IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/fip/fedker/y2010iqiiip5-30nv.95no.3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why have the dynamics of labor productivity changed?

Author

Listed:
  • Willem Van Zandweghe

Abstract

The strength of the nascent economic recovery--and of the labor market--will depend importantly on labor productivity. By itself, faster productivity growth contributes to faster output growth. At the same time, stronger productivity gains allow firms to increase output without adding workers. Some analysts believe that faster productivity growth contributed to the ?jobless recoveries? after the 1990-91 and 2001 recessions. ; In recent years, the U.S. economy has undergone a change in the behavior of productivity over the business cycle. Until the mid-1980s, productivity growth rose and fell with output growth. But since then the relationship between these two variables has weakened, and they have even moved in different directions. ; Fluctuations in productivity depend on two factors: the mix of shocks that drive the business cycle and the transmission of those shocks to output and labor market activity. Thus, two hypotheses stand out as plausible explanations for the change in the cyclical behavior of productivity. First, a decline in the importance of supply shocks for the business cycle may have changed the relationship of productivity and output over the business cycle. Second, structural changes in the labor market may have altered the transmission of shocks to the labor market and production. Specifically, a different labor market environment may have prompted firms to modify the way they meet their labor needs in response to shocks to the economy. ; Van Zandweghe examines the shift in the behavior of labor productivity over the business cycle and assesses the supply shock and structural change explanations for the shift. He finds that the importance of supply shocks in the business cycle has been stable over time. However, the behavior of productivity over the business cycle has shifted in response to both supply and demand shocks. Together, these results imply the shift in the business cycle behavior of productivity is most likely the result of structural changes in the labor market.

Suggested Citation

  • Willem Van Zandweghe, 2010. "Why have the dynamics of labor productivity changed?," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, vol. 95(Q III), pages 5-30.
    • Handle: RePEc:fip:fedker:y:2010:i:qiii:p:5-30:n:v.95no.3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.kansascityfed.org/documents/1107/2010-Why%20Have%20the%20Dynamics%20of%20Labor%20Productivity%20Changed%3F.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:cbo:report:418805 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Congressional Budget Office, 2010. "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020," Reports 41880, Congressional Budget Office.
    3. repec:cbo:report:418806 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Congressional Budget Office, 2010. "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020," Reports 41880, Congressional Budget Office.
    5. Congressional Budget Office, 2010. "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020," Reports 41880, Congressional Budget Office.
    6. repec:cbo:report:418804 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Congressional Budget Office, 2010. "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020," Reports 41880, Congressional Budget Office.
    8. Congressional Budget Office, 2010. "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020," Reports 41880, Congressional Budget Office.
    9. repec:cbo:report:418807 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Maarten Dossche & Andrea Gavazzi & Vivien Lewis, 2023. "Labor Adjustment and Productivity in the OECD," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 47, pages 111-130, January.
    2. Harrison, Rupert & Jaumandreu, Jordi & Mairesse, Jacques & Peters, Bettina, 2014. "Does innovation stimulate employment? A firm-level analysis using comparable micro-data from four European countries," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 29-43.
    3. Mark Bils & Yongsung Chang & Sun-Bin Kim, 2022. "How Sticky Wages in Existing Jobs Can Affect Hiring," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(1), pages 1-37, January.
    4. Maarten Dossche & Andrea Gavazzi & Vivien Lewis, 2023. "Labor Adjustment and Productivity in the OECD," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 47, pages 111-130, January.
    5. Luigi Aldieri & Concetto Paolo Vinci, 2018. "Green Economy and Sustainable Development: The Economic Impact of Innovation on Employment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-11, October.
    6. Seip, Knut L. & McNown, Robert, 2013. "Monetary policy and stability during six periods in US economic history: 1959–2008: a novel, nonlinear monetary policy rule," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 307-325.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel J. Wilson, 2010. "Fiscal spending multipliers: evidence from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act," Working Paper Series 2010-17, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
    2. Gerhards, Eva & Goerl, Caroline-Antonia & Thöne, Michael, 2012. "Tragfähigkeit der öffentlichen Finanzen: Eine Bestandsaufnahme national und international praktizierter Methoden der langfristigen Budgetanalyse [Sustainability of Public Finances: A review of inte," FiFo Reports - FiFo-Berichte 14, University of Cologne, FiFo Institute for Public Economics.
    3. Dimitri B. Papadimitriou & Greg Hannsgen, 2010. "Debts, Deficits, Economic Recovery, and the U.S. Government," Economics Public Policy Brief Archive ppb_114, Levy Economics Institute.
    4. Peter Boone & Simon Johnson, 2014. "Forty Years of Leverage: What Have We Learned about Sovereign Debt?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(5), pages 266-271, May.
    5. Fischer, Carolyn & Fox, Alan K., 2012. "Climate policy and fiscal constraints: Do tax interactions outweigh carbon leakage?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(S2), pages 218-227.
    6. Toptancı, Ali İskan, 2021. "RETRACTED PAPER: "The Effects of Protectionism Developed after the Great Depression on Global Trade: A Macroeconomic Analysis"," EconStor Research Reports 228521, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    7. Jorgenson, Dale W. & Goettle, Richard J. & Ho, Mun S. & Wilcoxen, Peter J., 2013. "Energy, the Environment and US Economic Growth," Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, in: Peter B. Dixon & Dale Jorgenson (ed.), Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 477-552, Elsevier.
    8. William R. Cline, 2014. "Sustainability of Public Debt in the United States and Japan," Working Paper Series WP14-9, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
    9. Nicoletta Batini & Julia Guerreiro & Giovanni Callegari, 2011. "“An Analysis of U.S. Fiscal and Generational Imbalances: Who Will Pay and How?”," IMF Working Papers 2011/072, International Monetary Fund.
    10. Ufuk Demiroglu, 2013. "The Effects of the Investment Decline on Potential GDP in Turkey’s 2001 and 2009 Crises," Central Bank Review, Research and Monetary Policy Department, Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey, vol. 13(3), pages 25-44.
    11. International Monetary Fund, 2010. "United States: Selected Issues Paper," IMF Staff Country Reports 2010/248, International Monetary Fund.
    12. Knapek, George M. & Richardson, James W. & Outlaw, Joe L. & Raulston, J. Marc, 2011. "Investigating the Redundancies in Current Farm Programs," 2011 Annual Meeting, February 5-8, 2011, Corpus Christi, Texas 98841, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    13. Daniel J. Wilson, 2012. "Fiscal Spending Jobs Multipliers: Evidence from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 4(3), pages 251-282, August.

    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:fip:fedker:y:2010:i:qiii:p:5-30:n:v.95no.3. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Zach Kastens (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/frbkcus.html .

    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.