IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedlwp/97962.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Adoption of Non-Rival Inputs and Firm Scope

Author

Abstract

Custom software is distinct from other types of capital because it is non-rival—once a firm invests in it, the software can be used simultaneously across its many establishments. Using confidential U.S. Census data, we document that while firms with more establishments are more likely to invest in custom software, they spend less on it as a share of total capital expenditures. We explain these empirical patterns by developing a model that incorporates the non-rivalry of software and the firm’s choice of scope. Firms choose whether to adopt custom software, the intensity of their investment, and their scope, balancing the costs of managing multiple establishments against the increasing returns to scope from non-rival software. Calibrating the model with microdata, we show that improvements in custom software production account for a significant share of rising concentration and aggregate productivity growth. Abstracting from adoption and scope margins substantially understates these effects.

Suggested Citation

  • Xian Jiang & Hannah Rubinton, 2024. "The Adoption of Non-Rival Inputs and Firm Scope," Working Papers 2024-005, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, revised 03 Sep 2025.
    • Handle: RePEc:fip:fedlwp:97962
    DOI: 10.20955/wp.2024.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.20955/wp.2024.005
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.20955/wp.2024.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicholas Bloom & Raffaella Sadun & John Van Reenen, 2012. "Americans Do IT Better: US Multinationals and the Productivity Miracle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 167-201, February.
    2. Kevin J. Stiroh, 2002. "Information Technology and the U.S. Productivity Revival: What Do the Industry Data Say?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1559-1576, December.
    3. Stephen D. Oliner & Daniel E. Sichel, 2000. "The resurgence of growth in the late 1990s: is information technology the story?," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
    4. Stephen D. Oliner & Daniel E. Sichel, 2000. "The Resurgence of Growth in the Late 1990s: Is Information Technology the Story?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 3-22, Fall.
    5. Illenin O. Kondo & Logan T. Lewis & Andrea Stella, 2023. "Heavy tailed but not Zipf: Firm and establishment size in the United States," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(5), pages 767-785, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Gordon, Robert J. & Sayed, Hassan, 2020. "Transatlantic Technologies: The Role of ICT in the Evolution of U.S. and European Productivity Growth," CEPR Discussion Papers 15011, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Robert J. Gordon & Hassan Sayed, 2019. "The Industry Anatomy of the Transatlantic Productivity Growth Slowdown," NBER Working Papers 25703, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Nicholas Bloom & Raffaella Sadun & John Van Reenen, 2012. "Americans Do IT Better: US Multinationals and the Productivity Miracle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 167-201, February.
    4. Oulton, Nicholas, 2012. "Long term implications of the ICT revolution: Applying the lessons of growth theory and growth accounting," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 1722-1736.
    5. Gordon, Robert J. & Sayed, Hassan, 2019. "The Industry Anatomy of the Transatlantic Productivity Growth Slowdown," CEPR Discussion Papers 13751, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Paunov, Caroline & Rollo, Valentina, 2016. "Has the Internet Fostered Inclusive Innovation in the Developing World?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 587-609.
    7. Xian Jiang, 2023. "Information and Communication Technology and Firm Geographic Expansion," CESifo Working Paper Series 10452, CESifo.
    8. Chun, Hyunbae & Kim, Jung-Wook & Lee, Jason, 2015. "How does information technology improve aggregate productivity? A new channel of productivity dispersion and reallocation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 999-1016.
    9. Robert J. Gordon & Hassan Sayed, 2020. "Transatlantic Technologies: The Role of ICT in the Evolution of U.S. and European Productivity Growth," NBER Working Papers 27425, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Kiley, Michael T., 2001. "Computers and growth with frictions: aggregate and disaggregate evidence," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 171-215, December.
    11. Basu, Susanto & Fernald, John G. & Shapiro, Matthew D., 2001. "Productivity growth in the 1990s: technology, utilization, or adjustment?," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 117-165, December.
    12. Daron Acemoglu & David Autor & David Dorn & Gordon H. Hanson & Brendan Price, 2014. "Return of the Solow Paradox? IT, Productivity, and Employment in US Manufacturing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(5), pages 394-399, May.
    13. Harald Edquist & Magnus Henrekson, 2006. "Technological Breakthroughs and Productivity Growth," Research in Economic History, in: Research in Economic History, pages 1-53, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    14. M. Ishaq NADIRI & Banani NANDI, 2015. "Modern Communication Technology and its Economic Impact: A Survey of Research Findings," Communications & Strategies, IDATE, Com&Strat dept., vol. 1(100), pages 125-144, 4th quart.
    15. Robert Inklaar & Marcel P. Timmer & Bart Van Ark, 2007. "Mind the Gap! International Comparisons of Productivity in Services and Goods Production," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 8(2), pages 281-307, May.
    16. Ark, Bart van, 2002. "ICT investments and growth accounts for the European Union," GGDC Research Memorandum 200256, Groningen Growth and Development Centre, University of Groningen.
    17. Sebastian de RAMON, 2010. "ICT in a Model of Technology Embedded in Investment," EcoMod2004 330600041, EcoMod.
    18. Mauro Giorgio Marrano & Jonathan Haskel & Gavin Wallis, 2009. "What Happened To The Knowledge Economy? Ict, Intangible Investment, And Britain'S Productivity Record Revisited," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 55(3), pages 686-716, September.
    19. Davide Castellani & Mariacristina Piva & Torben Schubert & Marco Vivarelli, 2018. "The source of the US /EU Productivity Gap:Less and less effective R&D," LEM Papers Series 2018/16, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    20. Carol Corrado & Charles Hulten & Daniel Sichel, 2009. "Intangible Capital And U.S. Economic Growth," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 55(3), pages 661-685, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D24 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
    • E22 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Consumption, Saving, Production, Employment, and Investment - - - Investment; Capital; Intangible Capital; Capacity
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    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:fedlwp:97962. 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: Scott St. Louis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/frbslus.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.