Lessons From the Latest Data on U.S. Productivity
AbstractProductivity growth is carefully scrutinized by macroeconomists because it plays key roles in understanding private savings behaviour, the sources of macroeconomic shocks, the evolution of international competitiveness and the solvency of public pension systems, among other things. However, estimates of recent and expected productivity growth rates suffer from two potential problems: (i) recent estimates of growth trends are imprecise, and (ii) recently published data often undergo important revisions. This paper documents the statistical (un)reliability of several measures of aggregate productivity growth in the US by examining the extent to which they are revised over time. We also examine the extent to which such revisions contribute to errors in forecasts of US productivity growth. We find that data revisions typically cause appreciable changes in published estimates of productivity growth rates across a range of different productivity measures. Substantial revisions often occur years after the initial data release, which we argue contributes significantly to the overall uncertainty policymakers face. This emphasizes the need for means of reducing the uncertainty facing policymakers and policies robust to uncertainty about current economic conditions.
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 Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University in its series CAMA Working Papers with number 2010-33.
Length: 44 pages
Date of creation: Dec 2010
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Crawford Building, Lennox Crossing, Building #132, Canberra ACT 0200
Phone: +61 2 6125 4705
Fax: +61 2 6125 5448
Web page: http://cama.crawford.anu.edu.au
More information through EDIRC
Other versions of this item:
- C22 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Time-Series Models; Dynamic Quantile Regressions; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models &bull Diffusion Processes
- J24 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity
- O47 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - Measurement of Economic Growth; Aggregate Productivity; Cross-Country Output Convergence
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.:
- Jordi Galí & Thijs van Rens, 2010.
"The Vanishing Procyclicality of Labor Productivity,"
Kiel Working Papers
1641, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
- Jordi Galí & Thijs van Rens, 2008. "The vanishing procyclicality of labor productivity," Economics Working Papers 1230, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Jul 2010.
- Galí, Jordi & van Rens, Thijs, 2010. "The Vanishing Procyclicality of Labor Productivity," IZA Discussion Papers 5099, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Jordi Galí & Thijs van Rens, 2014. "The Vanishing Procyclicality of Labor Productivity," Working Papers 489, Barcelona Graduate School of Economics.
- Thijs van Rens & Jordi Gali, 2010. "The Vanishing Procyclicality of Labor Productivity," 2010 Meeting Papers 705, Society for Economic Dynamics.
- Swanson, N.R. & van Dijk, D.J.C., 2001.
"Are statistical reporting agencies getting it right? Data rationality and business cycle asymmetry,"
Econometric Institute Research Papers
EI 2001-28, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
- Swanson, Norman R. & van Dijk, Dick, 2006. "Are Statistical Reporting Agencies Getting It Right? Data Rationality and Business Cycle Asymmetry," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 24, pages 24-42, January.
- Edge, Rochelle M. & Laubach, Thomas & Williams, John C., 2007.
"Learning and shifts in long-run productivity growth,"
Journal of Monetary Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 54(8), pages 2421-2438, November.
- Rochelle M. Edge & Thomas Laubach & John C. Williams, 2004. "Learning and shifts in long-run productivity growth," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2004-21, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
- Rochelle M. Edge & Thomas Laubach & John C. Williams, 2004. "Learning and shifts in long-run productivity growth," Working Paper Series 2004-04, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
- L. Slifman & C. Corrado, 1996.
"Decomposition of productivity and unit costs,"
1, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
- Dale W. Jorgenson, 2001. "Information Technology and the U.S. Economy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 1-32, March.
- Frank Smets & Rafael Wouters, 2007.
"Shocks and Frictions in US Business Cycles: A Bayesian DSGE Approach,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 97(3), pages 586-606, June.
- Smets, Frank & Wouters, Raf, 2007. "Shocks and frictions in US business cycles: a Bayesian DSGE approach," Working Paper Series 0722, European Central Bank.
- Frank Smets & Raf Wouters, 2007. "Shocks and Frictions in US Business Cycles : a Bayesian DSGE Approach," Working Paper Research 109, National Bank of Belgium.
- Smets, Frank & Wouters, Rafael, 2007. "Shocks and Frictions in US Business Cycles: A Bayesian DSGE Approach," CEPR Discussion Papers 6112, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Field, Alexander J., 2010. "The Procyclical Behavior of Total Factor Productivity in the United States, 1890–2004," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 70(02), pages 326-350, June.
- James A. Kahn & Robert Rich, 2003.
"Tracking the new economy: using growth theory to detect changes in trend productivity,"
159, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
- Kahn, James A. & Rich, Robert W., 2007. "Tracking the new economy: Using growth theory to detect changes in trend productivity," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 1670-1701, September.
- James A. Kahn & Robert W. Rich, 2003. "Tracking the new economy: using growth theory to detect changes in trend productivity," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, issue Nov.
- van Norden, Simon, 2011.
"Current trends in the analysis of Canadian productivity growth,"
The North American Journal of Economics and Finance,
Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 5-25, January.
- Simon van Norden, 2010. "Current Trends in the Analysis of Canadian Productivity Growth," CIRANO Working Papers 2010s-30, CIRANO.
- Jacobs, Jan P.A.M. & van Norden, Simon, 2011. "Modeling data revisions: Measurement error and dynamics of "true" values," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 161(2), pages 101-109, April.
- Faust, Jon & Wright, Jonathan H., 2009. "Comparing Greenbook and Reduced Form Forecasts Using a Large Realtime Dataset," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 27(4), pages 468-479.
- Richard G. Anderson & Kevin L. Kliesen, 2010. "FOMC learning and productivity growth (1985-2003): a reading of the record," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, issue Mar, pages 129-154.
- Richard G. Anderson & Kevin L. Kliesen, 2006. "The 1990s acceleration in labor productivity: causes and measurement," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, issue May, pages 181-202.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Cama Admin).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.