IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sce/scecf5/378.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Testing Substitution Bias of the Solow-Residual Measure of Total Factor Productivity Using CES-Class Production Functions

Author

Listed:
  • Peter A. Zadrozny
  • Baoline Chen

    (Office of Directors Bureau of Economic Analysis)

Abstract

Total factor productivity (TFP) computed as Solow-residuals could be subject to input-substitution bias for two reasons. First, the Cobb-Douglas (CD) production function restricts all input substitutions to one. Second, observed inputs generally differ from optimal inputs, so that inputs observed in a sample tend to move not just due to substitution effects but for other reasons as well. In this paper, we describe using the multi-step perturbation method (MSP) to compute and evaluate total factor productivity (TFP) based on any k+1 times differentiable production function, and we illustrate the method for a CES-class production functions. We test the possible input-substitution bias of the Solow-residual measure of TFP in capital, labor, energy, materials, and services (KLEMS) inputs data obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for U.S. manufacturing from 1949 to 2001. We proceed in three steps: (1) We combine the MSP method with maximum likelihood estimation to determine a best 4th-order approximation of a CES-class production function. The CES class includes not only the standard CES production functions but also the so called tiered CES production functions (TCES), in which the prespecified groups of inputs can have their own input-substitution elasticities and input-cost shares are parameterized (i) tightly as constants, (ii) moderately as smooth functions, and (iii) loosely as successive averages. (2) Based on the best estimated production function, we compute the implied best TFP evaluated at the computed optimal inputs. (3) For the data, we compute Solow-residual TFP and compare it with the best TFP. The preliminary results show that the MSP method can produce almost double precision accuracy, and the results reject a single constant elasticity of substitution among all inputs. For this data, the Solow-residual TFP is on average .1% lower, with a .6% standard error, than the best TFP and, hence, is very slightly downward biased, although the sampling-error uncertainty dominates this conclusion. In further work, we shall attempt to reduce this uncertainty with further testing based on more general CES-class production functions, in which each input has its own elasticity of substitution, and we shall use more finely estimated parameters

Suggested Citation

  • Peter A. Zadrozny & Baoline Chen, 2005. "Testing Substitution Bias of the Solow-Residual Measure of Total Factor Productivity Using CES-Class Production Functions," Computing in Economics and Finance 2005 378, Society for Computational Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:sce:scecf5:378
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repec.org/sce2005/up.25983.1107207626.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Craig Burnside & Martin Eichenbaum & Sergio Rebelo, 1995. "Capital Utilization and Returns to Scale," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1995, Volume 10, pages 67-124, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. K. Sato, 1967. "A Two-Level Constant-Elasticity-of-Substitution Production Function," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 34(2), pages 201-218.
    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. Chen, Baoline & Zadrozny, Peter A., 2009. "Multi-step perturbation solution of nonlinear differentiable equations applied to an econometric analysis of productivity," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 53(6), pages 2061-2074, April.
    2. Bill Dupor, 2005. "Keynesian Conundrum: Multiplicity and Time Consistent Stabilization," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 8(1), pages 154-177, January.
    3. Frédéric Reynès, 2011. "The cobb-douglas function as an approximation of other functions," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-01069515, HAL.
    4. Rodolphe Dos Santos Ferreira & Frédéric Dufourt, 2013. "On Stabilization Policy in Sunspot-Driven Oligopolistic Economies," AMSE Working Papers 1337, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France, revised 30 Jun 2013.
    5. Esteban Aucejo & Jonathan James, 2021. "The Path to College Education: The Role of Math and Verbal Skills," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(10), pages 2905-2946.
    6. Toshiya Ishikawa, 2004. "Technology Diffusion and Business Cycle Asymmetry," DEGIT Conference Papers c009_016, DEGIT, Dynamics, Economic Growth, and International Trade.
    7. Borota Milicevic, Teodora & Carlsson, Mikael, 2016. "Markups from Inventory Data and Export Intensity," Working Paper Series 2016:9, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
    8. Edgar Cruz & Xavier Raurich, 2020. "Leisure time and the sectoral composition of employment," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 38, pages 198-219, October.
    9. Martin Biewen & Constantin Weiser, 2014. "An empirical test of marginal productivity theory," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(9), pages 996-1020, March.
    10. Gaffeo, Edoardo, 2011. "The distribution of sectoral TFP growth rates: International evidence," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 113(3), pages 252-255.
    11. Barseghyan, Levon & DiCecio, Riccardo, 2016. "Externalities, endogenous productivity, and poverty traps," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 112-126.
    12. Sergey Slobodyan, 2004. "One Sector Models, Indeterminacy, and Productive Public Spending," Computing in Economics and Finance 2004 314, Society for Computational Economics.
    13. 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.
    14. Mikael Carlsson & Julián Messina & Oskar Nordström Skans, 2016. "Wage Adjustment and Productivity Shocks," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 126(595), pages 1739-1773, September.
    15. Rahman, Pk. Md. Motiur & Yamagata, Tatsufumi, 2004. "Business Cycles and Seasonal Cycles in Bangladesh," IDE Discussion Papers 1, Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization(JETRO).
    16. Nir Billfeld & Moshe Kim, 2024. "Context-dependent Causality (the Non-Nonotonic Case)," Papers 2404.05021, arXiv.org.
    17. Go, Delfin S. & Kearney, Marna & Robinson, Sherman & Thierfelder, Karen, 2004. "An Analysis of South Africa's Value Added Tax," Conference papers 331274, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    18. Swanson Eric T, 2006. "The Relative Price and Relative Productivity Channels for Aggregate Fluctuations," The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-39, October.
    19. Ezra Oberfield & Devesh Raval, 2021. "Micro Data and Macro Technology," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(2), pages 703-732, March.
    20. Herrendorf, Berthold & Valentinyi, Akos, 2006. "On the stability of the two-sector neoclassical growth model with externalities," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 30(8), pages 1339-1361, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Taylor-series approximation; model selection; numercial solution; tiered CES production function;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C32 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Time-Series Models; Dynamic Quantile Regressions; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models; Diffusion Processes; State Space Models
    • C43 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Index Numbers and Aggregation
    • C63 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computational Techniques

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:sce:scecf5:378. 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: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sceeeea.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.