This paper examines how manufacturers locate sales offices across cities. Sales office costs are assumed to have four components: a fixed cost, a frictional cost for out‐of‐town sales, a cost‐reducing knowledge spillover related to city size, and an idiosyncratic match quality for each firm‐city pair. A simple theoretical model is developed and is estimated using data from the Census of Wholesale Trade. The factors emphasized in the home market effect literature, namely, fixed costs and frictional costs, are found to play an important role in location decisions. Match quality also matters. The results for knowledge spillovers are mixed.

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

Manufacturing plants have a clear life cycle: they are born small, grow substantially with age, and eventually die. Economists have long thought that this life cycle is driven by organization capital, the accumulation of plant‐specific knowledge. The location of plants in the life cycle determines the size of the payments, or organization rents, plant owners receive from organization capital. These payments are compensation for the interest cost to plant owners of waiting for their plants to grow. We use a quantitative growth model of the life cycle of plants, along with U.S. data, to infer the overall size of these payments.

We present a model embodying moderate amounts of nominal rigidities that accounts for the observed inertia in inflation and persistence in output. The key features of our model are those that prevent a sharp rise in marginal costs after an expansionary shock to monetary policy. Of these features, the most important are staggered wage contracts that have an average duration of three quarters and variable capital utilization.