\section*{#1} \label{#2} \addcontentsline{toc}{section}{#1}}
\newcommand{\appref}[1]{\hyperref[#1]{Appendix \ref*{#1}}}
\usepackage[]{caption}
\usepackage{breakurl}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{mathtools}
\graphicspath{ {images/} }
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{enumerate
\usepackage{float,booktabs}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{pdflscape}
\newcommand\numberthis{\addtocounter{equation}{1}\tag{\theequation}}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage{dsfont}
\usepackage{nicefrac}
\titleformat{\paragraph}[runin]{\normalfont\normalsize}{\theparagraph}{1em}{}
\titlespacing*{\paragraph}{0pt}{3.25ex plus 1ex minus .2ex}{\the\fontdimen2\font}

\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\renewcommand{\qedsymbol}{$\blacksquare$}

\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{geometry}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{rotating}
\usepackage[bottom]{footmisc}
\usepackage{lscape}
\usepackage{siunitx}
\usepackage{hhline}
\usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage{esint}
\usepackage[authoryear,longnamesfirst,round]{natbib}
\usepackage{eurosym}
\usepackage{bm}
\usepackage{soul}
\usepackage{xcolor}

\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{acknowledgement}[theorem]{Acknowledgement}
\newtheorem{algorithm}[theorem]{Algorithm}
\newtheorem{axiom}[theorem]{Axiom}
\newtheorem{case}[theorem]{Case}
\newtheorem{claim}[theorem]{Claim}
\newtheorem{conclusion}[theorem]{Conclusion}
\newtheorem{condition}[theorem]{Condition}
\newtheorem{conjecture}[theorem]{Conjecture}
\newtheorem{assumption}{Assumption}
\newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}
\newtheorem{criterion}[theorem]{Criterion}
\newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}
\newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}
\newtheorem{exercise}[theorem]{Exercise}
\newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
\newtheorem{notation}[theorem]{Notation}
\newtheorem{problem}[theorem]{Problem}
\newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}
\newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}
\newtheorem{solution}[theorem]{Solution}
\newtheorem{summary}[theorem]{Summary}
\newtheorem{result}[theorem]{Result}
\newtheorem{hypothesis}[theorem]{Hypothesis}
\newcommand{\mathcal{L}}{\mathcal{L}}

\usepackage{amsthm}

\newtheorem{subassumption}{Assumption\normalfont}[assumption]
\renewcommand{\thesubassumption}{\theassumption\alph{subassumption}}
\newenvironment{assumption*}
 {\ifnum\value{subassumption}=0 \stepcounter{assumption}\fi\subassumption}
 {\endsubassumption}
\newenvironment{assumption+}[1]
 {\renewcommand{\thesubassumption}{#1}\subassumption}
 {\endsubassumption}

\newcommand{\omega^L_{it}}{\omega^L_{it}}
\newcommand{\omega^L_{it-1}}{\omega^L_{it-1}}
\newcommand{\omega_{it}}{\omega_{it}}
\newcommand{K_{it}}{K_{it}}
\newcommand{L_{it}}{L_{it}}
\newcommand{M_{it}}{M_{it}}
\newcommand{Q_{it}}{Q_{it}}
\newcommand{P_{it}}{P_{it}}
\newcommand{R_{it}}{R_{it}}
\newcommand{S^{*L}_{it}}{S^{*L}_{it}}
\newcommand{S^{*M}_{it}}{S^{*M}_{it}}
\newcommand{S^{M}_{it}}{S^{M}_{it}}
\newcommand{S^{L}_{it}}{S^{L}_{it}}
\newcommand{k_{it}}{k_{it}}
\newcommand{l_{it}}{l_{it}}
\newcommand{m_{it}}{m_{it}}
\newcommand{q_{it}}{q_{it}}
\newcommand{p_{it}}{p_{it}}
\newcommand{r_{it}}{r_{it}}
\newcommand{P^M_{it}}{P^M_{it}}
\newcommand{P^L_{it}}{P^L_{it}}
\newcommand{p^L_{it}}{p^L_{it}}
\newcommand{p^M_{it}}{p^M_{it}}
\newcommand{\text{exp}}{\text{exp}}
\newcommand{\tilde{L}_{it}}{\tilde{L}_{it}}
\newcommand{\tilde{P}^L_{it}}{\tilde{P}^L_{it}}
\newcommand{\dpar}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}

\newcommand*{\mathsf{P}}{\mathsf{P}}
\newcommand*{\mathbb{E}}{\mathbb{E}}

\hypersetup{
  colorlinks,
  allcolors=[rgb]{0.0, 0.0, 0.5}
  }

\setcounter{MaxMatrixCols}{10}
\geometry{left=1in,right=1in,top=1in,bottom=1in}

\allowdisplaybreaks

\begin{document}

\thispagestyle{empty}

\begingroup
\centering
{\LARGE{On the Non-Identification of Revenue Production Functions} \\[1.5em]
\large  David Van Dijcke \\ University of Michigan\footnote{\texttt{dvdijcke@umich.edu}. I thank Yuehao Bai, Marinho Bertanha, Steve Bond, Zach Brown, Adam Brzezinski, Jan De Loecker, Ying Fan, Florian Gunsilius, Andreas Joseph, Valentin Kecht, Tom Key, Harry Kleyer, Jagadeesh Sivadasan, Jonas Slaathaug Hansen, Dimitriy Stolyarov, Rick Van der Ploeg, Austin Wright, participants at the University of Michigan IO seminar, and an anonymous referee for the Bank of England Staff Working Papers for helpful discussion and comments. All errors are my own.} \\ \vspace{4mm}
\small This version: \today.
}

\endgroup

\begin{abstract}
\noindent

It is well-known that production functions are potentially misspecified when revenue is used as a proxy for output. In this paper, I formalize and strengthen this common knowledge by showing that neither the production function nor
Hicks-neutral productivity can be identified when revenue is used as a proxy for physical output. This result holds under the standard assumptions used in the literature for a large class of production functions, including all commonly used parametric forms. Among the prevalent approaches to address this issue, I show that only those which impose assumptions on the underlying demand system can possibly identify the production function.

\bigskip\noindent\textbf{Keywords}: production function estimation, revenue production functions, productivity, market power, identification. \\
\bigskip\noindent\textbf{JEL-Classification}:  D2, D4, L1, C1, E2.\\

\vfill
\end{abstract}

 \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
 \pagebreak

\pagestyle{plain} \pagenumbering{arabic}

\section{Introduction}

The identification and estimation of production functions are fundamental problems in economics, as they are essential for studying productivity, returns to scale, elasticities of substitution, and markups. Production functions describe how firms produce physical goods from inputs, but the empirical estimation of these functions often relies on sales revenue (output times prices) as a proxy for quantity because revenue is typically observed while quantity is not.

In this paper, I demonstrate that under the standard assumptions in the literature, the production function and Hicks-neutral productivity cannot be identified from such a ``revenue production function'' when there is imperfect competition. This result applies to a general class of ``weakly separable'' production functions, including all commonly used parametric forms such as the Cobb-Douglas and CES production functions. Importantly, I show that the Markov assumption, which has traditionally been used to identify production functions, does not provide identification for revenue production functions. The assumptions involved only require cost minimization, not profit maximization, so the result holds for a wide range of market structures. The implications of this result are significant, as it means that none of the objects of interest mentioned above can be identified from a revenue production function.

The issue of unobserved output prices has long been recognized in the production function literature. Early papers such as \citet{abbott1992price, basu1997returns} and \citet{klette1996inconsistency} demonstrated that value-added and revenue production functions contain an additional term related to marginal cost or the markup. More recent papers that use datasets where output prices are observed have empirically confirmed these findings by documenting biases in estimates based on revenue production functions, compared to quantity production functions \citep{DeLoecker16, de2021hitchhiker, Mairesse2005panel, ornaghi2008price}.\footnote{\citet{DeLoecker2014firm} provide a summary of this literature and informally discuss the potential issues at play.} Other papers have used ad-hoc approaches to address this bias without formally analyzing or quantifying it \citep{collard2015reallocation, smeets2013estimating, atalay2014materials, allcott2016electricity}.\footnote{See \citet{deloecker2021comment} for further references.}
This article aims to advance our understanding of this issue by formally analyzing how the revenue proxy leads to non-identification of not only the production function but also productivity. Based on these derivations, I can make precise statements about which approaches are effective in overcoming this non-identification. \citet{Bond2020some} also consider the issue of identification, but they focus on the non-identification of the markup in a monopolistic competition setting. In contrast, this article establishes the non-identification of the entire production function and productivity under general conditions.

As mentioned, a number of papers have attempted to address or relax the issue of unobserved output prices. These approaches can be divided into three main groups: 1) using industry deflators, 2) controlling for the gap between input and output prices using observables \citep{DeLoecker19}, and 3) imposing assumptions on the underlying demand system to obtain an expression for the output price in terms of observables \citep{deloecker2011product, levinsohn2002productivity, DeLoecker16}. My results suggest that, in the presence of cross-sectional output price variation (which excludes perfect competition), only the third approach -- imposing assumptions on the underlying demand system -- can overcome non-identification. However, part of the appeal of production functions is that the same specification can be estimated across various industries, which may not be desirable with demand systems that ideally need to be tailored to specific industries.

This paper is also relevant for several other areas of literature. First, the literature on production function estimation and identification \citep{Olley1996, Blundell2000gmm, Ackerberg15, Levinsohn03, Demirer2020production, Gandhi2017identification}. While these methods may be appropriate when physical output is observed or when perfect competition is assumed (resulting in homogeneous prices), my results imply that none of these methods can correctly identify the production function when only revenue is observed and there is imperfect competition.\footnote{In particular, \citet{Gandhi2017identification} establish the non-parametric identification of the production function under a model of price-taking, profit-maximizing firms.}

Second, several strands of literature in industrial organization \citep{de2021industrial}, trade \citep{Keller2009multinational, amiti2007trade, bloom2016trade, brandt2017wto}, and international economics \citep{halpern2015imported} have aimed to estimate productivity \citep{syverson2011determines}, returns to scale, and more recently, markups \citep{DeLoecker12, DeLoecker19, Demirer2020production}, using production functions. Whenever these studies use revenue to proxy for output to estimate these objects of interest without making further restrictions on demand or competition, my results imply that they were not identified.

Third, several other papers have focused on further developing production function estimation methods when output \textit{is} observed, which raises issues related to multi-product production \citep{deloecker2011product, DeLoecker16, dhyne2020theory,orr2019within, DeLoecker2014firm}.\footnote{While I focus on the hitherto prevalent single-product case, my results generalize to multi-product settings where production is non-joint.} My results emphasize the importance of further developing these methods and the product-level production data they use.

Fourth, a strand of the macroeconomic literature, building on \citet{hall1989invariance}, has also dealt with the issue of unobserved output prices. Since the approaches in this literature impose strong assumptions on the production function, they can typically identify the production function \citep{basu1997returns}. However, my results imply that, in the absence of such strong assumptions, the way this literature has tried to address the problem (using the growth rate of value added) does not lead to identification.\footnote{In that case, one can also not identify the ``revenue productivity'' term studied in another strand of the macroeconomics literature \citep{foster2008reallocation,hsieh2009misallocation}.}

\paragraph{\textbf{Notation.}} I refer to vectors in bold font, unknown variables in Greek letters, and observed ones in Latin letters. Levels of observed variables are written in capitals, while natural logarithms are written in lowercase.

\section{Setting} \label{sec:setting}

I consider a general class of non-parametric production functions introduced by \citet{shephard1953cost}. The production function inputs are separated into dynamic inputs $\mathbf{X}_{it}$ and freely variable inputs $\mathbf{V}_{it}$. The vectors of associated input prices are denoted as $\mathbf{P}^X_{it}$ and $\mathbf{P}^V_{it}$. Hicks-neutral (total-factor) productivity is denoted as $\omega_{it}$, and the unobserved error term capturing ex-post output shocks and/or measurement error in output is denoted as $\varepsilon_{it}$. The information set of firm $i$ at time $t$, $\mathcal{F}_{it}$, includes $\omega_{it}$ and is assumed to be mean independent of ex-post output shocks. The ex-ante expected output shocks are denoted as $\mathcal{E}_{it} \coloneqq E[\exp(\varepsilon_{it}) | \mathcal{F}_{it}]$. The production technology is denoted as $Q_t(\mathbf{X}_{it}, \mathbf{V}_{it})$, the planned (ex-ante) output as $Q^*_{it} = Q_t(\cdot) \exp(\omega_{it})$, and the observed (ex-post) output as $Q^*_{it} := Q_t(\cdot) \exp(\omega_{it})
\exp(\varepsilon_{it})$.

In the literature on production functions there are some fundamental assumptions that are typically used to identify the production function. I will impose these assumptions and show that when only revenue is observed, the production functions is not identifiable. The assumptions are the following,
\begin{assumption}[Properties of the Production and Cost Functions] \label{asspt:properties_prodf}
The production possibilities set satisfies the standard properties in Assumption \ref{asspt:properties_T} in Appendix such that the production function exists. Moreover, the production function satisfies,
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
    \item If $h(\mathbf{X}_{it}, \mathbf{V}_{it}) > h(\mathbf{X}'_{it}, \mathbf{V}'_{it})$ then $F\left( \mathbf{X}_{it}, h\left(  \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{V}_{it} \right) \right) > F\left( \mathbf{X}_{it}, h\left(  \mathbf{X}'_{it},  \mathbf{V}'_{it} \right) \right)$ (strict monotonicity in variable inputs).
    \item The production function $F\left( \mathbf{X}_{it}, h\left(  \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{V}_{it} \right) \right)$ is continuous and differentiable in variable inputs $\mathbf{V}_{it}$ (duality).
    \item The cost function $C\left(Q^*_{it}, \mathbf{X}_{it}, \mathbf{P}^V_{it}, \omega_{it}\right)$ is continuous and differentiable in planned output $Q^*_{it}$ (existence of the marginal cost function).
\end{enumerate}
\end{assumption}
Assumption \ref{asspt:properties_prodf} compiles standard existence and regularity assumptions. (i) slightly strengthens the weak monotonicity necessary for the existence of the production function, but is still weaker than strict monotonicity in all inputs, which is a standard assumption \citep[p.9]{chambers1988applied}. The assumption guarantees that the inverse of $F(\cdot)$, given $\mathbf{X}_{it}$, exists. Assumptions \ref{asspt:properties_prodf} (ii) and (iii) are standard differentiability assumptions \citep{chambers1988applied, mcfadden1978cost}. The continuity in (ii), combined with the assumptions on the production possibilities set, implies duality between the variable cost function and the production function \citep[Thm. 2]{diewert2022duality}. Part (iii) implies that the marginal cost function, $\dpar{C(\cdot)}{Q^*_{it}}$ exists.

Then, I assume the following,
\begin{assumption}[Weak homothetic separability] \label{asspt:homothetic}\
    \begin{enumerate}[(i)]
        \item The production function of firm $i$ at time $t$ is of the form
            \begin{equation} \label{eq:homothetic}
                Q_{it} = F_t\left( \mathbf{X}_{it}, h_t\left( \mathbf{X}_{it},   \mathbf{V}_{it} \right) \right)  \exp(\omega_{it}) \exp( \varepsilon_{it}),
            \end{equation}
        \item with $h_{t}\left(\mathbf{X}_{i t}, \cdot \right) \text { homogeneous of arbitrary degree (homothetic) for all } \mathbf{X}_{it}$.
    \end{enumerate}
\end{assumption}
\begin{assumption}[Cost minimization] \label{asspt:costmin}
    \noindent The firm minimizes its short-term cost of production with respect to its freely variable non-separable inputs $\mathbf{V}_{it}$, given variable input prices $\mathbf{P}^V_{it}$ and the productivity shocks $\omega_{it}$.
\end{assumption}
Assumption \ref{asspt:homothetic} was introduced by \citet{shephard1953cost} and has recently been
used by \citet{Demirer2020production} in the context of non-parametric identification of quantity production functions. While it is not a standard assumption, it encompasses a large class of production functions, including all commonly used parametric ones.\footnote{See \citet{Demirer2020production} for parametric examples.} In particular, Assumption \ref{asspt:homothetic} (i) formulates a non-parametric production function and does not restrict the production function in the absence of further restrictions on $h(\cdot)$.\footnote{The only purpose of the exponential functions is to facilitate taking logs later on, and to align with the notation in the literature.} Assumption \ref{asspt:homothetic} (ii) implies that ratio of the non-separable inputs' marginal product depends only on the inputs through their ratio. This assumption only restricts my model insofar as Assumption \ref{asspt:costmin} requires that the inputs with respect to which the firm minimizes its short-term cost are homothetic in $h(\cdot)$.\footnote{Also, note that these restrictions allow for any additional type of functional dependence between the separable inputs $X^S_{it}$.} This does not mean that the entire production function has to satisfy homotheticity. Moreover, if only one input enters the firm's short-term cost, then (ii) can always be satisfied by rewriting the production function appropriately. For example, consider a standard three-input setup, with capital $K_{it}$, labor $L_{it}$, and material (or intermediate) inputs $M_{it}$. If labor $L_{it}$ is subject to some adjustment cost and therefore dynamically chosen, we have $\mathbf{V}_{it} = M_{it}$, and homotheticity of $h(\cdot)$ can always be satisfied by defining $h(\cdot)$ as the identity function. When both labor and material inputs are freely variable, however, the restriction on $h(\cdot)$ becomes meaningful.

Assumption \ref{asspt:costmin} is a commonly used assumption in the literature and allows for most forms of imperfect competition. It is therefore much weaker than the common assumption of perfect competition. Though the latter assumption implies that the unobserved prices are common across firms and can hence be absorbed by industry price deflators, it is very strong and rarely realistic in practice.

The following two assumptions are ubiquitous in the literature and have been instrumental to establishing identification of quantity production functions. Even though they are rather strong and as such should aid identification, I will show that they still fail to identify the production function in the context of revenue production functions.

\begin{assumption}[Scalar Unobservable] \label{asspt:scalar}
Demand for (one of) the firm's inputs $v_{it}$ is given by,
\[ v_{it} = s_t(x_{it}, \omega_{it}). \]
\end{assumption}

This is simply a general way to write the scalar unobservable assumption used in most of the production function literature. \citet{Olley1996} first used this assumption for investment, not input demand. \citet{levinsohn2002productivity} later proposed an alternative version for labor demand, and \citet{Ackerberg15} for material inputs. The assumption plays a crucial role in the identification arguments of these papers, by allowing one to substitute out for unobserved $\omega_{it}$ in the production function, predict target output $Q^*_{it}$, and form moments on the ex-post shock to productivity by leveraging the following assumption,

\begin{assumption}[Markov] \label{asspt:markov}
    Hicks-neutral productivity follows a first-order Markov process,
    \begin{equation}
        \mathsf{P}(\omega_{it} \mid \mathcal{F}_{it-1}) = \mathsf{P}(\omega_{it} \mid \omega_{it-1}).
    \end{equation}
\end{assumption}
Together with the mean independence of ex-post output shocks, this assumption implies that one can write firms' Hicks-neutral productivity process as $
\omega_{it} = g(\omega_{it-1}) + \xi_{it}$,
where $E[\xi_{it} | \mathcal{F}_{it-1}] = 0$.

\section{Non-Identification of Revenue Production Functions} \label{sec:main}

\subsection{Main Result}

We are now equipped to prove the main result.\footnote{I will drop the time subscripts on all functions from here on to ease notation, though they are allowed to be time-varying in general. In practice, one often estimates separate functions for rolling time windows.} First, we prove an auxiliary Lemma, which  establishes a variant of the intuitive fact that both component functions $F(\cdot), h(\cdot)$ of the production function need to be identified for the production function to be. Denote a firm's target revenue $R^*_{it} := P_{it} \cdot Q^*_{it}$ where $P_{it}$ indicates firm-level output prices. Also, write $S^{*V}_{it} := \frac{P^V_{it} V_{it}}{R^*_{it}}$ to indicate the revenue share of the input $V_{it} \in \mathbf{V}_{it}$. Then we have,

\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:composite}
Let $h: W  \to Y_1, F: X \times Y_1 \to Z, Q^* : (w, y_2) \in W \times Y_2 \to F(y_2, h(w))$, with $W \coloneqq (X, V)$ for some $F \in \mathcal{F}, h \in \mathcal{H}, Q^* \in \mathcal{Q}$ where $\mathcal{F}, \mathcal{H}, \mathcal{Q}$ are spaces of composite and composing functions for which Assumptions \ref{asspt:properties_prodf} and \ref{asspt:homothetic} are satisfied. Then, for a given $h \in \mathcal{H}$ and a corresponding $q \in \mathcal{Q}, f \in \mathcal{F}$ such that $q= f(x, h(w))$ for all $w \in W, x \in X$; if $h$ is given but $f$ not, then $q$ can in general not be uniquely determined.
\begin{proof}
Suppose not. Then for any $\tilde{h} \in \mathcal{H}$, $\exists \tilde{f} \in \mathcal{F}$ such that, $\forall Q^* \in \mathcal{Q}, Q^* = \tilde{f}(y_2, \tilde{h}(x)), \forall w \in W, x \in X$. Since $\mathcal{F}$ is defined as the set of component functions which, composed with some function in $\mathcal{H}$, give a function in $\mathcal{Q}$, this means that $\mathcal{F}$ must be a singleton set of functions $ \{ \tilde{f} \}$. In general, it is clear that the set of functions $\mathcal{F}$ that satisfy Assumption \ref{asspt:homothetic} and Proposition \ref{prop:properties_F} is not a singleton.

For example, consider any two functions $F_1, F_2$, where $Q_i(y_2, w) = F_i(y_2, h(v)) = \alpha_i \cdot y_2 + h(v), i = 1,2, \alpha_1 \neq \alpha_2, \alpha_1, \alpha_2 > 0$, and where $h(\cdot)$ is differentiable and satisfies homothetic separability. Then these functions satisfy Proposition \ref{prop:properties_F}: (i) take $y_2' > y_2, w$, then we have $Q_i(y_2', w) - Q_i(y_2, w) = \alpha_i (y_2' - y_2) > 0$; (ii) $h(v)$ is normalized to be homogeneous of degree one and hence concave and $\alpha_i \cdot y_2$ is concave, hence $F_i$ is concave and thus quasi-concave; (iii) is satisfied by the fact that $F_i$ is the sum of a linear function and a homogeneous function; (iv) is satisfied as for any $v \in V$, we can always find a $y_2$ such that $Q_i = y$ and the set is closed, and a $y_2'$ large enough such that the set is non-empty. They also satisfy Assumption \ref{asspt:properties_prodf}: (i) by homotheticity of $h(\cdot)$; (ii) by assumption; and (iii) can easily be shown by deriving the cost function from cost minimization. But, for a given $h(v)$, the set of functions $F_i$ of this form is infinitely large. Contradiction.

\begin{comment}
Alternatively, consider, a general CES production function with $X = K, V = (L, M)$, which satisfies the assumptions of the lemma : $F^{CES} = (\beta_K \cdot K^{\sigma} + h(L, M))^{\frac{v}{\sigma}}$, where $h(L, M) = \beta_L L^\sigma + (1-\beta_L - \beta_M) M^\sigma $. Take two different CES production functions $F_1, F_2$ for which $\beta_L, \beta_M, \sigma, v$ are identical but $\beta_K$ differs. Then $F_1 \neq F_2$. Hence, $\mathcal{F}$ is not a singleton set. Contradiction.
\end{comment}
\end{proof}
\end{lemma}
This Lemma allows us to prove the main result,
\begin{theorem}[Non-Identification of the Production Function] \label{thm:nonIdentification_K}

Let Assumptions \ref{asspt:properties_prodf}, \ref{asspt:homothetic}, \ref{asspt:costmin}, \ref{asspt:scalar}, and \ref{asspt:markov} hold. Furthermore, assume that production inputs $(\mathbf{X}_{it}, \mathbf{V}_{it})$, input prices $\mathbf{P}^X_{it}, \mathbf{P}^V_{it}$, and revenue $R_{it}$ are observed, but output prices $P_{it}$ and quantities $Q_{it}$ are not. Then the revenue production function can be written in terms of observables as,
\begin{equation}
    R_{it} =  G(\mathbf{X}_{it}, \mathbf{V}_{it}, \mathbf{P}^V_{it}, \mathbf{S}^{*\mathbf{V}}_{it})  \mathcal{E}_{it}^{-1} \exp(\varepsilon_{it}),
\end{equation}
and identification of $G(\cdot)$ is insufficient for identification of the production function.

\begin{proof}

The cost function for the class of production functions satisfying weak homothetic separability can be obtained from the general cost minimization problem, where the firm minimizes short-run costs given its level of planned output $Q^*_{it}$

\begin{equation} \label{eq:costmin}
\begin{aligned}
    \min_{ \mathbf{V}_{it}} & \:  \mathbf{P}^V_{it} \cdot \mathbf{V}_{it}    \\
    \text { s.t. } &  E[ F\left( \mathbf{X}_{it}, h\left(  \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{V}_{it} \right) \right) \text{exp}(\omega_{i t}) \exp(\varepsilon_{it}) | \mathcal{F}_{it} ]  \geqslant Q^*_{i t},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

\noindent Since $\mathcal{F}_{it}$ includes inputs and productivity shocks, we can  rewrite the constraint as,
\begin{equation}
    F\left( \mathbf{X}_{it}, h\left(  \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{V}_{it} \right) \right) \text{exp}(\omega_{i t})  \geqslant \tilde{Q}^*_{i t},
\end{equation}

\noindent with $\tilde{Q}^*_{i t} \coloneqq \frac{Q^*_{it}}{\mathcal{E}_{it}} \coloneqq \frac{Q^*_{it}}{E[\exp(\varepsilon_{it}) | \mathcal{F}_{it}]} $. Then, we can write the general cost function as \citep{chambers1988applied, Demirer2020production},
\begin{align*} \label{eq:demirer}
    & C\left( \tilde{Q}^*_{it}, \mathbf{X}_{it}, \textbf{P}^V_{it}, \omega_{it} \right)  \\
    & =  \min_{ \mathbf{V}_{it}} \left\{ \mathbf{P}^V_{it} \cdot \mathbf{V}_{it} :
    \tilde{Q}^*_{it} \leqslant  F\left( \mathbf{X}_{it}, h\left(  \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{V}_{it} \right) \right)  \text{exp}(\omega_{i t})  \right\} \\
    & =  \min_{ \mathbf{V}_{it}} \left\{ \mathbf{P}^V_{it} \cdot \mathbf{V}_{it} :
     F^{-1}\left( \mathbf{X}_{it}, \frac{\tilde{Q}^*_{it}}{\exp(\omega_{it})} \right)  \leqslant  h\left(  \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{V}_{it} \right) \right\} \\
    & =  \min_{ \mathbf{V}_{it}} \left\{ \mathbf{P}^V_{it} \cdot \mathbf{V}_{it} :
    1 \leqslant  h\left(\mathbf{X}_{it}, \frac{ \mathbf{V}_{it} }{ F^{-1}\left( \mathbf{X}_{it}, \frac{\tilde{Q}^*_{it}}{\exp(\omega_{it})} \right)  } \right) \right\}  \\
    & =  \min_{ \mathbf{V}_{it}} \left\{  F^{-1}\left( \mathbf{X}_{it}, \frac{\tilde{Q}^*_{it}}{\exp(\omega_{it})} \right)(\mathbf{P}^V_{it} \cdot \mathbf{V}_{it}) :
    1 \leqslant  h\left(  \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{V}_{it} \right) \right\} \\
    & =  F^{-1}\left( \mathbf{X}_{it}, \frac{\tilde{Q}^*_{it}}{\exp(\omega_{it})} \right)  \min_{ \mathbf{V}_{it}} \left\{ \mathbf{P}^V_{it} \cdot \mathbf{V}_{it} :
    1 \leqslant  h\left(  \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{V}_{it} \right) \right\}   \\
    & \coloneqq  F^{-1}\left( \mathbf{X}_{it}, \frac{\tilde{Q}^*_{it}}{\exp(\omega_{it})} \right)  C_2\left( \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{P}^V_{it} \right) \stepcounter{equation}\tag{\theequation}
\end{align*}

\noindent where line 2 follows from Assumption \ref{asspt:properties_prodf} (strict monotonicity), line 3 and 4 follow from the assumption that $h(\cdot)$ is homothetic (since we can always redefine $F(\cdot)$ and $h(\cdot)$ to make $h(\cdot)$ homogeneous of degree one), and the last line defines a new function $C_2(\cdot)$.\footnote{The subscript is chosen to be consistent with notation in \citet[Thm. 2.1]{Demirer2020production}.}
To obtain the marginal cost, take the derivative of $C(\cdot)$ in Eq. \eqref{eq:demirer} with respect to target output, which exists by Assumption \ref{asspt:properties_prodf},
\begin{align*}
\label{eq:marginal_cost}
    \lambda_{it} & = \frac{ \partial C\left( \tilde{Q}^*_{it}, \mathbf{X}_{it}, \textbf{P}^V_{it}, \omega_{it} \right) }{ \partial Q^*_{it} } \\
    & = \frac{ \partial F^{-1} }{ \partial x_2 }\left( \mathbf{X}_{it}, \frac{\tilde{Q}^*_{it}}{\exp(\omega_{it})} \right)
   \left(\text{exp}(\omega_{it}) \mathcal{E}_{it} \right)^{-1}
    C_2\left( \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{P}^V_{it} \right) \\
    & = \frac{ \partial F^{-1} }{ \partial x_2 }
    \left(  \mathbf{X}_{it},  F\left( \mathbf{X}_{it}, h\left(  \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{V}_{it} \right) \right)
    \right)
    \left(\text{exp}(\omega_{it}) \mathcal{E}_{it} \right)^{-1}
    C_2\left( \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{P}^V_{it} \right)\\
    & = \frac{   C_2\left( \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{P}^V_{it} \right)
    }{
    \frac{ \partial F }{ \partial x_2 }
    \left( \mathbf{X}_{it}, h\left(  \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{V}_{it} \right)  \right)
    \text{exp}(\omega_{it}) \mathcal{E}_{it}
    }  \stepcounter{equation}\tag{\theequation}
\end{align*}

\noindent where $\frac{\partial F(\cdot)}{\partial x_i}$ denotes the derivative of $F(\cdot)$ with respect to its ith argument, line 3 imposes that the constraint of the cost minimization problem is binding at the optimum such that $Q^*_{it} = F(\cdot)\text{exp}(\omega_{it})$ and line 4 uses the inverse function theorem for the $\mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ function obtained when $\mathbf{X}_{it}$ is held fixed, for all values of $\mathbf{X}_{it}$.

Finally, rewrite the output elasticity with respect to any of the (log) variable inputs $v_{it} \in \mathbf{v}_{it}$,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
    \frac{
     \partial f\left(\mathbf{X}_{it}, h\left(  \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{V}_{it} \right) \right)
     }{
     \partial v_{it}
     }
     & = \frac{
     \partial F\left(\mathbf{X}_{it}, h\left(  \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{V}_{it} \right) \right)
     }{
     \partial  x_2
     }
     \frac{
     1
     }{
     F\left(\mathbf{X}_{it}, h\left(  \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{V}_{it} \right) \right)
     }
     \frac{
     \partial  h\left(  \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{V}_{it} \right)
     }{
     \partial v_{it}
     },
\end{split}
\end{equation}

\noindent where $f(\cdot)$ indicates the log production function.

Under imperfect competition, price equals markup, denoted as $\mu_{it}$, times marginal cost. Eq. \eqref{eq:marginal_cost} gives an expression for marginal cost. The markup can be written as the ratio of variable output elasticity to revenue share: $\mu_{it} = \frac{\partial f\left(\mathbf{X}_{it}, h\left(  \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{V}_{it} \right) \right) }{ \partial v_{it} } (S^{*V}_{it})^{-1}$ \citep{DeLoecker12, klette1999market}. We can plug this into the RHS of the production function in Eq. \eqref{eq:homothetic} and multiply the LHS by $P_{it}$ to get,
\begin{align*} \label{eq:revenuePF_nonparam_nonident}
    R_{it} & =
     F\left(\mathbf{X}_{it}, h\left(  \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{V}_{it} \right) \right) \text{exp}(\omega_{it}) \lambda_{it}
     \frac{\partial f\left(\mathbf{X}_{it}, h\left(  \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{V}_{it} \right) \right)
     }{
     \partial v_{it}
     } (S^{*V}_{it})^{-1} \exp(\varepsilon_{it}) \\
    & =
    \frac{
         F\left(\mathbf{X}_{it}, h\left(  \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{V}_{it} \right) \right)\text{exp}(\omega_{it}) C_2\left( \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{P}^V_{it} \right)\frac{
     \partial F\left(\mathbf{X}_{it}, h\left(  \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{V}_{it} \right) \right)
     }{
     \partial  x_2
     } \frac{\partial  h\left(  \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{V}_{it} \right)
     }{
     \partial v_{it}
     }
    }{
    \frac{\partial F\left(\mathbf{X}_{it}, h\left(  \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{V}_{it} \right) \right)
     }{
     \partial  x_2
     } \text{exp}(\omega_{it}) \mathcal{E}_{it} S^{*V}_{it} F\left(\mathbf{X}_{it}, h\left(  \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{V}_{it} \right) \right)
    } \exp(\varepsilon_{it})  \\
     & =
       C_2\left( \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{P}^V_{it} \right)   \frac{\partial  h\left(  \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{V}_{it} \right)
     }{
     \partial v_{it}
     } (S^{*V}_{it} \mathcal{E}_{it})^{-1} \exp(\varepsilon_{it}) \stepcounter{equation}\tag{\theequation}
\end{align*}
which gives $M$ equations for $R_{it}$, one for each flexible input $V$.

Thus, we obtain an expression for the revenue production function in terms of observables. To establish that the production function $Q(\cdot)$ cannot be identified from this equation, assume without loss of generality that $\dpar{h(\cdot)}{v_{it}}$ and $C_2(\cdot)$ can be identified from the last line of Eq. \eqref{eq:revenuePF_nonparam_nonident}.\footnote{This is without loss of generality as this is the best-case identification of the functions involved.} Then $h(\cdot)$ is identified up to a constant. Now, since $h(\cdot)$ is a component of the composite function $Q(\cdot)$, it is intuitive that identification of $h(\cdot)$ alone is not sufficient for identification of $Q(\cdot)$. For the sake of completeness, this was proved in Lemma \ref{lemma:composite}. Moreover, since the cost function was shown to equal  $F^{-1}\left( \mathbf{X}_{it}, \frac{\tilde{Q}^*_{it}}{\exp(\omega_{it})} \right)  \cdot C_2\left( \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{P}^V_{it} \right) $ in Eq. \eqref{eq:demirer}, the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:composite} also immediately implies that identification of $C_2(\cdot)$ is not sufficient for identification of the cost function.\footnote{This follows because it is shown in the Lemma that the class of functions $F$, $\mathcal{F}$ that satisfy the stated assumptions is not a singleton set, and hence the class of inverse functions $F^{-1}$ is neither.} But by Shephard's Duality Theorem \citep[Thm. 2]{diewert2022duality}, the cost function is dual to the production function.\footnote{That is, the cost function is necessary and sufficient for the production function, under the maintained assumption of cost minimization and firms being input price-takers. This can also be seen immediately from Eq. \eqref{eq:demirer}} As a result, identification of $C_2(\cdot)$ is also not sufficient for identification of $Q(\cdot)$. Furthermore, it is clear that no composition of $C_2(\cdot)$ and $h(\cdot)$ can identify $Q(\cdot)$ either, since obtaining $Q(\cdot)$ from a composition of either function requires that the composing functions equal either $F(\cdot)$ or $F^{-1}(\cdot)$, which by the preceding arguments clearly do not coincide with $C_2(\cdot)$ or $h(\cdot)$, respectively.

Finally, note that combining the $M$ versions of Eq. \eqref{eq:revenuePF_nonparam_nonident} gives,
\begin{align*}
 R_{it}&  =   C_2\left( \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{P}^V_{it} \right)   \left( \frac1M \sum_{V \in \mathbf{V}}  \frac{\partial  h\left(  \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{V}_{it} \right)
     }{
     \partial \text{log} V_{it}
     } (S^{*V}_{it} )^{-1} \right) \mathcal{E}_{it}^{-1} \cdot \exp(\varepsilon_{it}) \\
     & \coloneqq G(\mathbf{X}_{it}, \mathbf{V}_{it}, \mathbf{P}^V_{it}, \mathbf{S}^{*\mathbf{V}}_{it})  \cdot \mathcal{E}_{it}^{-1}  \cdot \exp(\varepsilon_{it}). \stepcounter{equation}\tag{\theequation}
\end{align*}
By the preceding arguments about $C_1(\cdot), h(\cdot)$, clearly, identification of $G(\cdot)$ is in general also not sufficient to identify $Q(\cdot)$. Moreover, $G(\cdot)$ takes all observable production-side input variables (prices, inputs, and revenue shares) as its arguments. Hence, there is no alternative way of rewriting $G(\cdot)$ as some function $H(\mathbf{X}_{it}, \mathbf{V}_{it}, \mathbf{P}^V_{it}, \mathbf{S}^{*\mathbf{V}}_{it})$ using production-side model equations such that identification of $H(\cdot)$ would be sufficient for identification of $Q(\cdot)$, as any such $H(\cdot)$ would have to be a composite function of $G(\cdot)$.

Finally, we need to argue that Assumption \ref{asspt:markov} cannot deliver identification of $Q(\cdot)$ either. This is intuitive, since the Markov assumption was introduced in the literature to handle the unobserved productivity term $\omega_{it}$ in the quantity production function -- but this term drops out in the revenue production function. Indeed, the way the preceding literature has used this assumption for identification is by rewriting $\omega_{it}$ as a function of model parameters and ``observables'',
\begin{equation} \label{eq:omega_identification}
\omega_{it} = q^*_{it-1} - q(\mathbf{X}_{it-1}, \mathbf{V}_{it-1})
\end{equation}
where (log) target output $q^*_{it} = q(\mathbf{X}_{it}, \mathbf{V}_{it}) + \omega_{it}$ would be identified (and thus ``observed'') by substituting out $\omega_{it}$ in the (quantity) production function using the scalar unobservable Assumption \ref{asspt:scalar} and projecting out the ex-post output shock,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:q_star}
q_{it} = q^*(\mathbf{X}_{it}, \mathbf{V}_{it}) + \varepsilon_{it}.
\end{equation}
Then, identification would obtain from forming moments on the ex-post shock to $\omega_{it}$, $\xi_{it}$ \citep{Ackerberg15,Gandhi2017identification},
\begin{equation} \label{eq:markov_moment}
E\big[ \xi_{it} | \mathcal{F}_{it-1}\big] = E\big[ (q^*_{it} - q(\mathbf{X}_{it}, \mathbf{V}_{it})) - g\left( q^*_{it-1} - q(\mathbf{X}_{it-1}, \mathbf{V}_{it-1}) \right) | \mathcal{F}_{it-1} \big] = 0
\end{equation}
Since a firm's output, $Q_{it}$ is, however, not observed, the target output function $Q^*(\cdot)$ cannot be identified through the usual conditional moment equation
for Eq. \eqref{eq:q_star}, $E[\varepsilon_{it} | \mathcal{F}_{it-1}] = 0$. Even if one could identify target revenue \[R^*_{it} = P_{it} \cdot Q^*_{it} = G(\mathbf{X}_{it}, \mathbf{V}_{it}, \mathbf{P}^V_{it}, \mathbf{S}^{*\mathbf{V}}_{it})  \cdot \mathcal{E}_{it}^{-1} \] from the revenue production function,\footnote{This could, for example, be done by imposing a full independence assumption to make $E[\mathcal{E}_{it} | \mathcal{F}_{it}]$ a constant as in \citet[p.2979]{Gandhi2017identification}.} one could still not identify $Q^*_{it}$ from this as $P_{it}$ is, of course, unobserved by assumption. Moreover, since we have shown that $Q(\cdot)$ cannot be identified from the revenue production function, and since $Q^*_{it} = Q(\cdot) \exp(\omega_{it})$, we conclude that $Q^*_{it}$ cannot be identified from the revenue production function. Hence, Eq. \eqref{eq:markov_moment} depends on an unobservable, $q^*_{it}$, and cannot deliver identification of $q(\cdot)$ either.
\end{proof}

\end{theorem}

We immediately obtain the following three corollaries.

\begin{corollary}[Non-Identification From Markov] \label{thm:nonIdentification_markov}
     The Markov assumption \ref{asspt:markov} does not lead to identification of the production function when output quantities are unobserved.
\end{corollary}

This corollary is embedded in the main theorem, but is worth emphasizing as the Markov assumption has been the main identifying assumption in the production function literature thus far.

\begin{corollary}[Non-Identification From First-Order Conditions] \label{corr:foc}
The cost minimization first-order conditions can be rewritten in terms of observables as,
 \label{thm:foc}
\begin{equation}  \label{eq:foc}
     P^V_{it} = C_2\left( \mathbf{X}_{it},  \mathbf{P}^V_{it} \right) \frac{ \partial h( \mathbf{X}_{it}, \mathbf{V}_{it} ) }{ \partial V_{it} } \cdot \mathcal{E}_{it}^{-1} \quad \forall \: V \in \mathbf{V},
\end{equation}
and hence contain no additional information relative to the revenue production function.
 \begin{proof}
Impose equality on the constraint in Eq. \eqref{eq:costmin} by the strict monotonicity assumption of the production function with respect to $\mathbf{V}_{it}$, take the first derivative, and plug in the expression for $\lambda_{it}$ from Eq. \eqref{eq:marginal_cost}. This gives Eq. \eqref{eq:foc}, which is equivalent to the revenue production function.
\end{proof}
\end{corollary}

Thus, the first-order conditions depend on the same functions as the revenue production function does. As a result, neither can they be used to identify $F(\cdot)$. This is of course, not surprising, as we used these first-order conditions to derive the result in Theorem \ref{thm:nonIdentification_K}. Yet, it is also worth emphasizing, given that many papers have used first-order conditions for the estimation of production functions \citep[VI.B]{Gandhi2017identification}.

\begin{corollary}[Non-Identification of Productivity] \label{thm:nonIdentification_omega}
     Hicks-neutral productivity cannot be identified from a revenue production function.
\end{corollary}

Again, this corollary follows directly from the main theorem, but is worth emphasizing given the fact that production function estimation has been widely used for the estimation of productivity \citep{de2021industrial}.
 The intuition behind this corollary is that marginal cost -- and, hence, output price -- depends inversely and one-to-one on Hicks-neutral productivity, since the latter linearly scales the production function. That is, an increase in Hicks-neutral by construction increases output one-to-one. As a result, it also decreases marginal cost one-to-one, and these two effects cancel out in the revenue production function.

\subsubsection*{Discussion}

Having established the main result, I
now discuss two open questions: what does non-identification mean in this context, and how could it be resolved?

There is a simple intuition behind Theorem \ref{thm:nonIdentification_K}. Under the assumption of variable cost minimization, and the assumption of price-setting implicit in the markup formula (markup equals price times marginal cost), the dynamic inputs $\mathbf{X}_{it}$ will only affect a firm's price through the \textit{level} of the production function, while the variable inputs $\mathbf{V}_{it}$ also affect the price through the gradient of the production function. The idea here is that small changes in variable inputs should affect a firm's price because both variable inputs and price can be adjusted instantaneously under the given assumptions.\footnote{This follows by the assumption that markup equals price over marginal cost, which rules out dynamic pricing, as was also noted in \citet[p.2443]{DeLoecker12}.} Changes in the dynamic inputs, however, only affect overall, not marginal production capacity, and hence only affect prices in that way as well. As a result, if we re-express output prices in terms of production-side variables, the part of the production function associated with the dynamic inputs, which is assumed to be separable, exactly cancels out, because the effect of these dynamic inputs on output feeds through one-to-one to output prices.

A remarkable result driving this mechanism is that we can express output prices, which are clearly driven by the demand side as well, in terms of production-side observables only. This is the insight that motivated the so-called ``production approach'' to markup estimation, which relies on the fact that the markup can be expressed as the ratio of output elasticity to revenue shares \citep{deloecker2011product, klette1999market}. The intuition behind this fact rests on a simple cost-benefit condition. The output elasticity tells us the percent increase in output -- and thus, for fixed prices, revenue -- for a percent increase in material inputs. The revenue share, on the other hand, tells us what percent of revenue is spent on input costs for each percent increase in input (since $\frac{\partial  s^{*V}_{it}}{\partial m_{it}} = S^{*V}_{it}$). As long as the output elasticity is larger than the revenue share, the firm is making a profit. In fact, the gap between both is exactly equal to the markup.

The literature has proposed several solutions to the lack of data on output prices. First, as is well-known, the use of industry deflators cannot resolve the issue when there is cross-sectional output price variation, so this approach only supports a highly restrictive set of models of imperfect competition \citep{deloecker2021comment} or perfect competition.\footnote{Indeed, as noted, perfect competition implies homogenous prices, in which case industry-level price deflators equal firm-level prices up to some constant.} Second, the introduction of input prices on the right-hand side of the revenue production function can also not alleviate the issue \citep{DeLoecker2014firm, DeLoecker19, deloecker2021comment}. This follows by the same logic as Corollary \ref{corr:foc}, as Eq. \eqref{eq:foc} gives an expression for input prices that depends only on the components of the revenue production function. This shows that input prices cannot introduce any additional identifying information into the revenue production function.

This leaves, third, the imposition of assumptions on the underlying demand system.\footnote{Some approaches \citep{kirov2021measuring, DeLoecker16} have also tried to control for the markup through observables. Since these make implicit assumptions on the structure of underlying demand, I consider them to fall under this group of solutions.} When a parametric demand system is specified, this approach can provide an explicit expression for output prices that does not directly depend on the production function \citep{deloecker2011product, Gandhi2017identification}. In some cases, non-parametric restrictions on the demand system may alternatively require an exact set of additional demand-side variables to be included in the model \citep{DeLoecker16}.\footnote{In particular, this paper leverages the insight of \citet{Berry1994estimating} that in a simple logit demand model, quality is an invertible function of output prices and market shares. If one imposes that model and one has a good proxy for quality, it is sufficient to control for market shares and the proxy to control for $P_{it}$.} In general, insofar as Theorem \ref{thm:nonIdentification_K} establishes non-identification under a general non-parametric revenue production function that depends on all production-side observables, it is clear that identification can only be established by introducing additional non-production (demand-side) variables.\footnote{This does, of course, does not guarantee identification -- it will need to be established in the context of the particular assumptions imposed.} This requires restrictions on the underlying demand system. As discussed in the introduction, however, the appeal of production function estimation lies precisely in the fact that the same estimator can be applied uniformly across industries. Since demand estimation typically requires industry-specific modeling assumptions, it is not clear that this is a satisfactory solution.

Finally, the growth rate of revenue \citep{basu1997returns} provides no further information about the production function. This follows directly from the fact that the level of revenue does not identify the production function in a single period, so neither will it do so across periods.

The importance of these non-identification results is twofold. First, most parametric production functions satisfy weak homothetic separability, which implies that previous studies that estimated productivity, returns to scale, or markups using revenue as a proxy for output without imposing further structure are likely unidentified. Second, since these results apply to a general class of production functions and market structures, and demonstrate not just the misspecification but the non-identification of revenue production functions, they underscore the importance of developing suitable estimators and datasets that address these issues \citep{dhyne2020theory}. Finally, in the absence of explicit consideration of this non-identification, these results suggest that practitioners should avoid estimating production functions and productivity with revenue data. Below, I further illustrate the results in light of the two most commonly used parametric functional forms.

\subsection{What Can Be Identified In Leading Parametric Cases?}

Next, I demonstrate Theorem \ref{thm:nonIdentification_K} for two leading parametric production functions, the Cobb-Douglas and CES production function. Since this requires a parametrization, I let $\mathbf{X}_{it} = K_{it}, \mathbf{V}_{it} = (L_{it}, M_{it})$, but the non-identification does not depend on these particular choices, as long as there is at least one dynamic input.

\subsubsection{Cobb-Douglas}

For the Cobb-Douglas production function,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:CD_levels}
    Q_{it} = K_{it}^{\beta_K} \ L_{it}^{\beta_L} M_{it}^{\beta_M} \text{exp}(\omega_{it})\text{exp}(\varepsilon_{it}),
\end{equation}
the (log) revenue production function can be written as,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:CD_revenue}
\begin{split}
    r_{it} =
    \theta_0 +  {\frac{\beta_L}{\beta_L + \beta_M}}  (l_{it} + p^L_{it}) + {\frac{\beta_M}{\beta_L + \beta_M}}  (m_{it} + p^M_{it})
     - s^{*V}_{it} - \text{log} \mathcal{E}_{it} +
    \varepsilon_{it}; \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where  $ \theta_0 = -\text{log}(\beta_L + \beta_M) + \frac{\beta_M - \beta_L}{\beta_L + \beta_M}\left( \text{log}\beta_L -\text{log}\beta_M \right) + \text{log} \beta_V$ for some $V \in (L, M)$.\footnote{See Appendix \ref{sec_app:derivations} for the full derivations.}
The equation illustrates Theorem \ref{thm:nonIdentification_K}, as the coefficient on capital, which determines the non-separable part of the production function, is not identified. Moreover, identification of the separable part, $h(L_{it}, M_{it}) = L_{it}^{\frac{\beta_L}{\beta_L+\beta_M}} M_{it}^\frac{\beta_M}{\beta_L + \beta_M}$, only allows us to identify the ratio of short-run output elasticities. Corollary \ref{thm:nonIdentification_omega} is also illustrated since $\omega_{it}$ does not show up in these expressions. We obtain the following,

\begin{corollary}[Non-Identification of the Revenue Cobb-Douglas] \
The revenue Cobb-Douglas production function \eqref{eq:CD_revenue} only identifies the ratio of variable output elasticities, $\beta_L, \beta_M$. Neither the dynamic output elasticity $\beta_K$ nor productivity $\omega_{it}$ are identified.

\end{corollary}

\subsubsection{CES Production Function}

Write the CES production function as,
\begin{equation}
Q_{it} = \left( (1-\beta_L - \beta_M) K_{it}^\sigma + \beta_L  L_{it}^\sigma + \beta_M M_{it}^\sigma \right)^{\frac{v}{\sigma}} \exp(\omega_{it}) \exp(\varepsilon_{it}),
\end{equation}
where $\beta_L, \beta_M$ are the share parameters, $v$ is the return to scale parameter, and $\sigma$ is the elasticity of substitution parameter. The (log) revenue equivalent is,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:CS_revenue}
    r_{it} =  \text{log} \beta_V  + \sigma v_{it} + \frac{1-\sigma}{\sigma} \text{log} \left( \beta_L  L_{it}^\sigma + \beta_M M_{it}^\sigma  \right) +   \frac{\sigma-1}{\sigma} \text{log} B - s_{it}^{*V} - \text{log} \mathcal{E}_{it} + \varepsilon_{it},
\end{equation}
where the unit cost function $B := (P^L_{it})^{\frac{\sigma}{\sigma-1}} \beta_L^{-\frac{1}{\sigma-1}} + (P^M_{it})^{\frac{\sigma}{\sigma-1}} \beta_M^{-\frac{1}{\sigma-1}} $. Again, following Theorem \ref{thm:nonIdentification_K}, we can see that the non-separable part of the production function is not identified, as the returns to scale $v$ do not show up in this expression. Similarly, $\omega_{it}$ again drops out, in line with Corollary \ref{thm:nonIdentification_omega}. The below proposition establishes what can be identified from a (potentially nested) revenue CES production function,

\begin{corollary}[Non-Identification of the Revenue CES] \label{prop:revenue_ces_basic}
    The revenue CES production function (Eq. \eqref{eq:CS_revenue}) can at most identify the elasticity of substitution $\sigma$ and the\textit{ ratio }of short-run distribution parameters $\frac{\beta_L}{\beta_M}$. Neither the returns to scale $v$, the output elasticities, nor Hicks-neutral productivity $\omega_{it}$ are identified. \\
    \textbf{Proof.} See Appendix \ref{sec_app:proofs}.
\end{corollary}

\section{Conclusion} \label{sec:conclusion}

This paper has shown that neither the production function nor Hicks-neutral productivity can be identified when using revenue as a proxy for output. This holds true for a general class of production functions and under standard assumptions. There is no way to rewrite the revenue production function in terms of observable production-side variables to break this non-identification. The only approach that can obtain identification in this scenario is to impose restrictions on the underlying demand system, which could introduce demand-side observables into the revenue production function. The non-identification was demonstrated parametrically for the Cobb-Douglas and CES production functions. This work formalizes and generalizes previous findings that revenue production functions are misspecified and generate biased estimates.

The implications for practitioners are significant. In the absence of observed output prices, perfect competition, or further restrictions on demand, practitioners should avoid estimating production functions using revenue as a proxy for output. Most objects of interest such as productivity, returns to scale, and markups cannot be identified. However, markups may still be estimated without production functions using the production approach to markup estimation, subject to additional restrictions \citep{deloecker2021comment}.

Future research may focus on establishing partial identification of the production function when output prices are unobserved \citep{flynn2019measuring}, or on further developing production function theory for when they \textit{are} observed \citep{dhyne2020theory, DeLoecker16}.

\clearpage
\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{References}
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}

\section*{#1} \label{#2} \addcontentsline{toc}{section}{#1}}
\newcommand{\appref}[1]{\hyperref[#1]{Appendix \ref*{#1}}}
\usepackage[]{caption}
\usepackage{breakurl}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\graphicspath{ {images/} }
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{enumerate
\usepackage{float,booktabs}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{pdflscape}
\newcommand\numberthis{\addtocounter{equation}{1}\tag{\theequation}}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage{dsfont}
\usepackage{nicefrac}
\titleformat{\paragraph}[runin]{\normalfont\normalsize}{\theparagraph}{1em}{}
\titlespacing*{\paragraph}{0pt}{3.25ex plus 1ex minus .2ex}{\the\fontdimen2\font}

\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\renewcommand{\qedsymbol}{\textcolor{ocre}{$\blacksquare$}}

\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{geometry}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{rotating}
\usepackage[bottom]{footmisc}
\usepackage{lscape}
\usepackage{siunitx}
\usepackage{hhline}
\usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage{esint}
\usepackage[authoryear,longnamesfirst,round]{natbib}
\usepackage{eurosym}
\usepackage{bm}
\usepackage{soul}
\usepackage{xcolor}

\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{acknowledgement}[theorem]{Acknowledgement}
\newtheorem{algorithm}[theorem]{Algorithm}
\newtheorem{axiom}[theorem]{Axiom}
\newtheorem{case}[theorem]{Case}
\newtheorem{claim}[theorem]{Claim}
\newtheorem{conclusion}[theorem]{Conclusion}
\newtheorem{condition}[theorem]{Condition}
\newtheorem{conjecture}[theorem]{Conjecture}
\newtheorem{assumption}{Assumption}
\newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}
\newtheorem{criterion}[theorem]{Criterion}
\newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}
\newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}
\newtheorem{exercise}[theorem]{Exercise}
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{notation}[theorem]{Notation}
\newtheorem{problem}[theorem]{Problem}
\newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}
\newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}
\newtheorem{solution}[theorem]{Solution}
\newtheorem{summary}[theorem]{Summary}
\newtheorem{result}[theorem]{Result}
\newtheorem{hypothesis}[theorem]{Hypothesis}
\newcommand{\mathcal{L}}{\mathcal{L}}

\newcommand{\omega^L_{it}}{\omega^L_{it}}
\newcommand{\omega^L_{it-1}}{\omega^L_{it-1}}
\newcommand{\omega_{it}}{\omega_{it}}
\newcommand{K_{it}}{K_{it}}
\newcommand{L_{it}}{L_{it}}
\newcommand{M_{it}}{M_{it}}
\newcommand{Q_{it}}{Q_{it}}
\newcommand{P_{it}}{P_{it}}
\newcommand{R_{it}}{R_{it}}
\newcommand{S^{*L}_{it}}{S^{*L}_{it}}
\newcommand{S^{*M}_{it}}{S^{*M}_{it}}
\newcommand{S^{M}_{it}}{S^{M}_{it}}
\newcommand{S^{L}_{it}}{S^{L}_{it}}
\newcommand{k_{it}}{k_{it}}
\newcommand{l_{it}}{l_{it}}
\newcommand{m_{it}}{m_{it}}
\newcommand{q_{it}}{q_{it}}
\newcommand{p_{it}}{p_{it}}
\newcommand{r_{it}}{r_{it}}
\newcommand{P^M_{it}}{P^M_{it}}
\newcommand{P^L_{it}}{P^L_{it}}
\newcommand{p^L_{it}}{p^L_{it}}
\newcommand{p^M_{it}}{p^M_{it}}
\newcommand{\text{log}}{\text{log}}
\newcommand{\text{exp}}{\text{exp}}
\newcommand{\tilde{L}_{it}}{\tilde{L}_{it}}
\newcommand{\tilde{P}^L_{it}}{\tilde{P}^L_{it}}
\newcommand{\dpar}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}

\newcommand*{\mathsf{P}}{\mathsf{P}}
\newcommand*{\mathbb{E}}{\mathbb{E}}

\setcounter{MaxMatrixCols}{10}
\geometry{left=1in,right=1in,top=1in,bottom=1in}

\begin{document}

\thispagestyle{empty}

\begingroup
\centering
{\LARGE{On the Non-Identification of Revenue Production Functions} \\[1.5em]
\large  David Van Dijcke \\ University of Michigan\footnote{\texttt{dvdijcke@umich.edu}. I thank Florian Gunsilius, Jan De Loecker, Jagadeesh Sivadasan, Ying Fan, Steve Bond, Harry Kleyer, Rick Van der Ploeg, Valentin Kecht, Adam Brzezinski, Jonas Slaathaug Hansen, and participants at the University of Michigan IO seminar for helpful discussion and comments. All errors are my own.}. \\ \vspace{4mm}
\small This version: \today.
}

\endgroup

\begin{abstract}
\noindent

I show that, under standard assumptions, neither the production function nor Hicks-neutral productivity can be identified when revenue is used as a proxy for physical quantity. This result holds for a large class of production functions, including all commonly used parametric forms. In the special case of the CES production function, a returns to scale assumption suffices for identification. In that case, the non-identification of productivity allows for the estimation of factor-augmenting productivity.

\bigskip\noindent\textbf{Keywords}: production function estimation, revenue production functions, productivity estimation, productivity, output elasticities, returns to scale, markups, market power. \\
\bigskip\noindent\textbf{JEL-Classification}:  D2, D4, L1, C1, E2.\\

\vfill
\end{abstract}

 \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
 \pagebreak

\pagestyle{plain} \pagenumbering{arabic}

\section{Introduction}

The identification and empirical estimation of production functions are fundamental problems in economics, with a long history in the study of productivity, returns to scale, elasticities of substitution, and more recently, market power. The theory of production functions specifies how firms produce quantities of physical goods from inputs. Traditionally, however, the empirical estimation of production functions has relied on goods revenue -- price times quantity -- to proxy for physical quantity, as the former is usually observed, but the latter is not. While this may be acceptable when firms are price takers, in the presence of market power, the price will in general also depend on primitives of the production function. In this paper, I show that this dependence implies that the production function can, in general, not be identified when using revenue as a proxy for output. This result holds for a general class of production functions which includes all commonly used parametric forms, such as the Cobb-Douglas and CES production function. Moreover, it only requires a small set of standard assumptions from the production function literature, in addition to cost minimization and the presence of imperfect competition. As a result, it holds for a large class of market structures, including all forms of imperfect competition with some form of price setting and non-constant marginal costs. The implications of this result are strong: any estimates of the objects of interest mentioned above, including markups, productivity, and returns to scale, cannot be identified from the production function when revenue is used as a proxy for output. \\

The intuition behind the result is simple: when we replace quantity by revenue on the left-hand side of the production function, we introduce an unobserved output price term $P_{it}$ on the right-hand side. By the canonical expression for a firm's markup as price over marginal cost, this means that we now need to control for both the marginal cost and the markup of the firm. It can be shown, however, that both of these depend directly on the production function and its derivatives, causing the latter to drop out of the revenue production function. The only assumptions required for this are that the production function is weakly separable in its variable inputs, and cost minimization. This ``dropping out'' of the production function clarifies the way in which it is unidentified: since (part of) the production function does not show up in the revenue production function, any potential production technology is consistent with the revenue production function.  \\

This paper relates to the several strands of literature that concern themselves with production function estimation, both from an econometric and an applied point of view. First, it relates to the literature on production function estimation and identification \citep{Olley1996, Blundell2000gmm, Ackerberg15, Levinsohn03, Demirer2020production}. While the methods developed in this literature may be appropriate when physical output is observed, my results imply that none of these methods can correctly identify the production function when only revenue is observed, except possibly when one assumes perfect competition \citep{Gandhi2017identification}. Second, it speaks to the various strands of literature that have aimed to estimate productivity (see \citet{syverson2011determines} for an overview), returns to scale, and more recently, markups \citep{DeLoecker12, DeLoecker19, Demirer2020production}, using production functions. Whenever these studies used revenue to proxy for output to estimate these objects of interest in a market potentially characterized by imperfect competition, my results imply that they were not identified. Third, my paper is closely linked to other studies that have considered the implications of using revenue as a proxy for output. A potential explanation for the neglect of this issue is that one of first papers to consider the problem explicitly by using data on output prices, \citet{Mairesse2005panel}, found little evidence for bias in the production function when revenue is used as a proxy for output. That paper, however, only considered Cobb-Douglas production functions with a total factor productivity that is constant across time, obviating the main challenge the production function estimation literature has concerned itself with in the last two decades, of accounting for firm-level unobserved productivity. Moreover, the paper deployed OLS and IV estimators that have since fallen out of use. As a result, any bias due to using revenue as proxy for output was most likely indiscernible in the presence of the large bias from these various other sources. Indeed, in recent work, \citet{de2021hitchhiker} revisited the same issue with the most recent estimation methods and documented substantial bias in revenue production function estimates in both simulations and firm-level data where price is observed. My contribution to this strand of the literature is to establish the general non-identification of the revenue production function. This is a much stronger result than the various potential sources of bias pointed out by most of this literature. The only result that also focuses explicitly on non-identification is \citet{Bond2020some}, but they do so only for the markup in a monopolistic competition setting. Fourth, several other papers have worked on further developing production function estimation methods when output \textit{is} observed, which brings up issues related to multi-product production \citep{deloecker2011product, DeLoecker16, dhyne2020theory}. \citet{DeLoecker2014firm} provide a more detailed overview of this literature, and also discusses various issues related to revenue production functions in detail. Since most of the literature so far has focused on identifying single-product production functions, I focus on that case, but my results generalize to multi-product settings where production is non-joint. My contribution to this strand of the literature is to underscore the importance of the further development of these methods and the product-level production data they deploy. \\

The rest of this paper is structured as follows. Section TODO introduces the setting and assumptions. Section TODO states and discusses the main non-identification results. It then provides provides parametric examples and establishes the (partial) identification of the revenue CES production function under a constant returns to scale restriction. Section TODO concludes.

\paragraph{\textbf{Notation}.} Throughout, I refer to vectors of variables in bold font, unknown variables in Greek letters, and observed variables in Latin letters. Levels of observed variables and functions are written in capitals, while natural logarithms  are written in lowercase, unless the logarithm is explicitly stated.

\section{Setting}

Before stating the main result, I introduce the model and assumptions it relies on. As discussed, these assumptions hold across a wide range of production functions and market structures with imperfect competition. I emphasize that, as I am only concerned with identification but not with estimation, my result does not depend on several of the restrictive assumptions typically imposed in the production function literature, in particular the scalar unobservability assumption on material input demand and the Markov assumptions on unobserved productivity. Moreover, the result generally allows for inputs to be either freely variable or subject to adjustment costs, as long as there is at least one variable input.\footnote{In fact, the more inputs are subject to adjustment costs, the stronger the result.} Additionally, the result continues to hold in the presence of unobserved factor-augmenting productivity, but I do not express this explicitly to save notation. \\

I consider a general class of non-parametric production functions first introduced by \citet{shephard1953cost}. Denote $X^S_{it}$ a vector of dynamically chosen, separable production function inputs, and $X_{it}$ a vector of freely variable, non-separable inputs. Also, denote unobserved Hicks-neutral (total-factor) productivity $\omega{it}$ and the vectors of unobserved factor-augmenting productivity terms for separable and non-separable inputs $\omega^{S}_{it}, \omega^X_{it}$. Again, $\varepsilon_{it}$ denotes an unobserved error term capturing ex-post output shocks and/or measurement error in output. Finally, $Q_{it}$ denotes observed output and $Q^*_{it} := Q_{it} / \varepsilon_{it}$ planned output. I assume the following,

\begin{assumption}[Weak homothetic separability] \label{asspt:homothetic}\
    \begin{enumerate}[(i)]
        \item The production function of firm $i$ in time $t$ is of the form
            \begin{equation} \label{eq:homothetic}
                Q_{it} = F_t\left( \boldsymbol{\omega}^X_{it} \cdot \mathbf{X}_{it}, h_t\left( \boldsymbol{\omega}^X_{it} \cdot \mathbf{X}_{it}, \boldsymbol{\omega}^V_{it} \cdot  \mathbf{X}^V_{it} \right) \right)  \exp(\omega_{it}) \exp( \varepsilon_{it}),
            \end{equation}
            where
        \item $h_{t}\left(\mathbf{X}^V_{i t}, \cdot \right) \text { is homogeneous of arbitrary degree (homothetic) for all } \mathbf{X}^V_{it}$.
    \end{enumerate}
\end{assumption}

\begin{assumption}[Cost minimization] \label{asspt:costmin}
    The firm minimizes its short-term cost of production with respect to its freely variable non-separable inputs $\mathbf{X}^V_{it}$, input prices $\mathbf{P^V} := (P^L_{it}, P^M_{it})$ and the productivity shocks $(\boldsymbol{\omega}^X_{it}, \boldsymbol{\omega}^V_{it}, \omega_{it})$.
\end{assumption}

Assumption \ref{asspt:homothetic} (i) formulates a non-parametric production function and is without loss of generality.\footnote{The only purpose of the exponents is to facilitate taking logs later on, and to align with the notation in the literature.} Assumption \ref{asspt:homothetic} (ii) implies that ratio of the non-separable inputs' marginal product depends only on the inputs through their ratio \citep[p.9]{Demirer2020production}. This assumption only restricts my model insofar as Assumption \ref{asspt:costmin} requires that the inputs with respect to which the firm minimizes its short-term cost are homothetic in $h(\cdot)$.\footnote{Also, note that these restrictions allow for any additional type of functional dependence between the separable inputs $X^S_{it}$.} This does not mean that the entire production function has to satisfy homotheticity. Moreover, if only one input enters the firm's short-term cost, then (ii) is also without loss of generality. For example, consider a standard three-input setup, with capital $K_{it}$, labor $L_{it}$, and material (or intermediate) inputs $M_{it}$. If labor $L_{it}$ is subject to some adjustment cost \citep{Hamermesh1988labor,Cooper2004dynamics, hall2004measuring} and therefore dynamically chosen, we have $\mathbf{X}^V_{it} = M_{it}$, and homotheticity of $h(\cdot)$ is always satisfied. When both labor and material inputs are freely variable, however, the restriction on $h(\cdot)$ becomes meaningful. Even then, all commonly used parametric production functions satisfy homothetic separability of labor and material inputs.\footnote{See \citet{Demirer2020production} for parametric examples.} Finally, the factor-augmenting productivity terms $\boldsymbol{\omega^X_{it}}, \boldsymbol{\omega^V_{it}}$ are only there for full generality, and can simply be set equal to 1 to obtain the canonical case in the literature with only $\omega_{it}$.\footnote{Recent advances have sought to accommodate labor-augmenting productivity \citep{Demirer2020production,doraszelski2018measuring, raval2019micro} or even factor-augmenting productivity for all factors of production \citep{zhang2019non}.} In what follows, I omit these terms to ease notation. Similarly, I will drop the time subscripts on all functions written below, though they are allowed to be time-varying in general.

\section{Non-Identification of the Revenue Production Function}

\subsection{Main Result}

We are now equipped to prove our main result. Denote a firm's target revenue $R^*_{it} := P_{it} \cdot Q^*_{it}$ where $P_{it}$ indicates firm-level output prices. Also, write $S^{*V}_{it} := \frac{P^V_{it} X^V_{it}}{R^*_{it}}$ to indicate the revenue share of the input $X_{it} \in \mathbf{X}^V_{it}$ with input price $P^V_{it} \in \mathbf{P}^V_{it}$.

\begin{theorem}[Non-Identification of the Production Function] \label{thm:nonIdentification_K}

If Assumptions \ref{asspt:homothetic} and \ref{asspt:costmin} are satisfied, the revenue production function can be written as,

\begin{equation} \label{eq:revenueProdF_noPF}
\begin{split}
    R_{it} & =
       C_2\left( \mathbf{X}_{it}, \mathbf{X}^V_{it}, \mathbf{P}^V_{it} \right) \frac{ \partial h( \mathbf{X}_{it}, \mathbf{X}^V_{it} ) }{ \partial \text{log} X }
       (S^{*V}_{it})^{-1} \exp(\varepsilon_{it}),
\end{split}
\end{equation}

\noindent where $\displaystyle C_2\left( \mathbf{X}_{it}, \mathbf{X}^V_{it}, \mathbf{P}^V_{it} \right) := \min_{\mathbf{X}^V_{it}} \left\{ \mathbf{P^V_{it}} \cdot \mathbf{X}^V_{it}  : 1 \leqslant h( \mathbf{X}^S_{it}, \mathbf{X}_{it} ) \right\}$ is a separable part of the cost function and, without loss of generality, $F(\cdot)$ and $h(\cdot)$ are normalized to make $h(\cdot)$ homogeneous of degree 1.

Since only the separable part of the production function in Assumption \ref{asspt:homothetic} shows up in these expressions, all production functions $F(\cdot)$ that satisfy the stated assumptions are observationally equivalent in the sense of \citet{lewbel2019identification} with respect to Eq. \ref{eq:revenueProdF_noPF}. As a result, we say that $F(\cdot)$ is not identified from the revenue production function.\\

\textbf{Proof.} See Appendix.

\end{theorem}

\begin{corollary}[Non-Identification of Productivity] \label{thm:nonIdentification_omega}
    Under Assumptions \ref{asspt:homothetic} and \ref{asspt:costmin}, Hicks-neutral productivity cannot be identified from a revenue production function.\\

    \textbf{Proof.} Follows immediately from Eq. \ref{eq:revenueProdF_noPF}.

\end{corollary}

The idea behind Theorem \ref{thm:nonIdentification_K} is that output prices can be expressed as the product of the markup $\mu_{it}$ and the marginal cost $\lambda_{it}$, and both of these depend directly on the production function and its derivatives. To see this, express the markup as the ratio of the output elasticity to the revenue share of a freely variable input using the first-order conditions of cost minimization \citep{DeLoecker12, klette1999market}:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:markup}
    \mu = \dpar{F(\cdot, h( \cdot, \cdot ) )}{h( \cdot, \cdot ) }
    \dpar{h( \cdot, \cdot ) }{\text{log} X^V}
    \frac{X^V}{F(\cdot, h(\cdot,\cdot) ) )} (S_{it}^{*V})^{-1}, \: X^V \in \mathbf{X}^V_{it},
\end{equation}

where we can see that the production function shows up directly in the denominator. In this way, the markup can be expressed as a function of only production parameters, observables, and unobservables. The intuition behind this remarkable insight is a simple cost-benefit condition. The output elasticity tells us the percent increase in revenue for a percent increase in material inputs. The revenue share $ S^{*V}_{it}$, on the other hand, tells us what percent of revenue is spent on input costs for each percent increase in input (since $\frac{\partial  s^{*V}_{it}}{\partial m_{it}} = S^{*V}_{it}$). As long as $ \dpar{F(\cdot, h( \cdot, \cdot ) )}{\text{log} X^V} > S^{*V}_{it}$, the firm is making a profit, and in fact, the gap between both is exactly equal to the markup.

Moreover, the marginal cost is the derivative of cost function with respect to output, which by homothetic separability and duality of the cost and production functions depends directly on the derivative of the production function with respect to its non-separable part $h(\cdot)$.

\begin{equation} \label{eq:marginal_cost}
    \lambda_{it} = C_2\left( \mathbf{X}_{it}, \mathbf{X}^V_{it}, \mathbf{P}^V_{it} \right)  \dpar{F(\cdot, h( \cdot, \cdot ) )}{h( \cdot, \cdot ) } \exp(\omega_{it})^{-1}
\end{equation}

Comparing the expressions in Eqs. \ref{eq:marginal_cost}, \ref{eq:markup}, and \ref{eq:homothetic}, it is immediately clear that all functions depending directly on the production function $F(\cdot)$ cancel out, as does productivity. It might be possible to identify the functions $C_2(\cdot), h(\cdot)$; but most objects of interest require identification of the entire production function, as I illustrate in two leading parametric cases below. Additionally, these expressions make it clear that approaches that aim to resolve the bias in revenue production functions by controlling for the markup using observables \citep{DeLoecker19, kirov2021measuring} cannot aid identification, as any effective set of controls directly controls for the production function as well, absorbing all identifying variation.

Earlier papers that have considered the same issue have suggested that the introduction of input prices on the left-hand side of the revenue production function may alleviate the complications caused by unobserved output prices.\citep{DeLoecker2014firm, DeLoecker19, de2021comment} Using the first-order conditions of cost minimization and the definition of marginal cost as the derivative of the cost function, however, we can write the input prices of variable input $X^V$ as,

\begin{align}
    P^V_{it} & = \lambda_{it} \dpar{F(\cdot, h(\cdot))}{X^V_{it}} \exp(\omega_{it}) =  C_2(\cdot)  \dpar{h(\cdot, \cdot)}{X^V_{it}},
\end{align}

which shows that input prices cannot introduce any additional identifying information into the revenue production function. \\

The importance of these results is twofold. First, most parametric production functions (including all the self-dual production functions), satisfy weak homothetic separability, which implies that most previous studies that estimated returns to scale or markups using revenue as a proxy for output are likely unidentified. Of course, if one is willing to introduce more structure, for example, by specifying a demand system to obtain an additional expression for output price as in \citet{deloecker2011product}, then this result need not hold. The appeal of production function estimation, however, lies precisely in the fact that the same estimator can be applied uniformly across industries. Since demand estimation typically requires industry-specific modelling assumptions, it is not clear that specifying demand systems is a satisfactory solution to this non-identification issue. Second, since these results apply to a general class of production functions and market structures, and demonstrate not just the estimation bias but the non-identification of revenue production functions, they underscore the importance of developing suitable estimators and datasets that address these issues \citep{dhyne2020theory}. In the absence of explicit consideration of this non-identification, the results suggest that practitioners should avoid estimating production functions with revenue data.

\subsection{Parametric Examples}

Below, I demonstrate Theorem \ref{thm:nonIdentification_K} for two leading self-dual parametric production functions, the Cobb-Douglas and CES production function.\footnote{Self-duality means that these production functions have a parametric cost function that can be derived from cost minimization. For another popular parametric production function, the translog, the result cannot be directly demonstrated, as the translog is a semi-parametric approximation of the CES and hence does not satisfy self-duality. Nonetheless, by the fact that it approximates a self-dual production function, the argument holds.} Since these functions require parametric assumptions, I let $X_{it} = K_{it}, \mathbf{X}^V_{it} = (L_{it}, M_{it})$, but the derivations do not depend on these particular choices.

\subsubsection{Cobb-Douglas}

For the Cobb-Douglas production function,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:CD_levels}
    Q_{it} = K_{it}^{\beta_K} \left( \text{exp}(\omega^L_{it}) L_{it} \right)^{\beta_L} M_{it}^{\beta_M} \text{exp}(\omega_{it})\text{exp}(\varepsilon_{it}),
\end{equation}
the revenue production function in Eq. \ref{eq:revenueProdF_noPF} can be written as,

\begin{equation} \label{eq:CD_revenue}
\begin{split}
    r_{it} =
    \theta_0 +  {\frac{\beta_L}{\beta_L + \beta_M}}  l^e_{it} + {\frac{\beta_M}{\beta_L + \beta_M}}  m^e_{it}
     - s^{*V}_{it} +
    \varepsilon_{it},  \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}

\noindent with  $ \theta_0 = -\text{log}(\beta_L + \beta_M) + \frac{\beta_M - \beta_L}{\beta_L + \beta_M}\left( \text{log}\beta_L -\text{log}\beta_M \right) + \text{log} \beta_V$ for some $V \in (L, M)$.\footnote{See Appendix \ref{sec_app:derivations} for the full derivations.}  \\

The equation demonstrates Theorem \ref{thm:nonIdentification_K}, as the coefficient on capital, which determines the non-separable part of the production function, is not identified. In fact, none of the parameters of the revenue Cobb-Douglas are identified. The reason is that knowledge of the separable part, $h(L_{it}, M_{it}) = L_{it}^{\frac{\beta_L}{\beta_L+\beta_M}} M_{it}^\frac{\beta_M}{\beta_L + \beta_M}$, only allows us to identify the ratio of short-run output elasticities, since we can multiply all coefficients $\beta_L, \beta_M$ by the same constant and it continues to hold. Furthermore, Hicks-neutral productivity drops out of the equation, illustrating Corollary \ref{thm:nonIdentification_omega}.

\subsubsection{CES Production Function}

Write the CES production function as,

\begin{equation}
Q^*_{it} = \left( (1-\beta_L - \beta_M) K_{it}^\sigma + \beta_L (\omega^L_{it} L_{it})^\sigma + \beta_M M_{it}^\sigma \right)^{\frac{v}{\sigma}} \exp(\omega_{it}) \exp(\varepsilon_{it}),
\end{equation}

\noindent where $\beta_L, \beta_M$ are the share parameters, $v$ is the return to scale parameter, and $\sigma$ is the elasticity of substitution parameter. The revenue equivalent is,

\begin{align} \label{eq:CS_revenue}
    r_{it} = & \text{log} \beta_V  + \sigma x^V_{it} + \frac{1-\sigma}{\sigma} \text{log} \left( \beta_L  L_{it}^\sigma + \beta_M M_{it}^\sigma  \right) +  \nonumber \frac{\sigma-1}{\sigma} \text{log} B - s_{it}^{*V} + \epsilon_{it},
\end{align}

where the unit cost function $B := (P^L_{it})^{\frac{\sigma}{\sigma-1}} \beta_L^{-\frac{1}{\sigma-1}} + (P^M_{it})^{\frac{\sigma}{\sigma-1}} \beta_M^{-\frac{1}{\sigma-1}} $. Again, following Theorem \ref{thm:nonIdentification_K}, we can see that the non-separable part of the production function is not identified, as the returns to scale $v$ do not show up in this expression. Similarly, $\omega_{it}$ again drops out, in line with Corollary \ref{thm:nonIdentification_omega}. Contrary to the Cobb-Douglas case however, some of the CES parameters are actually identified from the revenue production function. In the next section, I discuss in more detail what can be learned from the revenue CES under some additional assumptions.

\section{Labor-Augmenting Productivity in the Revenue CES}

Even though neither the Cobb-Douglas nor the non-parametric revenue production function are identified, we can identify the parameters of the non-separable part of the revenue CES without further restrictions. The cancelling out of the Hicks-neutral productivity term then opens the road for the straightforward identification of labor-augmenting productivity, which has been the subject of recent interest in the literature \citep{Demirer2020production, doraszelski2018measuring}. To that end, we need to introduce two more assumptions, whose equivalents for Hicks-neutral productivity are standard in the literature.

\begin{assumption}[First-order Markov] \label{asspt:markov}
    Labor-augmenting productivity follows a first-order Markov process,
    \begin{equation}
        \mathsf{P}(\omega_{it}^L \mid \mathcal{F}_{it-1}) = \mathsf{P}(\omega_{it}^L \mid \omega_{it-1}^L)
    \end{equation}
\end{assumption}

\begin{assumption}[Information set] \label{asspt:information}
    The firm's information set at time $t$, $\mathcal{F}_{it}$ contains current and past labor-augmenting productivity shocks, $\{ \omega^L_{it} \}_{\tau=0}^{t}$, but not future shocks, $\{ \omega^L_{it} \}_{\tau=t+1}^{\infty}$,
\end{assumption}
Together, these assumptions imply that we can write,  $\text{log}\omega^L_{it} = g\left(\text{log} \omega^L_{it-1}\right) + \xi_{it}$,  where $\mathbb{E}[\xi_{it} | \mathcal{F}_{it-1}] = 0$, since $\text{log} \omega^L_{it-1} = E[\text{log} \omega^L_{it} | \mathcal{F}_{it}] + \xi_{it}$.

In addition, I continue to assume that both labor and material inputs are freely variable, so that we can use the cost minimization first-order conditions to obtain a proxy for labor-augmenting productivity as in \citet{Demirer2020production}.\footnote{One could alternatively allow for labor to be dynamically chosen, in which case this proxy would have a term for labor adjustment costs \citep{Doraszelski2019using}.}

In what follows, I express the markup using the output elasticity with respect to material inputs throughout. The derivations are analogous when expressing it with respect to labor inputs.
The revenue CES with labor-augmenting productivity can then be written as,

\begin{align} \label{eq:CS_revenue}
    r_{it} = & \text{log} \beta_M + \sigma m_{it} + \frac{1-\sigma}{\sigma} \text{log} \left( \beta_L (\omega^L_{it} L_{it})^\sigma + \beta_M M_{it}^\sigma  \right) +   \frac{\sigma-1}{\sigma} \text{log} B - s_{it}^{X},
\end{align}
where I have replaced $s_{it}^{*x}$ with observed $s_{it}^x$, causing $\varepsilon_{it}$ to drop out, and the expression for $B$ is identical to before, except we replace $P^L_{it}$ by effective labor prices $P^L_{it} / \exp(\omega^L_{it})$.

This expression is not directly invertible for $\omega^L_{it}$, but we can substitute it out in $B$ by using the proxy \citep{Demirer2020production},\footnote{Note that direct substitution of all $\omega^L_{it}$ terms causes all terms to cancel out, because we only have two cost minimization first-order conditions to replace the three unobservables $\omega^L_{it}$, $\mu_{it}$, $\lambda_{it}$.}

\begin{equation}
\omega_{i t}^{L}=\gamma \tilde{L}^{\left(1-\sigma \right) / \sigma}, \quad \gamma:=\left(\frac{\left(\beta_M\right) p_{t}^{l}}{\beta_{l} p_{t}^{m}}\right)^{1 / \sigma},
\end{equation}

after which we can invert out for $\text{log} \omega^L_{it}$ to get,

\begin{align} \label{eq:omegal_CES}
    \text{log} \omega^L_{it} = &  \left(  \frac{\sigma}{1-\sigma}   r_{it} + \text{log} \beta_M - \frac{\sigma^2}{1-\sigma} m_{it} + l_{it} + p^L_{it} - \frac{\sigma}{1-\sigma} (p^M_{it} + s^M_{it} ) \right) \nonumber \\
    & \left( \text{log} \beta_M + \sigma m_{it} \right)^{-1} - \frac{1}{\sigma} \text{log} \beta_L - l_{it}
\end{align}

Based on this expression, we can follow the standard approach in the ``proxy variable'' literature \citep{Olley1996, Ackerberg15} and form moments on $E[\text{log} \omega^L_{it} - g(\text{log} \omega^L_{it})]$. The result below establishes what we can identify.

\begin{proposition}[Identification of the Deflated Revenue  CES]
Suppose that the joint distribution over $(\mathcal{A}_{it}, \mathcal{A}_{it-1})$ is absolutely continuous with positive density everywhere on its support, where $\mathcal{A}_{it} := \left(m_{it}, l_{it}, p^L_{it} \right)$. Suppose also that Assumptions \ref{asspt:markov} and \ref{asspt:information} hold. Furthermore, assume that $g(\cdot)$ can be approximated by a polynomial in $\omega^L_{it}$. Then, based on Eq. \ref{eq:omegal_CES}, $(\beta_M, \sigma)$ are identified, $(\beta_L, g(\cdot), \omega^L_{it})$ are generically identified \citep{matzkin2007nonparametric}, and $v$ is not identified.  \\

\textbf{Proof.} See Appendix.
\end{proposition}

Thus, in the special case of the CES, we can identify labor-augmenting productivity under fairly minimal assumptions. In particular, we did not need to impose the restrictive ``scalar unobservability'' assumption which is common in the literature, which requires that there is no unobserved heterogeneity in firms' residual demand curves. Labor-augmenting productivity is not, however, identified in the general case, since its proxy depends only on derivatives of $C_2(\cdot,\cdot)$ \citep{Demirer2020production} so it cannot be substituted out.\footnote{This is the same argument as in the CES case: we cannot use the same two FOCs to identify three unobservables.} If one is willing to impose a returns to scale restriction on the CES (i.e. assume a value for $v$), the entire CES production function is identified, as are the output elasticities and markups. Since the main focus of this paper is the identification of the revenue production function, however, I leave their estimation to future work.

\section{Conclusion}

\clearpage
\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{References}
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}