IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

On the employment effect of technology : evidence from U.S. manufacturing for 1958-1996

  • Yongsung Chang
  • Jay H. Hong

Recently, Galí and others have found that technological progress may be contractionary: a favorable technology shock reduces hours worked in the short run. We ask whether this observation is robust in disaggregate data. According to our VAR analysis of 458 four-digit U.S. manufacturing industries for 1958-1996, some industries do exhibit temporary reduction in hours in response to a permanent increase in TFP. However, there are far more industries in which technological progress significantly increases hours. Using micro data on average price duration, we ask whether the difference across industries is related to the stickiness of industry-output prices. Among 87 manufacturing goods, we do not find such a relation.

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.richmondfed.org/publications/research/working_papers/2003/wp_03-6.cfm
Download Restriction: no

File URL: http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/working_papers/2003/pdf/wp03-6.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond in its series Working Paper with number 03-06.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2003
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:fip:fedrwp:03-06
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.richmondfed.org/

More information through EDIRC

Order Information: Web: http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/ 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. Kortum, Samuel, 1993. "Equilibrium R&D and the Patent-R&D Ratio: U.S. Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(2), pages 450-57, May.
  2. Susanto Basu & John G. Fernald, 1996. "Returns to scale in U.S. production: estimates and implications," International Finance Discussion Papers 546, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
  3. Jordi Gali & J. David Lopez-Salido & Javier Valles, 2002. "Technology Shocks and Monetary Policy: Assessing the Fed's Performance," NBER Working Papers 8768, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  4. Zvi Griliches & Frank R. Lichtenberg, 1984. "R&D and Productivity Growth at the Industry Level: Is There Still a Relationship?," NBER Chapters, in: R&D, Patents, and Productivity, pages 465-502 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  5. Domenico J. Marchetti & francesco Nucci, 2001. "Unobserved Factor Utilization, Technology Shocks and Business Cycles," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 392, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
  6. Olivier Jean Blanchard & Danny Quah, 1988. "The Dynamic Effects of Aggregate Demand and Supply Disturbances," NBER Working Papers 2737, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  7. John Shea, 1998. "What Do Technology Shocks Do?," NBER Working Papers 6632, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  8. Jordi Gali, 1996. "Technology, Employment, and the Business Cycle: Do Technology Shocks Explain Aggregate Fluctuations," NBER Working Papers 5721, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  9. Ramey, Valerie A & Francis, Neville, 2002. "Is The Technology-Driven Real Business Cycle Hypothesis Dead? Shocks and Aggregate Fluctuations Revisted," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt6x80k3nx, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
  10. Burnside, C & Eichenbaum, M & Rebelo, S, 1995. "Capital Utilization and Returns to Scale," RCER Working Papers 402, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
  11. Jermann, Urban J., 1998. "Asset pricing in production economies," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 257-275, April.
  12. Berndt, Ernst R, 1976. "Reconciling Alternative Estimates of the Elasticity of Substitution," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 58(1), pages 59-68, February.
  13. Mark Bils & Peter J. Klenow, 2002. "Some Evidence on the Importance of Sticky Prices," NBER Working Papers 9069, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  14. Susanto Basu & John Fernald & Miles Kimball, 2004. "Are Technology Improvements Contractionary?," NBER Working Papers 10592, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  15. Mikael Carlsson, 2003. "Measures of Technology and the Short-run Response to Technology Shocks," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 105(4), pages 555-579, December.
  16. Unknown, 1998. "Discussion," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 619-643, October.
  17. Hall, Robert E., 1987. "Productivity and the business cycle," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 421-444, January.
  18. Gort, Michael & Klepper, Steven, 1982. "Time Paths in the Diffusion of Product Innovations," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(367), pages 630-53, September.
  19. José Angulo & N. Cressie & C. Wikle & P. Soidán & M. Bande & C. Glasbey & John Kent & Ana Militino & Michael Stein, 1998. "Discussion," TEST: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 283-285, December.
  20. Neville Francis & Valerie A. Ramey, 2002. "Is the Technology-Driven Real Business Cycle Hypothesis Dead?," NBER Working Papers 8726, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  21. Michael Dotsey, 1999. "Structure from shocks," Working Paper 99-06, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.
  22. Unknown, 1998. "Discussion," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 645-650, October.
  23. Unknown, 1998. "Discussion," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 651-652, October.
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:fedrwp:03-06. 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: (William Perkins)

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.