IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

The case of the missing productivity growth: or, does information technology explain why productivity accelerated in the United States but not the United Kingdom?

  • Susanto Basu
  • John G. Fernald
  • Nicholas Oulton
  • Sylaja Srinivasan

Solow's paradox has disappeared in the United States but remains alive and well in the United Kingdom. In particular, the U.K. experienced an information and communications technology (ICT) investment boom in the 1990s in parallel with the U.S., but measured total factor productivity has decelerated rather than accelerated in recent years. We ask whether ICT can explain the divergent TFP performance in the two countries. Stories of ICT as a 'general purpose technology' suggest that measured TFP should rise in ICT-using sectors (reflecting either unobserved accumulation of intangible organizational capital; spillovers; or both), but perhaps with long lags. Contemporaneously, investments in ICT may in fact be associated with lower TFP as resources are diverted to reorganization and learning. ; In both the U.S. and U.K., we find a strong correlation between ICT use and industry TFP growth. The U.S. results are consistent with GPT stories: the acceleration after the mid-1990s was broadbased-located primarily in ICT-using industries rather than ICT-producing industries. Furthermore, industry TFP growth is positively correlated with industry ICT capital growth in the 1980s and early 1990s. Indeed, as GPT stories would suggest, controlling for past ICT growth, industry TFP growth appears negatively correlated with increases in ICT usage in the late 1990s. A somewhat different picture emerges for the U.K. TFP growth does not appear correlated with lagged ICT investment. But TFP growth in the 1990s is strongly and positively associated with the growth of ICT capital services, while being strongly and negatively associated with the growth of ICT investment. If, as we argue, unmeasured investment in complementary capital is correlated with ICT investment, then this finding too is consistent with the GPT story. However, comparing the first and second halves of the 1990s, the net effect of ICT is positive, suggesting that ICT cannot explain the observed TFP slowdown. On the other hand, our results do suggest, albeit tentatively, that the U.K. could see an acceleration in TFP growth over the next decade.

If 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.

File URL: http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/working_papers/2003/wp2003-08.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in its series Working Paper Series with number WP-03-08.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2003
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:fip:fedhwp:wp-03-08
Contact details of provider: Postal:
P.O. Box 834, 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-0834

Phone: 312/322-5111
Fax: 312/322-5515
Web page: http://www.chicagofed.org/
Email:


More information through EDIRC

Order Information: Web: http://www.chicagofed.org/webpages/publications/print_publication_order_form.cfm Email:


References listed on IDEAS
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.:

as in new window
  1. repec:rus:hseeco:15966 is not listed on IDEAS
  2. Krueger, Dirk & Kumar, Krishna B., 2004. "US-Europe differences in technology-driven growth: quantifying the role of education," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 161-190, January.
  3. Erik Brynjolfsson & Lorin M. Hitt, 2003. "Computing Productivity: Firm-Level Evidence," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(4), pages 793-808, November.
  4. Schreyer, Paul, 2002. "Computer Price Indices and International Growth and Productivity Comparisons," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 48(1), pages 15-31, March.
  5. Stephen D. Oliner & Daniel E. Sichel, 2002. "Information technology and productivity: where are we now and where are we going?," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, issue Q3, pages 15-44.
  6. Robert E. Hall, 2000. "The stock market and capital accumulation," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, issue Apr.
  7. MartinNeil Baily & Robert Z. Lawrence, 2001. "Do We Have a New E-conomy?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 308-312, May.
  8. Elhanan Helpman & Manuel Trajtenberg, 1996. "Diffusion of General Purpose Technologies," NBER Working Papers 5773, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  9. David Card & Richard B. Freeman, 2004. "What Have Two Decades of British Economic Reform Delivered?," NBER Chapters, in: Seeking a Premier Economy: The Economic Effects of British Economic Reforms, 1980-2000, pages 9-62 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  10. Bart Hobijn & Boyan Jovanovic, 2000. "The Information Technology Revolution and the Stock Market: Evidence," NBER Working Papers 7684, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  11. Nicholas Oulton & Sylaja Srinivasan, 2003. "Capital stocks, capital services, and depreciation: an integrated framework," Bank of England working papers 192, Bank of England.
  12. Paul Schreyer, 2000. "The Contribution of Information and Communication Technology to Output Growth: A Study of the G7 Countries," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2000/2, OECD Publishing.
  13. Paul A. David & Gavin Wright, 1999. "General Purpose Technologies and Surges in Productivity: Historical Reflections on the Future of the ICT Revolution," Oxford University Economic and Social History Series _031, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
  14. Boyan Jovanovic & Peter L. Rousseau, 2002. "Mergers as Reallocation," NBER Working Papers 9279, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  15. Bruce T. Grimm & Brent R. Moulton & David B. Wasshausen, 2005. "Information-Processing Equipment and Software in the National Accounts," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring Capital in the New Economy, pages 363-402 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  16. Greenwood, Jeremy & Hercowitz, Zvi & Krusell, Per, 1997. "Long-Run Implications of Investment-Specific Technological Change," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(3), pages 342-62, June.
  17. Christopher J. Gust & Jaime R. Marquez, 2000. "Productivity developments abroad," Federal Reserve Bulletin, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.), issue Oct, pages 665-681.
  18. Susanto Basu & John Fernald, 2001. "Why Is Productivity Procyclical? Why Do We Care?," NBER Chapters, in: New Developments in Productivity Analysis, pages 225-302 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  19. Oulton, Nicholas, 2001. "Must the Growth Rate Decline? Baumol's Unbalanced Growth Revisited," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 53(4), pages 605-27, October.
  20. Daniel Aaronson & Daniel G. Sullivan, 2002. "Growth in worker quality," Chicago Fed Letter, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, issue Feb.
  21. Andreas Hornstein & Per Krusell, 1996. "Can Technology Improvements Cause Productivity Slowdowns?," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1996, Volume 11, pages 209-276 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  22. Edward N. Wolff, 2002. "Productivity, Computerization, and Skill Change," NBER Working Papers 8743, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  23. Philippe Aghion & Nick Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2005. "Competition and Innovation: an Inverted-U Relationship," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 120(2), pages 701-728.
  24. Dale Jorgenson & Mun Ho & Kevin Stiroh, 2003. "Growth of US Industries and Investments in Information Technology and Higher Education," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 279-325.
  25. F. Lequiller, 2001. "The new economy and the measurement of GDP growth," Documents de Travail de la DESE - Working Papers of the DESE g2001-01, Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques, DESE.
  26. Stephen Nickell & Glenda Quintini, 2002. "The Recent Performance of the UK Labour Market," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 202-220, June.
  27. Robert J. Gordon, 2003. "Hi-tech Innovation and Productivity Growth: Does Supply Create Its Own Demand?," NBER Working Papers 9437, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  28. Bresnahan, Timothy F. & Trajtenberg, M., 1995. "General purpose technologies 'Engines of growth'?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 83-108, January.
  29. Francesco Caselli, 1999. "Technological Revolutions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 78-102, March.
  30. Hasan Bakhshi & Nicholas Oulton & Jamie Thompson, 2003. "Modelling investment when relative prices are trending: theory and evidence for the United Kingdom," Bank of England working papers 189, Bank of England.
  31. Nickell, S.J., 1993. "Competition and Crporate Performance," Economics Series Working Papers 99155, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
  32. C.J. Krizan & John Haltiwanger & Lucia Foster, 2002. "The Link Between Aggregate and Micro Productivity Growth: Evidence from Retail Trade," Working Papers 02-18, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
  33. Gust, Christopher & Marquez, Jaime, 2004. "International comparisons of productivity growth: the role of information technology and regulatory practices," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 33-58, February.
  34. Erik Brynjolfsson & Lorin M. Hitt, 2000. "Beyond Computation: Information Technology, Organizational Transformation and Business Performance," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 23-48, Fall.
  35. Nicholas Oulton, 2002. "ICT and Productivity Growth in the United Kingdom," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(3), pages 363-379.
  36. Charles R. Hulten, 1996. "Quality Change in Capital Goods and Its Impact on Economic Growth," NBER Working Papers 5569, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  37. Kevin J. Stiroh, 2001. "Information technology and the U.S. productivity revival: what do the industry data say?," Staff Reports 115, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
  38. Susanto Basu & Miles S. Kimball, 1997. "Cyclical Productivity with Unobserved Input Variation," NBER Working Papers 5915, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  39. Nicholas Crafts & Mary O'Mahony, 2001. "A perspective on UK productivity performance," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 22(3), pages 271-306, September.
  40. Daveri, Francesco, 2002. "The New Economy in Europe, 1992-2001," Working Paper Series UNU-WIDER Research Paper , World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
  41. James Bessen, 2002. "Technology Adoption Costs and Productivity Growth: The Transition to Information Technology," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 5(2), pages 443-469, April.
  42. Jones, Charles I, 1995. "R&D-Based Models of Economic Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(4), pages 759-84, August.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fip:fedhwp:wp-03-08. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Bernie Flores)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.