IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jechis/v70y2010i02p326-350_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Procyclical Behavior of Total Factor Productivity in the United States, 1890–2004

Author

Listed:
  • Field, Alexander J.

Abstract

Between 1890 and 2004 total factor productivity (TFP) growth in the United States has been strongly procyclical, while labor productivity growth has been mildly so. This article argues that these results are not simply a statistical artifact, as Mathew Shapiro and others have argued. Procyclicality resulted principally from demand shocks interacting with capital services which are relatively invariant over the cycle. This account contrasts with explanations emphasizing labor hoarding as well as those offered by the real business cycle (RBC) program, in which TFP shocks (deviations from trend) are themselves the cause of cycles.

Suggested Citation

  • 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(2), pages 326-350, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jechis:v:70:y:2010:i:02:p:326-350_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0022050710000306/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lise Clain-Chamosset-Yvrard & Xavier Raurich & Thomas Seegmuller, 2021. "Entrepreneurship, growth and productivity with bubbles," AMSE Working Papers 2106, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
    2. Jiang, Dou & Weder, Mark, 2021. "American business cycles 1889–1913: An accounting approach," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    3. Ahn, JaeBin & Choi, Moon Jung, 2020. "From firm-level imports to aggregate productivity: Evidence from Korean manufacturing firm data," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    4. Herman De Jong & Pieter Woltjer, 2011. "Depression dynamics: a new estimate of the Anglo‐American manufacturing productivity gap in the interwar period," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 64(2), pages 472-492, May.
    5. Jan P.A.M. Jacobs & Simon van Norden, 2010. "Lessons From the Latest Data on U.S. Productivity," CIRANO Working Papers 2010s-46, CIRANO.
    6. Godfrey Madigu & Luis A. Gil‐Alana, 2021. "What do productivity indices tell us? A case study of U.S. industries," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(4), pages 4946-4978, October.
    7. Iván Kataryniuk & Jaime Martínez-Martín, 2019. "TFP Growth and Commodity Prices in Emerging Economies," Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(10), pages 2211-2229, August.
    8. Bianca Barbaro & Giorgio Massari & Patrizio Tirelli, 2022. "Who killed business dynamism in the U.S.?," Working Papers 494, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2022.
    9. Rüth, Sebastian & Mayer, Eric & Scharler, Johann, 2014. "TFP and the Transmission of Shocks," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100549, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    10. Gottfries, Nils & Mickelsson, Glenn & Stadin, Karolina, 2018. "Deep Dynamics," Working Paper Series 2018:10, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
    11. Jacobs, Jan P.A.M. & van Norden, Simon, 2016. "Why are initial estimates of productivity growth so unreliable?," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 47(PB), pages 200-213.
    12. Alexander J. Field, 2011. "The Adversity/Hysteresis Effect: Depression-Era Productivity Growth in the U.S. Railroad Sector," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity Revisited, pages 579-606, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Nils Gottfries & Glenn Mickelsson & Karolina Stadin, 2021. "Deep Dynamics," CESifo Working Paper Series 8873, CESifo.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jechis:v:70:y:2010:i:02:p:326-350_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jeh .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.