Factor Adjustment, Quality Change, and Productivity Growth for U.S. Manufacturing
AbstractThis paper accounts for quality improvements and adjustment costs in all inputs to U.S. manufacturing production. Adjustment processes for non-capital inputs are slower than previously recognized. Annual adjustment percentages are: labor 77, capital 30, energy 20, and materials 21. Factor prices should be adjusted for quality improvements to reflect higher marginal products. The percentage increases in marginal products from quality improvements are: labor 0.25, capital 0.30, energy 2.13, and materials 0.92. Observed input growth should be adjusted for quality improvements. Unadjusted input growth causes efficiency-based productivity growth rates to exceed observed productivity growth in the slowdown period of 1974 - 1995.
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 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Working Papers with number 6877.
Date of creation: Jan 1999
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- D24 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
- D47 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure and Pricing - - - Market Design
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
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.:
- Morrison, C. J. & Berndt, E. R., 1981. "Short-run labor productivity in a dynamic model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 339-365, August.
- Berndt, Ernst R. & Fuss, Melvyn A., 1986. "Productivity measurement with adjustments for variations in capacity utilization and other forms of temporary equilibrium," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 33(1-2), pages 7-29.
- Griliches, Zvi, 1994.
"Productivity, R&D, and the Data Constraint,"
American Economic Review, American Economic Association,
American Economic Association, vol. 84(1), pages 1-23, March.
- Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Productivity, R&D, and the Data Constraint," NBER Chapters, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 347-374 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- repec:ubc:bricol:89-07 is not listed on IDEAS
- Diewert, W. E. & Wales, T. J., 1988. "A normalized quadratic semiflexible functional form," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 327-342, March.
- repec:ubc:bricol:98-04 is not listed on IDEAS
- Diewert, Erwin, 2007. "Index Numbers," Economics working papers, Vancouver School of Economics diewert-07-01-03-08-17-23, Vancouver School of Economics, revised 31 Jan 2007.
- W. Erwin Diewert & Kevin J. Fox, 1999. "Can measurement error explain the productivity paradox?," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 32(2), pages 251-280, April.
- Nadiri, M Ishaq & Rosen, Sherwin, 1969. "Interrelated Factor Demand Functions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 59(4), pages 457-71, Part I Se.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.