Papers Containing Keywords(s): 'analysis productivity'
The following papers contain search terms that you selected. From the papers listed below, you can navigate to the PDF, the profile page for that working paper, or see all the working papers written by an author. You can also explore tags, keywords, and authors that occur frequently within these papers.
See Working Papers by Tag(s), Keywords(s), Author(s), or Search Text
Click here to search again
Frequently Occurring Concepts within this Search
Authors
No authors occur more than twice in this search.
Viewing papers 1 through 10 of 14
-
Working PaperHousing Booms and the U.S. Productivity Puzzle
January 2020
Working Paper Number:
CES-20-04
The United States has been experiencing a slowdown in productivity growth for more than a decade. I exploit geographic variation across U.S. Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) to investigate the link between the 2006-2012 decline in house prices (the housing bust) and the productivity slowdown. Instrumental variable estimates support a causal relationship between the housing bust and the productivity slowdown. The results imply that one standard deviation decline in house prices translates into an increment of the productivity gap -- i.e. how much an MSA would have to grow to catch up with the trend -- by 6.9p.p., where the average gap is 14.51%. Using a newly-constructed capital expenditures measure at the MSA level, I find that the long investment slump that came out of the Great Recession explains an important part of this effect. Next, I document that the housing bust led to the investment slump and, ultimately, the productivity slowdown, mostly through the collapse in consumption expenditures that followed the bust. Lastly, I construct a quantitative general equilibrium model that rationalizes these empirical findings, and find that the housing bust is behind roughly 50 percent of the productivity slowdown.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperGrowing Oligopolies, Prices, Output, and Productivity
November 2018
Working Paper Number:
CES-18-48
American industries have grown more concentrated over the last forty years. In the absence of productivity innovation, this should lead to price hikes and output reductions, decreasing consumer welfare. Using public data from 1972-2012, I use price data to disentangle revenue from output. Difference-in-difference estimates show that industry concentration increases are positively correlated to productivity and real output growth, uncorrelated with price changes and overall payroll, and negatively correlated with labor's revenue share. I rationalize these results in a simple model of competition. Productive industries (with growing oligopolists) expand real output and hold down prices, raising consumer welfare, while maintaining or reducing their workforces, lowering labor's share of output.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperDispersion in Dispersion: Measuring Establishment-Level Differences in Productivity
April 2018
Working Paper Number:
CES-18-25RR
We describe new experimental productivity statistics, Dispersion Statistics on Productivity (DiSP), jointly developed and published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Census Bureau. Productivity measures are critical for understanding economic performance. Official BLS productivity statistics, which are available for major sectors and detailed industries, provide information on the sources of aggregate productivity growth. A large body of research shows that within-industry variation in productivity provides important insights into productivity dynamics. This research reveals large and persistent productivity differences across businesses even within narrowly defined industries. These differences vary across industries and over time and are related to productivity-enhancing reallocation. Dispersion in productivity across businesses can provide information about the nature of competition and frictions within sectors, and about the sources of rising wage inequality across businesses. Because there were no official statistics providing this level of detail, BLS and the Census Bureau partnered to create measures of within-industry productivity dispersion. These measures complement official BLS aggregate and industry-level productivity growth statistics and thereby improve our understanding of the rich productivity dynamics in the U.S. economy. The underlying microdata for these measures are available for use by qualified researchers on approved projects in the Federal Statistical Research Data Center (FSRDC) network. These new statistics confirm the presence of large productivity differences and we hope that these new data products will encourage further research into understanding these differences.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperEnvironmental Regulation, Abatement, and Productivity: A Frontier Analysis
September 2013
Working Paper Number:
CES-13-51
This research studies the link between environmental regulation and plant level productivity in two U.S. manufacturing industries: pulp and paper mills and oil refineries using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) models. Data on abatement spending, emissions and abated emissions are used in different DEA models to study plant productivity outcomes when accounting for abatement spending or emissions regulations. Results indicate that pulp and paper mills and oil refineries in the U.S. suffered decreases in productivity due to pollution abatement activities from 1974 to 2000. These losses in productivity are substantial but have been slowly trending downwards even when the regulations have tended to become more stringent and emission of pollutants has declined suggesting that the best practice has shifted over time. Results also show that the reported abatement expenditures are not able to explain all the losses arising out of regulation suggesting that these abatement expenditures are consistently under-reported.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperProductivity Growth Patterns in U.S. Food Manufacturing: Case of Dairy Products Industry
May 2004
Working Paper Number:
CES-04-08
A panel constructed from the Census Bureau's Longitudinal Research Database is used to measure total factor productivity growth at the plant-level and analyzes the multifactor bias of technical change at three-digit product group level containing five different four-digit sub-group categories for the U.S. dairy products industry from 1972 through 1995. In the TFP growth decomposition, analyzing the growth and its components according to the quartile ranks show that scale effect is the most significant element of TFP growth except the plants in the third quartile rank where technical change dominates throughout the time periods. The exogenous input bias results show that throughout the time periods, technical change is 1) capital-using; 2) labor-using after 1980; 3) material-saving except 1981-1985 period; and, 4) energy-using except 1981-1985 and 1991-1995 periods. Plant productivity analysis indicate that less than 50% of the plants in the dairy products industry stay in the same category, indicating considerable movement between productivity rank categories. Investment analysis results indicate that plant-level investments are quite lumpy since a relatively small percent of observations account for a disproportionate share of overall investment. Productivity growth is found to be positively correlated with recent investment spikes for plants with TFP ranking in the middle two quartiles and uncorrelated with plants in the smallest and largest quartiles. Similarly, past TFP growth rates present no significant correlation with future investment spikes for plants in any quartile.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperProductivity Growth Patterns in U.S. Food Manufacturing: Case of Meat Products Industry
March 2004
Working Paper Number:
CES-04-04
A panel constructed from the Census Bureau's Longitudinal Research Database is used to measure total factor productivity growth at the plant-level and analyzes the multifactor bias of technical change for the U.S. meat products industry from 1972 through 1995. For example, addressing TFP growth decomposition for the meat products sub-sector by quartile ranks shows that the technical change effect is the dominant element of TFP growth for the first two quartiles, while the scale effect dominates TFP growth for the higher two quartiles. Throughout the time period, technical change is 1) capital-using; 2) material-saving; 3) labor-using; and, 4) energy-saving and becoming energy-using after 1980. The smaller sized plants are more likely to fluctuate in their productivity rankings; in contrast, large plants are more stable in their productivity rankings. Plant productivity analysis indicate that less than 50% of the plants in the meat industry stay in the same category, indicating considerable movement between productivity rank categories. Investment analysis results strongly indicate that plant-level investments are quite lumpy since a relatively small percent of observations account for a disproportionate share of overall investment. Productivity growth is found to be positively correlated with recent investment spikes for plants with TFP ranking in the middle two quartiles and uncorrelated with firms in the smallest and largest quartiles. Similarly, past TFP growth rates are positively correlated with future investment spikes for firms in the same quartiles. \View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperAre Some Firms Better at IT? Differing Relationships between Productivity and IT Spending
October 1999
Working Paper Number:
CES-99-13
Although recent studies have found a positive relationship between spending on information technology and firm productivity, the magnitude of this relationship has not been as dramatic as one would expect given the anecdotal evidence. Data collected by the Bureau of the Census is analyzed to investigate the relationship between plant-level productivity and spending on IT. This relationship is investigated by separating the manufacturing plants in the sample along two dimensions, total factor productivity and IT spending. Analysis along these dimensions reveals that there are significant differences between the highest and lowest productivity plants. The highest productivity plants tend to spend less on IT while the lowest productivity plants tend to spend more on IT. Although there is support for the idea that lower productivity plants are spending more on IT to compensate for their productivity shortcomings, the results indicate that this is not the only difference. The robustness of this finding is strengthened by investigating changes in productivity and IT spending over time. High productivity plants with the lowest amounts of IT spending tend to remain high productivity plants with low IT spending while low productivity plants with high IT spending tend to remain low productivity plants with high IT spending. The results show that management skill, as measured by the overall productivity level of a firm, is an additional factor that must be taken into consideration when investigating the IT "productivity paradox."View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperIT Spending and Firm Productivity: Additional Evidence from the Manufacturing Sector
October 1999
Working Paper Number:
CES-99-10
The information systems (IS) "productivity paradox" is based on those studies that found little or no positive relationship between firm productivity and spending on IS. However, some earlier studies and one more recent study have found a positive relationship. Given the large amounts spent by organizations on information systems, it is important to understand the relationship between spending on IS and productivity. Beyond replicating positive results, an explanation is needed for the conflicting conclusions reached by these earlier studies. Data collected by the Bureau of the Census is analyzed to investigate the relationship between plant-level productivity and spending on IS. The relationship between productivity and spending on IS is investigated using assumptions and models similar to both studies with positive findings and studies with negative findings. First, the overall relationship is investigated across all manufacturing industries. Next, the relationship is investigated industry by industry. The analysis finds a positive relationship between plant-level productivity and spending on IS. The relationship is also shown to vary across industries. The conflicting results from earlier studies are explained by understanding the characteristics of the data analyzed in each study. A large enough sample size is needed to find the relatively smaller effect from IS spending as compared to other input spending included in the models. Because the relationship between productivity and IS spending varies across industries, industry mix is shown to be an important data characteristic that may have influenced prior results.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperLarge Plant Data in the LRD: Selection of a Sample for Estimation
March 1999
Working Paper Number:
CES-99-06
This paper describes preliminary work with the LRD during our tenure at the Census Bureau as participants in the ASA/NSF/Census Research Program. The objective of the work described here were two-fold. First, we wanted to examine the suitableness of these data for the calculation of plant-level productivity indexes, following procedures typically implemented with time series data. Second, we wanted to select a small number of 2-digit industry groups that would be well suited to the estimation of production functions and systems of factor share equations and factor demand forecasting equations with system-wide techniques. This description of our initial work may be useful to other researchers who are interested in the LRD for the analysis of productivity growth and/or the estimation of systems of factor equations, because the specific results reported in this memo suggest that the data are of good quality, or because the nature of the tasks undertaken provides insight into issues that arise in the analysis of longitudinal establishment data.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperAggregate Productivity Growth: Lessons From Microeconomic Evidence
September 1998
Working Paper Number:
CES-98-12
In this study we focus on the role of the reallocation of activity across individual producers for aggregate productivity growth. A growing body of empirical analysis yields striking patterns in the behavior of establishment-level reallocation and productivity. Nevertheless, a review of existing studies yields a wide range of findings regarding the contribution of reallocation to aggregate productivity growth. Through our review of existing studies and our own sensitivity analysis, we find that reallocation plays a significant role in the changes in productivity growth at the industry level and that the impact of net entry is disproportionate since entering plants tend to displace less productive exiting plants, even after controlling for overall average growth in productivity. However, an important conclusion of our sensitivity analysis is that the quantitative contribution of reallocation to the aggregate change in productivity is sensitive to the decomposition methodology employed. Our findings also confirm and extend others in the literature that indicate that both learning and selection effects are important in this context. A novel aspect of our analysis is that we have examined the role of reallocation for aggregate productivity growth to a selected set of service sector industries. Our analysis considers the 4-digit industries that form the 3-digit industry automobile repair shops. We found tremendous churning in this industry with extremely large rates of entry and exit. Moreover, we found that productivity growth in the industry is dominated establishment data at Census, the results are quite striking and clearly call for further analysis.View Full Paper PDF
