IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Management Matters

  • Michelle Alexopoulos

    (University of Toronto)

New indications of managerial innovations are created and then used to show that changes in organizational technologies are an important source of economic growth. Specifically, the analysis demonstrates that, first, in response to a positive managerial technology shock, output, productivity and hours significantly increase in the short run, second, these types of innovations are as important as non-managerial ones in explaining movements in these variables at business cycle frequencies, and, third, product and process innovations promote the developmentof new managerial techniques.

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:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Society for Economic Dynamics in its series 2010 Meeting Papers with number 332.

in new window

Date of creation: 2010
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:red:sed010:332
Contact details of provider: Postal: Society for Economic Dynamics Marina Azzimonti Department of Economics Stonybrook University 10 Nicolls Road Stonybrook NY 11790 USA
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

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. Robert E. Hall & Charles I. Jones, 1999. "Why Do Some Countries Produce So Much More Output per Worker than Others?," NBER Working Papers 6564, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  2. Jordi Gali, 1999. "Technology, Employment, and the Business Cycle: Do Technology Shocks Explain Aggregate Fluctuations?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 249-271, March.
  3. Fernald, John G., 2007. "Trend breaks, long-run restrictions, and contractionary technology improvements," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(8), pages 2467-2485, November.
  4. Acemoglu, Daron & Zilibotti, Fabrizio, 2000. "Productivity Differences," CEPR Discussion Papers 2498, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  5. Harrison, Rupert & Jaumandreu Balanzo, Jordi & Mairesse, Jacques & Peters, Bettina, 2008. "Does Innovation Stimulate Employment? A Firm-Level Analysis Using Comparable Micro-Data From Four European Countries," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-111, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
  6. Susanto Basu & John G. Fernald & Miles S. Kimball, 1998. "Are technology improvements contractionary?," International Finance Discussion Papers 625, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
  7. Bloom, Nicholas & Eifert, Benn & Mahajan, Aprajit & McKenzie, David & Roberts, John, 2010. "Does Management Matter?: Evidence from India," Research Papers 2074, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
  8. Lee E. Ohanian, 2001. "Why did productivity fall so much during the Great Depression?," Staff Report 285, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
  9. Jonas D. M. Fisher, 2006. "The Dynamic Effects of Neutral and Investment-Specific Technology Shocks," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(3), pages 413-451, June.
  10. Andy Cosh & Xiaolan Fu & Alan Hughes, 2005. "Management characteristics, collaboration and innovative efficiency: evidence from UK survey data," ESRC Centre for Business Research - Working Papers wp311, ESRC Centre for Business Research.
  11. Jonas Fisher, 2009. "Sector-Specific Technology Shocks and the Business Cycle," 2009 Meeting Papers 22, Society for Economic Dynamics.
  12. Francis, Neville & Ramey, Valerie A., 2005. "Is the technology-driven real business cycle hypothesis dead? Shocks and aggregate fluctuations revisited," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(8), pages 1379-1399, November.
  13. Edward C. Prescott, 1997. "Needed: a theory of total factor productivity," Staff Report 242, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
  14. Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum & Charles L. Evans, 1996. "Sticky Price and Limited Participation Models of Money: A Comparison," NBER Working Papers 5804, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  15. Doms, Mark & Dunne, Timothy & Roberts, Mark J., 1995. "The role of technology use in the survival and growth of manufacturing plants," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 523-542, December.
  16. Griliches, Zvi, 1990. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 28(4), pages 1661-1707, December.
  17. Nick Bloom & John Van Reenen, 2010. "Why do Management Practices Differ Across Firms and Countries?," CEP Occasional Papers 26, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
  18. Nicholas Bloom & John Van Reenen, 2007. "Measuring and Explaining Management Practices Across Firms and Countries," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 122(4), pages 1351-1408, November.
  19. GOSPODINOV, Nikolay & MAYNARD, Alex & PESAVENTO, Elena, 2009. "Sensitivity of Impulse Responses to Small Low Frequency Co-Movements : Reconciling the Evidence on the Effects of Technology Shocks," Cahiers de recherche 03-2009, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
  20. Michelle Alexopoulos & Jon Cohen, 2009. "Measuring Our Ignorance, One Book at a Time: New Indicators of Technological Change, 1909-1949," Working Papers tecipa-349, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
  21. Smolny, Werner, 1998. "Innovations, Prices and Employment: A Theoretical Model and an Empirical Application for West German Manufacturing Firms," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(3), pages 359-81, September.
  22. John Shea, 1998. "What Do Technology Shocks Do?," NBER Working Papers 6632, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  23. Marianne Bertrand & Antoinette Schoar, 2003. "Managing With Style: The Effect Of Managers On Firm Policies," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 118(4), pages 1169-1208, November.
  24. Van Reenen, John, 1997. "Employment and Technological Innovation: Evidence from U.K. Manufacturing Firms," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 15(2), pages 255-84, April.
  25. 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.
  26. Harrison, Sharon G & Weder, Mark, 2002. "Did Sunspot Forces Cause the Great Depression?," CEPR Discussion Papers 3267, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  27. Mark Doms & Eric J. Bartelsman, 2000. "Understanding Productivity: Lessons from Longitudinal Microdata," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(3), pages 569-594, September.
  28. Michelle Alexopoulos, 2004. "Read All About it: What happens following a technology shock," 2004 Meeting Papers 56, Society for Economic Dynamics.
  29. Easton, George S & Jarrell, Sherry L, 1998. "The Effects of Total Quality Management on Corporate Performance: An Empirical Investigation," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 71(2), pages 253-307, April.
  30. Neville Francis & Valerie A. Ramey, 2006. "The Source of Historical Economic Fluctuations: An Analysis Using Long-Run Restrictions," NBER Chapters, in: NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics 2004, pages 17-73 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  31. Richard E. White & John N. Pearson & Jeffrey R. Wilson, 1999. "JIT Manufacturing: A Survey of Implementations in Small and Large U.S. Manufacturers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(1), pages 1-15, January.
  32. Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum & Robert Vigfusson, 2003. "What Happens After a Technology Shock?," NBER Working Papers 9819, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  33. Blanchflower, David G & Millward, Neil & Oswald, Andrew J, 1991. "Unionism and Employment Behaviour," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 101(407), pages 815-34, July.
  34. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
  35. Avi Goldfarb & Mo Xiao, 2008. "Who thinks about the competition? Managerial ability and strategic entry in US local telephone markets," Working Papers 08-21, NET Institute, revised Oct 2008.
  36. Garcia, Angel & Jaumandreu, Jordi & Rodriguez, Cesar, 2004. "Innovation and jobs: evidence from manufacturing firms," MPRA Paper 1204, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  37. Michelle Alexopoulos & Jon Cohen, 2011. "Volumes of evidence: examining technical change in the last century through a new lens," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 44(2), pages 413-450, May.
  38. Ross, David R. & Zimmermann, Klaus F., 1993. "Evaluating reported determinants of labor demand," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 71-84, June.
  39. James M. Nason & Gregor W. Smith, 2007. "Great Moderation(s) and U.S. Interest Rates: Unconditional Evidence," Working Papers 1140, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
  40. Alexopoulos, Michelle, 2008. "Extra! Extra! Some positive technology shocks are expansionary!," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 153-156, December.
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:red:sed010:332. 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: (Christian Zimmermann)

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.