the size of the office that contracts for the audit and issues the audit report. We find no evidence economic dependence causes Big Five auditors to report more favorably for larger clients in their offices. However, larger clients also pose greater litigation risk, and we do find that Big 5 auditors report more conservatively for larger clients, suggesting that reputation protection dominates auditor behavior.