Replication data for: Challenges to Mismeasurement Explanations for the US Productivity Slowdown
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s) Chad Syverson
Version: View help for Version V1
Name | File Type | Size | Last Modified |
---|---|---|---|
|
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet | 124.9 KB | 10/12/2019 02:30:PM |
|
text/plain | 14.6 KB | 10/12/2019 02:30:PM |
|
application/pdf | 9.6 KB | 10/12/2019 02:30:PM |
Project Citation:
Syverson, Chad. Replication data for: Challenges to Mismeasurement Explanations for the US Productivity Slowdown. Nashville, TN: American Economic Association [publisher], 2017. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2019-10-12. https://doi.org/10.3886/E113991V1
Project Description
Summary:
View help for Summary
The United States has been experiencing a slowdown in measured labor productivity growth since 2004. A number of commentators and researchers have suggested that this slowdown is at
least in part illusory because real output data have failed to capture the new and better products of the past decade. I conduct four disparate analyses, each of which offers empirical challenges
to this "mismeasurement hypothesis." First, the productivity slowdown has occurred in dozens of countries, and its size is unrelated to measures of the countries' consumption or production
intensities of information and communication technologies (ICTs, the type of goods most often cited as sources of mismeasurement). Second, estimates from the existing research literature of
the surplus created by internet-linked digital technologies fall far short of the $3 trillion or more of "missing output" resulting from the productivity growth slowdown. Third, if measurement
problems were to account for even a modest share of this missing output, the properly measured output and productivity growth rates of industries that produce and service ICTs would have
to have been multiples of their measured growth in the data. Fourth, while measured gross domestic income has been on average higher than measured gross domestic product since
2004—perhaps indicating workers are being paid to make products that are given away for free or at highly discounted prices—this trend actually began before the productivity
slowdown and moreover reflects unusually high capital income rather than labor income (i.e., profits are unusually high). In combination, these complementary facets of evidence suggest that
the reasonable prima facie case for the mismeasurement hypothesis faces real hurdles when confronted with the data.
Scope of Project
Subject Terms:
View help for Subject Terms
Productivity;
GDP;
National Income;
TFP
JEL Classification:
View help for JEL Classification
C82 Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Macroeconomic Data; Data Access
E23 Macroeconomics: Production
E32 Business Fluctuations; Cycles
C82 Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Macroeconomic Data; Data Access
E23 Macroeconomics: Production
E32 Business Fluctuations; Cycles
Geographic Coverage:
View help for Geographic Coverage
OECD,
United States
Time Period(s):
View help for Time Period(s)
1997 – 2017
Data Type(s):
View help for Data Type(s)
aggregate data
Methodology
Data Source:
View help for Data Source
Various
Related Publications
Published Versions
Report a Problem
Found a serious problem with the data, such as disclosure risk or copyrighted content? Let us know.
This material is distributed exactly as it arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is desired.