- Email: [email protected]
Scale economies and intra-industry trade
Economics Letters 108 (2010) 190–192
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Economics Letters j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e c o l e t
Scale economies and intra-industry trade Don P. Clark ⁎ Department of Economics, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-0550, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 26 June 2008 Received in revised form 19 April 2010 Accepted 26 April 2010 Available online 10 June 2010
a b s t r a c t This investigation of the relationship between intra-industry trade and scale economies shows industries with low scale economies more frequently have high, rather than low, intra-industry trade shares. Theoretical studies should focus on causes of intra-industry trade other than scale economies. © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Scale economies Intra-industry trade JEL classification: F10 F12
1. Introduction Much attention has been devoted to explaining intra-industry trade — the two-way trade of products falling under the same industry classification. Theoretical studies have attempted to explain two-way trade in horizontally differentiated products using models of Chamberlinian monopolistic competition with increasing returns (Ethier, 1982; Helpman, 1981; Krugman, 1979, 1980, 1981; Lancaster, 1980; Dixit and Norman, 1980; Dixit and Stiglitz, 1977). The basic model of intra-industry trade views the structure of production in each country as being determined by relative factor endowments. Each industry is defined to include a wide range of potential products, produced with the same factor intensity under conditions of product-specific increasing returns. Without scale economies, a country would produce all varieties of a product domestically. Firms are assumed to be producing on the downwardsloping region of their average cost curves. Scale economies force firms in each country to specialize in a limited subset of products in order to realize efficient scale operations. This model has an autarky equilibrium with firms producing differentiated products. Intraindustry specialization, combined with diverse consumer tastes, leads to imports of products falling under industry classifications for which a country enjoys strong export positions. The resulting pattern of trade will be two-way trade within the same industry classification. Intra-industry trade is believed to be greater in industries where firms produce differentiated products under conditions of increasing returns. This has led to an expectation that intra-industry trade will be
⁎ Tel.: +1 865 974 1706; fax: +1 865 974 4601. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0165-1765/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2010.04.039
positively related to scale economies, but negative relationships are established in nearly all empirical studies.1 Theoretical models assume intra-industry trade depends on the presence of unexhausted scale economies. Helpman (1999) has argued that the existence of scale economies, not the degree is important for determining the extent of intra-industry specialization. This paper investigates the relationship between intra-industry trade and scale economies in production. There are several reasons for expecting industries with low levels of scale economies to have high rather than low intra-industry trade shares. First, economies of scale are limited for monopolistically competitive firms that produce differentiated products. Economies of scale will be exhausted at low levels of output to enable many firms to coexist in an industry. Average cost curves may be flat over a wide range of output after scale economies are exhausted. When this is the case, changes in output will not alter per unit costs. Low scale economies will lead to more firms (varieties) in an industry whose outputs enter trade. Second, Balassa (1986) argues plant-level scale economies are captured in industries with large firms whose costs decline with increases in plant size. These firms produce standardized products such as petrochemicals, steel, and nonferrous metals. Scale economies are captured as fewer products are produced in a plant. Horizontal specialization results in standardized products that are associated with inter-industry rather than intra-industry trade.2 Empirical studies use measures of plant-level scale economies as proxies for the degree of 1 See, for example, Balassa (1986), Balassa and Bauwens (1987), and Clark and Stanley (2003). 2 Ethier (1982) recognizes that high scale economies may inhibit intra-industry trade by causing standardization of products.
D.P. Clark / Economics Letters 108 (2010) 190–192
product standardization and expect a negative association between intra-industry trade and scale economies. Vertical specialization is a third reason for expecting industries with low scale economies to have high intra-industry trade. Here, stages of vertically integrated processing chains are fragmented with each production stage located in the country where it can be conducted at least cost. Parts, components, subassemblies, and the final product are produced in separate plants. According to Balassa (1986), vertical specialization tends to reduce rather than to increase plant size as operations are subdivided among many plants. Outputs from different stages of production that are exported and are subsequently returned embodied in more advanced stages of products contribute to intra-industry trade because these two-way trade flows are often recorded under the same industry classification. 2. Empirical strategy Modern models of production and trade assume intra-industry trade will be positively related to the scope for scale economies but not necessarily to the level of scale economies. Therefore, it may be inappropriate to hypothesize a simple linear, direct relationship when investigating the association between intra-industry trade and scale economies. Reasons were advanced above for expecting industries with low scale economies to have high rather than low intra-industry trade. An interesting question is whether industries with “low” scale economies are associated with “high” or “low” intra-industry trade. Data requirements include measures of intra-industry trade and scale economies. The share of intra-industry trade in total trade is measured using the Grubel and Lloyd (1975) index (GL), expressed as h i GLi = ðXi + Mi Þ −jXi −Mi j = ðXi + Mi Þ;
ð1Þ
where Xi is exports of industry i, Mi is imports of industry i, |Xi − Mi| is net trade, and (Xi + Mi) is total trade. An index value of 0 indicates complete inter-industry trade. Here, either the value of exports or imports would be zero. Higher index values are associated with greater intra-industry trade as a share of total trade, with an index value of 1 indicating equality between exports and imports. A variable measuring the volume of intra-industry trade, IITi = [(Xi + Mi) − |Xi − Mi |], is also used in the analysis. Empirical estimates of plant-level scale economies are not available for most industries. Minimum efficient scale (MES), expressing average sales (per firm) for firms in the midpoint class size as a percentage of industry shipment values, is commonly used as a proxy for scale economies. Caves et al. (1975), Comanor and Wilson (1967), and Strickland and Weiss (1976) consider MES to be the preferred proxy for plant-level scale economies. MES can be calculated for 357 six-digit North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) industries using figures from a U.S. Census Bureau (2004) publication. Data pertain to the year 2002. Trade figures are from the U.S. International Trade Commission's DataWeb (http://www.dataweb.usitc.gov). This study determines whether industries consisting of firms with low scale economies more frequently have high or low intra-industry trade, both in absolute terms and relative to total trade. Data for intraindustry trade and scale economy variables were ranked, and then divided into “high” and “low” groupings based on median values. The Chi-square test is used to investigate associations between intraindustry trade and scale economies.3 This simple nonparametric test does not require any assumptions concerning linearity in relationships between intra-industry trade and MES, nor does it require
3 The Chi-square test requires the construction of 2 by 2 contingency tables. Data consists of frequencies in discrete “high” and “low” categories. The test requires that the sample be random, a condition hardly ever met in economic studies. See Siegel (1956) for a description of this test.
191
Table 1 MES correlated with GL and IIT, 2002. Spearman's ρ
Industry
Pearson's r
Characteristic
GL
IIT
GL
IIT
MES
−0.174 (0.001)
−0.030 (0.564)
−0.121 (0.022)
−0.063 (0.232)
Note: p-values in parentheses, two-tail tests.
Table 2 Percent distributions of MES, 2002. Industry Characteristic
High GL
High MES Low MES Chi-square
42.70 58.10 57.30 41.90 7.87, (p b .002)
Low GL
High IIT
Low IIT
52.51 53.93 53.07 46.07 1.483, (p b .111)
Note: p-values in parentheses, two-tail tests.
variables to be measured on an interval scale. If scale economies play an important role in determining intra-industry trade, we would expect to find industries with high (low) scale economies will more frequently have high (low) intra-industry trade.
3. Results Table 1 presents results of correlations between MES and both intra-industry trade shares (GL) and absolute intra-industry trade levels (IIT) using Pearson's r, Spearman's ρ, and the Chi-square test. Pearson's r and the Spearman rank correlation coefficients show significant negative relationships between GL and MES, but the correlations are small. No significant relationships are found between IIT levels and MES. Pearson's r, a parametric measure of correlation, assumes linearity in relationships among variables. Spearman's ρ, a non-parametric test, assumes straight rankings. Chi-square tests of independence provide interesting results. The null hypothesis of independence between intra-industry trade and scale economies is tested against the alternative hypothesis that industries with low scale economies will more frequently have high intra-industry trade. Results presented in Table 2 show a significant association between GL and MES. This association is in the expected direction in that low scale economies are associated with high intraindustry trade shares. The association between scale economies and IIT levels is not as strong. These findings cast doubt on the role of unexhausted scale economies in determining intra-industry trade.
4. Conclusions Industries with low scale economies more frequently have high rather than low intra-industry trade shares. This finding is consistent with arguments advanced by Balassa (1986) and casts doubt on the role of unexhausted scale economies in determining intra-industry trade. Product differentiation, necessary for intra-industry trade, may not involve scale economies. Theoretical models should focus attention on causes of production cost changes, product differentiation, and intraindustry trade other than scale economies. For example, Davis (1995) shows that intra-industry trade can be generated by technological differences between countries in the absence of scale economies. Falvey (1981), Falvey and Kierzkowski (1985), and Flam and Helpman (1978) explore models of two-way trade in vertically (quality) differentiated products that do not require scale economies. Greenaway et al. (1995) suggests vertical intra-industry trade based on quality differences may dominate horizontal intra-industry trade.
192
D.P. Clark / Economics Letters 108 (2010) 190–192
Acknowledgment The author is grateful to the anonymous referee for providing many helpful comments. References Balassa, B., 1986. The determinants of intra-industry specialization in United States trade. Oxford Economic Papers 38, 220–233. Balassa, B., Bauwens, L., 1987. Intra-industry specialization in a multi-country and multi-industry framework. Economic Journal 97, 923–939. Caves, R.E., Khalilzadeh-Shirazi, J., Porter, M.E., 1975. Scale economies in statistical analyses of market power. Review of Economics and Statistics 57, 133–140. Clark, D.P., Stanley, D.L., 2003. Determinants of intraindustry trade between the United States and industrial nations. International Economic Journal 17, 1–17. Comanor, W.S., Wilson, T.A., 1967. Advertising market structure and performance. Review of Economics and Statistics 49, 423–440. Davis, D.R., 1995. Intra-industry trade: a Heckscher–Ohlin–Ricardo approach. Journal of International Economics 39, 201–226. Dixit, A.K., Norman, V., 1980. Theory of international trade: a dual, general equilibrium approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Dixit, A.K., Stiglitz, J.E., 1977. Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity. American Economic Review 67, 297–308. Ethier, W.J., 1982. National and international returns to scale in the modern theory of international trade. American Economic Review 72, 389–405. Falvey, R.E., 1981. Commercial policy and intra-industry trade. Journal of International Economics 11, 495–511.
Falvey, R.E., Kierzkowski, H., 1985. Product quality, intraindustry trade and (im)perfect competition. In: Kierzkowski, H. (Ed.), Protection and Competition in International Trade. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Flam, H., Helpman, E., 1978. Vertical product differentiation and north–south trade. American Economic Review 77, 810–822. Greenaway, D., Hine, R., Milner, C., 1995. Vertical and horizontal intra-industry trade: a cross industry analysis for the United Kingdom. Economic Journal 105, 1505–1518. Grubel, H.G., Lloyd, P.J., 1975. The theory and measurement of international trade in differentiated products. Macmillan, London. Helpman, E., 1981. International trade in the presence of product differentiation, economies of scale, and monopolistic competition: a Chamberlin–Heckscher–Ohlin approach. Journal of International Economics 11, 305–340. Helpman, E., 1999. The structure of foreign trade. Journal of Economic Perspectives 13, 124–144. Krugman, P.R., 1979. Increasing returns, monopolistic competition and international trade. Journal of International Economics 9, 469–479. Krugman, P.R., 1980. Scale economies, product differentiation, and the pattern of trade. American Economic Review 70, 950–959. Krugman, P.R., 1981. Intraindustry specialization and the gains from trade. Journal of Political Economy 89, 959–973. Lancaster, K., 1980. Intra-industry trade under perfect monopolistic competition. Journal of International Economics 10, 151–175. Siegel, S., 1956. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw–Hill, New York. Strickland, A.D., Weiss, L.W., 1976. Advertising, concentration, and price-cost margins. Journal of Political Economy 84, 1109–1122. U.S. Census Bureau, 2004. 2002 Economic Census: Manufacturing-Industry Series. The Bureau, Washington, D.C.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Economics Letters j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e c o l e t
Scale economies and intra-industry trade Don P. Clark ⁎ Department of Economics, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-0550, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 26 June 2008 Received in revised form 19 April 2010 Accepted 26 April 2010 Available online 10 June 2010
a b s t r a c t This investigation of the relationship between intra-industry trade and scale economies shows industries with low scale economies more frequently have high, rather than low, intra-industry trade shares. Theoretical studies should focus on causes of intra-industry trade other than scale economies. © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Scale economies Intra-industry trade JEL classification: F10 F12
1. Introduction Much attention has been devoted to explaining intra-industry trade — the two-way trade of products falling under the same industry classification. Theoretical studies have attempted to explain two-way trade in horizontally differentiated products using models of Chamberlinian monopolistic competition with increasing returns (Ethier, 1982; Helpman, 1981; Krugman, 1979, 1980, 1981; Lancaster, 1980; Dixit and Norman, 1980; Dixit and Stiglitz, 1977). The basic model of intra-industry trade views the structure of production in each country as being determined by relative factor endowments. Each industry is defined to include a wide range of potential products, produced with the same factor intensity under conditions of product-specific increasing returns. Without scale economies, a country would produce all varieties of a product domestically. Firms are assumed to be producing on the downwardsloping region of their average cost curves. Scale economies force firms in each country to specialize in a limited subset of products in order to realize efficient scale operations. This model has an autarky equilibrium with firms producing differentiated products. Intraindustry specialization, combined with diverse consumer tastes, leads to imports of products falling under industry classifications for which a country enjoys strong export positions. The resulting pattern of trade will be two-way trade within the same industry classification. Intra-industry trade is believed to be greater in industries where firms produce differentiated products under conditions of increasing returns. This has led to an expectation that intra-industry trade will be
⁎ Tel.: +1 865 974 1706; fax: +1 865 974 4601. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0165-1765/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2010.04.039
positively related to scale economies, but negative relationships are established in nearly all empirical studies.1 Theoretical models assume intra-industry trade depends on the presence of unexhausted scale economies. Helpman (1999) has argued that the existence of scale economies, not the degree is important for determining the extent of intra-industry specialization. This paper investigates the relationship between intra-industry trade and scale economies in production. There are several reasons for expecting industries with low levels of scale economies to have high rather than low intra-industry trade shares. First, economies of scale are limited for monopolistically competitive firms that produce differentiated products. Economies of scale will be exhausted at low levels of output to enable many firms to coexist in an industry. Average cost curves may be flat over a wide range of output after scale economies are exhausted. When this is the case, changes in output will not alter per unit costs. Low scale economies will lead to more firms (varieties) in an industry whose outputs enter trade. Second, Balassa (1986) argues plant-level scale economies are captured in industries with large firms whose costs decline with increases in plant size. These firms produce standardized products such as petrochemicals, steel, and nonferrous metals. Scale economies are captured as fewer products are produced in a plant. Horizontal specialization results in standardized products that are associated with inter-industry rather than intra-industry trade.2 Empirical studies use measures of plant-level scale economies as proxies for the degree of 1 See, for example, Balassa (1986), Balassa and Bauwens (1987), and Clark and Stanley (2003). 2 Ethier (1982) recognizes that high scale economies may inhibit intra-industry trade by causing standardization of products.
D.P. Clark / Economics Letters 108 (2010) 190–192
product standardization and expect a negative association between intra-industry trade and scale economies. Vertical specialization is a third reason for expecting industries with low scale economies to have high intra-industry trade. Here, stages of vertically integrated processing chains are fragmented with each production stage located in the country where it can be conducted at least cost. Parts, components, subassemblies, and the final product are produced in separate plants. According to Balassa (1986), vertical specialization tends to reduce rather than to increase plant size as operations are subdivided among many plants. Outputs from different stages of production that are exported and are subsequently returned embodied in more advanced stages of products contribute to intra-industry trade because these two-way trade flows are often recorded under the same industry classification. 2. Empirical strategy Modern models of production and trade assume intra-industry trade will be positively related to the scope for scale economies but not necessarily to the level of scale economies. Therefore, it may be inappropriate to hypothesize a simple linear, direct relationship when investigating the association between intra-industry trade and scale economies. Reasons were advanced above for expecting industries with low scale economies to have high rather than low intra-industry trade. An interesting question is whether industries with “low” scale economies are associated with “high” or “low” intra-industry trade. Data requirements include measures of intra-industry trade and scale economies. The share of intra-industry trade in total trade is measured using the Grubel and Lloyd (1975) index (GL), expressed as h i GLi = ðXi + Mi Þ −jXi −Mi j = ðXi + Mi Þ;
ð1Þ
where Xi is exports of industry i, Mi is imports of industry i, |Xi − Mi| is net trade, and (Xi + Mi) is total trade. An index value of 0 indicates complete inter-industry trade. Here, either the value of exports or imports would be zero. Higher index values are associated with greater intra-industry trade as a share of total trade, with an index value of 1 indicating equality between exports and imports. A variable measuring the volume of intra-industry trade, IITi = [(Xi + Mi) − |Xi − Mi |], is also used in the analysis. Empirical estimates of plant-level scale economies are not available for most industries. Minimum efficient scale (MES), expressing average sales (per firm) for firms in the midpoint class size as a percentage of industry shipment values, is commonly used as a proxy for scale economies. Caves et al. (1975), Comanor and Wilson (1967), and Strickland and Weiss (1976) consider MES to be the preferred proxy for plant-level scale economies. MES can be calculated for 357 six-digit North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) industries using figures from a U.S. Census Bureau (2004) publication. Data pertain to the year 2002. Trade figures are from the U.S. International Trade Commission's DataWeb (http://www.dataweb.usitc.gov). This study determines whether industries consisting of firms with low scale economies more frequently have high or low intra-industry trade, both in absolute terms and relative to total trade. Data for intraindustry trade and scale economy variables were ranked, and then divided into “high” and “low” groupings based on median values. The Chi-square test is used to investigate associations between intraindustry trade and scale economies.3 This simple nonparametric test does not require any assumptions concerning linearity in relationships between intra-industry trade and MES, nor does it require
3 The Chi-square test requires the construction of 2 by 2 contingency tables. Data consists of frequencies in discrete “high” and “low” categories. The test requires that the sample be random, a condition hardly ever met in economic studies. See Siegel (1956) for a description of this test.
191
Table 1 MES correlated with GL and IIT, 2002. Spearman's ρ
Industry
Pearson's r
Characteristic
GL
IIT
GL
IIT
MES
−0.174 (0.001)
−0.030 (0.564)
−0.121 (0.022)
−0.063 (0.232)
Note: p-values in parentheses, two-tail tests.
Table 2 Percent distributions of MES, 2002. Industry Characteristic
High GL
High MES Low MES Chi-square
42.70 58.10 57.30 41.90 7.87, (p b .002)
Low GL
High IIT
Low IIT
52.51 53.93 53.07 46.07 1.483, (p b .111)
Note: p-values in parentheses, two-tail tests.
variables to be measured on an interval scale. If scale economies play an important role in determining intra-industry trade, we would expect to find industries with high (low) scale economies will more frequently have high (low) intra-industry trade.
3. Results Table 1 presents results of correlations between MES and both intra-industry trade shares (GL) and absolute intra-industry trade levels (IIT) using Pearson's r, Spearman's ρ, and the Chi-square test. Pearson's r and the Spearman rank correlation coefficients show significant negative relationships between GL and MES, but the correlations are small. No significant relationships are found between IIT levels and MES. Pearson's r, a parametric measure of correlation, assumes linearity in relationships among variables. Spearman's ρ, a non-parametric test, assumes straight rankings. Chi-square tests of independence provide interesting results. The null hypothesis of independence between intra-industry trade and scale economies is tested against the alternative hypothesis that industries with low scale economies will more frequently have high intra-industry trade. Results presented in Table 2 show a significant association between GL and MES. This association is in the expected direction in that low scale economies are associated with high intraindustry trade shares. The association between scale economies and IIT levels is not as strong. These findings cast doubt on the role of unexhausted scale economies in determining intra-industry trade.
4. Conclusions Industries with low scale economies more frequently have high rather than low intra-industry trade shares. This finding is consistent with arguments advanced by Balassa (1986) and casts doubt on the role of unexhausted scale economies in determining intra-industry trade. Product differentiation, necessary for intra-industry trade, may not involve scale economies. Theoretical models should focus attention on causes of production cost changes, product differentiation, and intraindustry trade other than scale economies. For example, Davis (1995) shows that intra-industry trade can be generated by technological differences between countries in the absence of scale economies. Falvey (1981), Falvey and Kierzkowski (1985), and Flam and Helpman (1978) explore models of two-way trade in vertically (quality) differentiated products that do not require scale economies. Greenaway et al. (1995) suggests vertical intra-industry trade based on quality differences may dominate horizontal intra-industry trade.
192
D.P. Clark / Economics Letters 108 (2010) 190–192
Acknowledgment The author is grateful to the anonymous referee for providing many helpful comments. References Balassa, B., 1986. The determinants of intra-industry specialization in United States trade. Oxford Economic Papers 38, 220–233. Balassa, B., Bauwens, L., 1987. Intra-industry specialization in a multi-country and multi-industry framework. Economic Journal 97, 923–939. Caves, R.E., Khalilzadeh-Shirazi, J., Porter, M.E., 1975. Scale economies in statistical analyses of market power. Review of Economics and Statistics 57, 133–140. Clark, D.P., Stanley, D.L., 2003. Determinants of intraindustry trade between the United States and industrial nations. International Economic Journal 17, 1–17. Comanor, W.S., Wilson, T.A., 1967. Advertising market structure and performance. Review of Economics and Statistics 49, 423–440. Davis, D.R., 1995. Intra-industry trade: a Heckscher–Ohlin–Ricardo approach. Journal of International Economics 39, 201–226. Dixit, A.K., Norman, V., 1980. Theory of international trade: a dual, general equilibrium approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Dixit, A.K., Stiglitz, J.E., 1977. Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity. American Economic Review 67, 297–308. Ethier, W.J., 1982. National and international returns to scale in the modern theory of international trade. American Economic Review 72, 389–405. Falvey, R.E., 1981. Commercial policy and intra-industry trade. Journal of International Economics 11, 495–511.
Falvey, R.E., Kierzkowski, H., 1985. Product quality, intraindustry trade and (im)perfect competition. In: Kierzkowski, H. (Ed.), Protection and Competition in International Trade. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Flam, H., Helpman, E., 1978. Vertical product differentiation and north–south trade. American Economic Review 77, 810–822. Greenaway, D., Hine, R., Milner, C., 1995. Vertical and horizontal intra-industry trade: a cross industry analysis for the United Kingdom. Economic Journal 105, 1505–1518. Grubel, H.G., Lloyd, P.J., 1975. The theory and measurement of international trade in differentiated products. Macmillan, London. Helpman, E., 1981. International trade in the presence of product differentiation, economies of scale, and monopolistic competition: a Chamberlin–Heckscher–Ohlin approach. Journal of International Economics 11, 305–340. Helpman, E., 1999. The structure of foreign trade. Journal of Economic Perspectives 13, 124–144. Krugman, P.R., 1979. Increasing returns, monopolistic competition and international trade. Journal of International Economics 9, 469–479. Krugman, P.R., 1980. Scale economies, product differentiation, and the pattern of trade. American Economic Review 70, 950–959. Krugman, P.R., 1981. Intraindustry specialization and the gains from trade. Journal of Political Economy 89, 959–973. Lancaster, K., 1980. Intra-industry trade under perfect monopolistic competition. Journal of International Economics 10, 151–175. Siegel, S., 1956. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw–Hill, New York. Strickland, A.D., Weiss, L.W., 1976. Advertising, concentration, and price-cost margins. Journal of Political Economy 84, 1109–1122. U.S. Census Bureau, 2004. 2002 Economic Census: Manufacturing-Industry Series. The Bureau, Washington, D.C.