Understanding Digital Technology’s Evolution and the Path of Measured Productivity Growth: Present and Future in the Mirror of the Past
Three styles of explanation have been advanced by economists seeking to account for the so-called 'productivity paradox'. The coincidence of a persisting slowdown in the growth of measured total factor productivity (TFP) in the US, since the mid-1970's, with the wave of information technology (It) innovations, is said by some to be an illusion due to the mismeasurement of real output growth; by others to expose the mistaken expectations about the benefits of computerization; and by still others to reflect the amount of time, and the volume of intangible investments in 'learning', and the time required for ancillary innovations that allow the new digital technologies to be applied in ways that are reflected in measured productivity growth. This paper shows that rather than viewing these as competing hypotheses, the dynamics of the transition to a new technological and economic regime based upon a general purpose technology (GPT) should be understood to be likely to give rise to all three 'effects.' It more fully articulates and supports this thesis, which was first advanced in the 'computer and dynamo' papers by David (1990, 1991). The relevance of that historical experience is re-asserted and supported by further evidence rebutting skeptics who have argued that the diffusion of electrification and computerization have little in common. New evidence is produced about the links between IT use, mass customization, and the upward bias of output price deflators arising from the method used to 'chain in' new products prices. The measurement bias due to the exclusion of intangible investments from the scope of the official national product accounts also is examined. Further, it is argued that the development of the general-purpose PC delayed the re-organization of businesses along lines that would have more directly raised task productivity, even though the technologies yielded positive 'revenue productivity' gains for large companies. The paper concludes by indicating the emerging technical and organizational developments that are likely to deliver a sustained surge of measured TFP growth during the decades that lie immediately ahead.
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.:
- W. Erwin Diewert & Kevin J. Fox, 1999. "Can measurement error explain the productivity paradox?," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 32(2), pages 251-280, April.
- Paul David & Gavin Wright, 1999.
"General Purpose Technologies and Surges in Productivity: Historical Reflections on the Future of the ICT Revolution,"
Economics Series Working Papers
1999-W31, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
- 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.
- Paul A. David & Gavin Wright, . "General Purpose Technologies and Surges in Productivity: Historical Reflections on the Future of the ICT Revolution," Working Papers 99026, Stanford University, Department of Economics.
- Robert Gordon, 1995.
"Problems in the Measurement and Performance of Service-Sector Productivity in the United States,"
RBA Annual Conference Volume,
in: Palle Andersen & Jacqueline Dwyer & David Gruen (ed.), Productivity and Growth
Reserve Bank of Australia.
- Robert J. Gordon, 1996. "Problems in the Measurement and Performance of Service-Sector Productivity in the United States," NBER Working Papers 5519, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Brynjolfsson, Erik. & Hitt, Lorin M., 1995.
"Paradox lost? : firm-level evidence on the returns to information systems spending,"
3786-95., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
- Erik Brynjolfsson & Lorin Hitt, 1996. "Paradox Lost? Firm-Level Evidence on the Returns to Information Systems Spending," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(4), pages 541-558, April.
- Martin Neil Baily & Robert J. Gordon, 1988. "The Productivity Slowdown, Measurement Issues, and the Explosion of Computer Power," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 19(2), pages 347-432.
- W. Michael Cox & Richard Alm, 1998. "The right stuff: America's move to mass customization," Annual Report, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, pages 3-26.
- 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.
- W. Michael Cox & Roy J. Ruffin, 1998. "What should economists measure? The implications of mass production vs. mass customization," Working Papers 9803, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
- Erik Brynjolfsson & Lorin Hitt, 1997. "Paradox Lost? Firm-level Evidence of High Returns to Information Systems Spending," Working Paper Series 162, MIT Center for Coordination Science.
- Claudia Goldin & Lawrence F. Katz, 1996.
"The Origins of Technology-Skill Complementarity,"
NBER Working Papers
5657, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Abramovitz, Moses & David, Paul A, 1973. "Reinterpreting Economic Growth: Parables and Realities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 63(2), pages 428-39, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpma:0502022. 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: (EconWPA)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.