IT Spending and Firm Productivity: Additional Evidence from the Manufacturing Sector
AbstractThe information systems (IS) "productivity paradox" is based on those studies that found little or no positive relationship between firm productivity and spending on IS. However, some earlier studies and one more recent study have found a positive relationship. Given the large amounts spent by organizations on information systems, it is important to understand the relationship between spending on IS and productivity. Beyond replicating positive results, an explanation is needed for the conflicting conclusions reached by these earlier studies. Data collected by the Bureau of the Census is analyzed to investigate the relationship between plant-level productivity and spending on IS. The relationship between productivity and spending on IS is investigated using assumptions and models similar to both studies with positive findings and studies with negative findings. First, the overall relationship is investigated across all manufacturing industries. Next, the relationship is investigated industry by industry. The analysis finds a positive relationship between plant-level productivity and spending on IS. The relationship is also shown to vary across industries. The conflicting results from earlier studies are explained by understanding the characteristics of the data analyzed in each study. A large enough sample size is needed to find the relatively smaller effect from IS spending as compared to other input spending included in the models. Because the relationship between productivity and IS spending varies across industries, industry mix is shown to be an important data characteristic that may have influenced prior results.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau in its series Working Papers with number 99-10.
Date of creation: Oct 1999
Date of revision:
CES; economic; research; micro; data; microdata; chief; economist;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Erik Brynjolfsson & Lorin Hitt, 1996.
"Paradox Lost? Firm-Level Evidence on the Returns to Information Systems Spending,"
INFORMS, vol. 42(4), pages 541-558, April.
- Brynjolfsson, Erik. & Hitt, Lorin M., 1995. "Paradox lost? : firm-level evidence on the returns to information systems spending," Working papers 3786-95., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
- Griliches, Zvi, 1994.
"Productivity, R&D, and the Data Constraint,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 84(1), pages 1-23, March.
- Martin Neil Baily & Robert J. Gordon, 1988. "The Productivity Slowdown, Measurement Issues, and the Explosion of Computer Power," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 19(2), pages 347-432.
- John Haltiwanger & Ron Jarmin & Thorsten Schank, 2003.
"Productivity, Investment in ICT and Market Experimentation: Micro Evidence from Germany and the U.S,"
03-06, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
- Haltiwanger, John & Jarmin, Ron & Schank, Thorsten, 2003. "Productivity, investment in ICT and market experimentation: micro evidence from Germany und the US," Discussion Papers 19, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Chair of Labour and Regional Economics.
- B.K. Atrostic & Sang V. Nguyen, 2002. "Computer Networks and U.S. Manufacturing Plant Productivity: New Evidence from the CNUS Data," Working Papers 02-01, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
- Sang Nguyen & B.K. Atrostic, 2005. "Computer Investment, Computer Networks and Productivity," Working Papers 05-01, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Fariha Kamal).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.