How large is volatility due to large firms? We answer this question through both reduced-form analysis and a calibration exercise. First, we exploit time and spatial variation across German cities and show that higher concentration is associated with more persistent local business cycles, and local concentration Granger causes local employment volatility. From a business cycle perspective, we find evidence in favor of granularity-driven recessions only. Next, we calibrate a structural model along the lines of Carvalho and Grassi (2019) and find that the more fat-tailed productivity distribution in bigger cities crucially depends also on the higher probability that firms will grow.

When employers face a trade-off between being large and paying low wages—and in this sense have monopsony power—some productive employers decide against building large business networks, forgo sales, and remain small. These decisions have adverse consequences for aggregate labour productivity. Using high-quality administrative data from Germany, we document that East German plants (compared to West German ones) face steeper size-wage curves, invest less in their business networks, remain smaller, and are less productive. A model with labour market monopsony, product market power, and business network investments matching these features of the data predicts a 10% lower aggregate labour productivity in East Germany.

It is well known that unless worker-firm match quality is controlled for, reduced-form estimates of returns to firm tenure will be biased. In this paper, we show that there is a further pervasive source of bias, namely, the comovement of firm employment and firm wages. We argue that firm-year fixed effects must be used to eliminate this bias. Estimates from two large-panel data sets from Germany and Portugal show that the bias is empirically important. Finally, we show that the results extend to tenure correlates used in macroeconomics, such as the minimum unemployment rate since joining the firm.