Econometrics Volume 3: Economic Growth in the Information Age
This page intentionally left blank
Econometrics Volum...
253 downloads
2448 Views
6MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
Econometrics Volume 3: Economic Growth in the Information Age
This page intentionally left blank
Econometrics Volume 3: Economic Growth in the Information Age
Dale W. Jorgenson
The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England
© 2002 Dale W. Jorgenson All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, and information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher. This book was set in Palatino by Windfall Software using ZzTEX and was printed and bound in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Jorgenson, Dale Weldeau, 1933– Econometrics / Dale W. Jorgenson. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-262-10094-0 (v. 3: hc: alk. paper) 1. Production (Economic theory)—Econometric models. I. Title. HB241.J67 2000 330 .01 5195—dc21
99-046138
Contents
List of Figures List of Tables Preface Dale W. Jorgenson List of Sources 1
2
3
Information Technology and the U.S. Economy Dale W. Jorgenson 1.1 The Information Age 1.2 The Role of Information Technology 1.3 The American Growth Resurgence 1.4 Economics on Internet Time Notes Computers and Growth Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Computer Investment 2.3 A Model of Computer Services 2.4 Computer Stocks and Services 2.5 Computers and Growth 2.6 Conclusion Notes Raising the Speed Limit: U.S. Economic Growth in the Information Age Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh 3.1 Introduction 3.2 The Recent U.S. Growth Experience
ix xiii xvii xxix 1 3 12 22 39 40 43 43 45 49 55 61 67 68
71 71 74
vi
4
5
6
Contents
3.3 Setting the Speed Limit 3.4 Industry Productivity 3.5 Conclusions Appendix A: Estimating Output Appendix B: Estimating Capital Services Appendix C: Estimating Labor Input Appendix D: Estimating Industry-Level Productivity Appendix E: Extrapolation for 1999 Notes
103 110 123 126 129 141 144 145 146
Why Has the Energy-Output Ratio Fallen in China? Richard F. Garbaccio, Mun S. Ho, and Dale W. Jorgenson 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Review of Previous Work on China’s Energy-Output Ratio 4.3 Problems with Official Chinese Data 4.4 Constructing a Consistent Data Set 4.5 A Methodology for Decomposing the Change in Energy Intensity 4.6 Decomposition of the Change in China’s Energy Intensity 4.7 Effects of Using Alternative Estimates of Inflation 4.8 Conclusions Notes
151
Whatever Happened to Productivity Growth? Dale W. Jorgenson and Eric Yip 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Investment and Productivity 5.3 Sources of Growth 5.4 Convergence 5.5 Endogenizing Growth Appendix A: Data Sources Notes Tax Reform and the Cost of Capital Dale W. Jorgenson 6.1 Introduction 6.2 International Comparisons 6.3 Alternative Approaches
151 152 155 158 164 167 173 175 176 179 179 181 187 196 201 206 209 211 211 218 237
Contents
7
8
9
vii
6.4 Summary and Conclusion Appendix A: King-Fullerton Framework Notes
243 248 255
Investment and Growth Dale W. Jorgenson 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Sources and Uses of Growth 7.3 The Growth Revival 7.4 Endogenous Growth 7.5 Econometric Modeling 7.6 Conclusion Notes
259
Policies to Stimulate Economic Growth Mun S. Ho and Dale W. Jorgenson 8.1 Introduction 8.2 The Education Sector and Human Capital 8.3 A Dynamic Model with Human Capital 8.4 Data and Parameter Estimates 8.5 The Effect of Increased Expenditures on Education 8.6 The Effects of Increased Enrollment 8.7 Conclusion Notes Did We Lose the War on Poverty? Dale W. Jorgenson 9.1 The Official Poverty Line 9.2 Measuring the Household Standard of Living 9.3 Comparing Standards of Living among Households 9.4 Measuring the Household Cost of Living 9.5 Estimates of the Poverty Rate 9.6 Poverty and Redistributional Policy 9.7 From Individual to Social Welfare 9.8 Poverty and Inequality within and between Groups 9.9 Measuring the Standard of Living 9.10 Recommendations and Conclusions Notes
259 262 266 270 277 281 285 289 289 292 299 308 309 312 317 318 321 322 323 325 327 328 330 332 335 336 337 338
viii
Contents
10 Indexing Government Programs for Changes in the Cost of Living Dale W. Jorgenson and Daniel T. Slesnick 10.1 Measuring the Cost of Living 10.2 Implementing Cost-of-Living Indexes 10.3 Group Cost-of-Living Indexes 10.4 Recommendations and Conclusions 11 Controlling Carbon Emissions in China Richard F. Garbaccio, Mun S. Ho, and Dale W. Jorgenson 11.1 Introduction 11.2 A Dynamic Economy-Energy-Environment Model for China 11.3 Data and Exogenous Variables 11.4 Carbon Taxes and Emissions 11.5 Conclusions Appendix A: Description of the Model Notes
339 343 346 352 359 361 362 364 368 370 380 382 390 393
12 The Economic Impact of Fundamental Tax Reform Dale W. Jorgenson and Peter J. Wilcoxen 12.1 Introduction 12.2 Provisions of U.S. Tax Law 12.3 Fundamental Tax Reform 12.4 Conclusion Notes
393 401 403 419 420
References Index
421 455
List of Figures
1.1 1.2 1.3
Relative prices of computers and semiconductors, 1959–1999
5
Relative prices of computers, communications, software, and services 1948–1999
8
Relative prices of computers, communications, and software, 1959–1999
10
Output shares of information technology by type, 1948–1999
17
Input shares of information technology by type, 1948–1999
21
1.6
Output contribution of information technology
30
1.7
Output contribution of information technology by type
30
1.8
Capital input contribution of information technology
31
1.9
Capital input contribution of information technology by type
32
Contributions of information technology to total factor productivity growth
33
1.11
Sources of gross domestic product growth
35
1.12
Sources of average labor productivity growth
37
2.1
Relative price of investment, 1958–1992
47
2.2
Share of investment quantity, 1958–1992
48
2.3
Relative price of capital stock, 1958–1992
57
2.4
Share capital stock quantity, 1958–1992
57
2.5
Relative price of capital services, 1959–1992
59
2.6
Share of capital services quantity, 1959–1992
61
1.4 1.5
1.10
x
3.1
List of Figures
Relative prices of information technology outputs, 1960–1998
79
3.2
Output shares of information technology, 1960–1998
81
3.3
Input shares of information technology, 1960–1998
82
3.4
Sources of U.S. economic growth, 1959–1998
88
3.5
Output contribution of information technology, 1959–1998
90
Output contribution of information technology assets, 1959–1998
90
Input contribution of information technology, 1959–1998
91
Input contribution of information technology assets, 1959–1998
91
3.9
Sources of U.S. labor productivity growth, 1959–1998
94
3.10
TFP decomposition for alternative deflation cases
103
3.11
Industry contributions to aggregate total factor productivity growth, 1958–1996
122
4.1
Energy-GDP ratio, 1953–1995
153
5.1
Convergence of output and input per capita and productivity
200
Convergence of capital input, capital stock per capita and capital quality
201
Convergence of labor input and hours worked per capita and labor quality
202
(a) Human capital of the United States and (b) capital of the United States
295
(a) Student enrollment and (b) education cost as share of GDP
296
Effects of increasing expenditures on education (percentage change from base case)
311
(a) Educational attainment of males, age 34 and (b) females, age 34
313
Effects of increasing college enrollment by 20 percent (percentage change from base case)
315
Household standard and cost of living
324
3.6 3.7 3.8
5.2 5.3 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 9.1
List of Figures
xi
9.2
U.S. poverty ratios
329
9.3
Poverty and inequality
331
9.4
Relative poverty and remaining inequality
334
10.1
CPI-U and CPIX1 price indexes
347
10.2
Tornqvist and social cost-of-living indexes
351
10.3
Relative prices
353
10.4
White and nonwhite cost-of-living indexes
355
10.5
Male- and female-head cost-of-living indexes
356
10.6
Nonelderly and elderly cost-of-living indexes
356
11.1
Carbon emissions
373
11.2
Percentage change in GDP relative to base case
373
11.3
Carbon taxes required to attain a given reduction in emissions
374
11.4
Reduction in other taxes to offset carbon tax revenues
374
11.5
Percentage change in consumption relative to base case
375
11.6
Percentage change in investment relative to base case
376
12.1
Organization of the Use table
396
12.2
Organization of the Make table
396
12.3
Base Case GDP
408
12.4
Consumption tax rates
408
12.5
GDP
409
12.6
Investment
410
12.7
Consumption
411
12.8
Exports
411
12.9
Imports
412
12.10 Price of investment
413
12.11
413
Price of consumption
12.12 Labor supply
414
12.13 Industry prices, 1996
415
12.14 Industry prices, 2020
416
12.15 Industry outputs, 1996
417
12.16 Industry outputs, 2020
418
This page intentionally left blank
List of Tables
1.1
Information technology output and Gross Domestic Product
14
1.2
Growth rates of outputs and inputs
16
1.3
Information technology capital stock and domestic tangible assets
18
Information technology capital services and gross domestic income
20
1.5
Labor Services
24
1.6
Sources of Gross Domestic Product growth
28
1.7
Sources of total factor productivity growth
34
1.8
Sources of average labor productivity growth
37
2.1
Investment quantity in 1987 dollars
46
2.2
Capital stock quantity in 1987 dollars
56
2.3
Capital services quantity in 1987 dollars
58
2.4
Growth rates of aggregate output, inputs, and productivity, 1947–1992
63
3.1
Average growth rates of selected outputs and inputs
80
3.2
Growth in U.S. private domestic output and the sources of growth, 1959–1999
86
3.3
The sources of ALP growth, 1959–1998
93
3.4
Impact of alternative deflation of software and communications equipment on the sources of U.S. economic growth, 1959–1998
98
1.4
3.5
Information technology decomposition of TFP growth for alternative deflation cases, 1990–1998
102
xiv
3.6
List of Tables
Growth rates of output, inputs, and total factor productivity comparison of BLS, CBO, and Jorgenson-Stiroh
106
3.7
1996 value added and gross output by industry
114
3.8
Sources of U.S. economic growth by industry, 1958–1996
116
A.1
Private domestic output and high-tech assets
127
B.1
Investment and capital stock by asset type and class
136
B.2
Total capital stock and high-tech assets
138
B.3
Total capital services and high-tech assets
139
C.1
Labor input
143
4.1
GVO-GDP ratios, 1980–1995
155
4.2
Energy-output ratios, 1980–1995
157
4.3
Comparison of value and physical quantity growth rates, 1987–1992
157
Summary figures for adjusted input-output tables (bil. yuan)
162
4.5
Domestic output of energy sectors
163
4.6
Decomposition of change in energy use per unit of GDP
169
4.7
Sectoral energy intensity, 1987 and 1992
171
4.8
Changes in composition of final demand, 1987–1992
172
4.9
Decomposition of change in energy use with alternative estimates of inflation
174
5.1
Disaggregation of capital by asset characteristics
186
5.2
Disaggregation of labor by demographic characteristics
187
5.3
Levels of output and input per capita and productivity (U.S. = 100.0 in 1985)
188
5.4
Growth rate and level in output
188
5.5
Growth rate and level in population
189
5.6
Growth in output and input per capita and productivity (percentage)
190
5.7
Levels of capital input and capital stock per capita and capital quality (U.S. = 100.0 in 1985)
192
Growth in capital input and capital stock per capita and capital quality (percentage)
193
4.4
5.8
List of Tables
5.9
xv
Levels of labor input and hours worked per capita and labor quality (U.S. = 100.0 in 1985)
194
Growth in labor input and hours worked per capita and labor quality (percentage)
196
Marginal effective corporate tax rates, nine countries, 1980, 1985, 1990
220
Marginal effective personal tax rates, nine countries, 1980, 1985, 1990
224
Marginal effective tax rates on corporate source income, nine countries, 1980, 1985, 1990
226
Marginal effective noncorporate tax rates, nine countries, 1980, 1985, 1990
228
Marginal effective housing tax rates, nine countries, 1980, 1985, 1990
231
8.1
Input-output structure of model
299
8.2
(top) Estimates of the parameters of model; (bottom) estimates of coefficients of production and consumption functions
303
8.3
Effects of higher expenditures on education
310
8.4
Effects of higher enrollment
314
9.1
Jorgenson-Slesnick household equivalence scales (Reference: Size 4, age 35–44, northeast, urban, white)
327
Census equivalence scales (Reference: Size 4, nonfarm, male)
328
10.1
Group cost-of-living indexes
348
10.2
Unit-root tests; null hypothesis: unit root
349
10.3
Cointegration tests; null hypothesis: no cointegration
350
10.4
Relative prices
354
10.5
Group cost-of-living indexes
357
10.6
Tornqvist cost-of-living indexes
358
11.1
Summary social accounting matrix for China, 1992 (billion yuan)
366
11.2
Sectoral characteristics for China, 1992
367
11.3
Effects of a carbon tax on selected variables (percentage change from base case)
377
5.10 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5
9.2
xvi
11.4
List of Tables
Effects of a carbon tax on first year sectoral prices (percentage change from base case)
378
Effects of a carbon tax on first year sectoral output (percentage change from base case).
379
Selected parameters and variables in the China model parameters
383
12.1
The definitions of industries
394
12.2
Make and Use table variables
395
11.5 A.1
Preface Dale W. Jorgenson
The stagflation of the 1970s greatly undermined the Keynesian Revolution of the 1930s, leading to the New Classical Counterrevolution that has transformed the economics of the business cycle. The unanticipated American growth revival of the 1990s has similar potential for revolutionizing economists’ perspectives on economic growth. It is not surprising that the combination of more rapid growth and lower inflation has touched off a strenuous debate about whether the improvements in America’s economic performance can be sustained. This volume presents my econometric studies of economic growth in the information age. The point of departure is my presidential address to the American Economic Association, “Information Technology and the U.S. Economy,” delivered in New Orleans, Louisiana, on January 6, 2001. In chapter 1 I show that the remarkable behavior of information technology (IT) prices is the key to understanding the growth resurgence of the American economy. This can be traced to developments in semiconductor technology that are widely understood by technologists and economists. The economics of information technology begins with the observation that semiconductors have become cheaper at a truly astonishing rate. Modeling the behavior of semiconductor prices is a severe test for the econometric methods used in the official price statistics. A hedonic model gives the price of semiconductor products as a function of the characteristics that determine performance, such as speed of processing and storage capacity. A constant quality price index isolates the price change by holding these characteristics constant. Mainframe and personal computers have come to rely heavily on semiconductor storage devices, or “memory chips,” for main memory. Similarly, computers rely on microprocessors, or “logic chips,” for central processing. However, semiconductors account for less than half of
xviii
Preface
computer costs, and computer prices have fallen much less rapidly than semiconductor prices. In 1985 the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) introduced constant quality price indexes for computers and peripheral equipment into the U.S. National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA). Rosanne Cole et al. (1986) of IBM constructed the computer price indexes employed by BEA. In 1985 the Program on Technology and Economic Policy that I direct at Harvard University organized a conference to discuss the BEA-IBM constant quality price indexes for computers. Ralph Landau and I edited the conference proceedings, Technology and Capital Formation (1989). This volume established the foundation for my research with Kevin Stiroh (1995) on the impact of computers on economic growth. In chapter 2 we show that the concept of the cost of capital, presented in my volume Capital Theory and Investment Behavior (1996), is the key to modeling the economic impact of information technology. Swiftly falling IT prices provide a powerful economic incentive for substituting capital for labor, as well as substituting IT equipment for other forms of capital. The rate of the IT price decline is also a key component of the cost of capital, required for assessing the impacts of rapidly growing stocks of computers. Constant quality price indexes are used as deflators for investments in computers. These investments are cumulated into stocks of computer capital. Finally, constant quality service prices, incorporating the cost of capital, are employed to convert the stocks into flows of computer services. The production possibility frontier was the principal innovation in “The Embodiment Hypothesis,” chapter 2 in my volume, Postwar U.S. Economic Growth (1995). The most compelling advantage of this model is the explicit role that it provides for constant quality price indexes. The frontier captures substitution between capital and labor inputs, as well as substitution between investment and consumption outputs. Using this concept, Stiroh and I have generated evidence of massive substitutions of computers for outputs of consumption goods and other investment goods, as well as similar substitutions of services of computers for labor inputs and other capital inputs. The eleventh set of comprehensive revisions of the U.S. national accounts, released by BEA in 1999, reclassified the output of software as an investment good. These revisions also incorporated a constant quality price index for prepackaged software developed by Steven Oliner and Daniel Sichel (1994). In chapter 3 Stiroh and I extend the production possibility frontier to include telecommunications equipment and software
Preface
xix
as well as computers. We employ a hedonic model of the prices of digital telephone switching equipment from the U.S. national accounts. The rapid progress of econometric research on prices of information technology has left some significant gaps. While hedonic models of prices for computers and peripheral equipment now cover all forms of investment in these IT products, constant quality prices for telecommunications equipment and software cover only part of the investment. In chapter 3 Stiroh and I show that the impact of the resulting biases in IT price indexes is to underestimate the growth of output and overestimate the growth of total factor productivity. In chapter 1 I include investments by the government sector, as well as investments by business and household sectors, in the measure of IT outputs. My output measure also includes the imputed value of IT services in the household and government sectors. (The value of these services employed in the business sector is included in business income and does not require a separate imputation.) This measure of output is similar to the concept of gross domestic product employed by BEA. However, my measure of IT services incorporates all the components of the cost of IT capital, while the BEA measure includes only depreciation. A key innovation in the model of production employed in chapter 1 is the allocation of total factor productivity growth between information and non-information technology. I show that the contribution of information technology roughly doubled between the periods 1990–1995 and 1995–1999, but that the contribution of non-information technology increased even more. However, the rise in the growth of total factor productivity accounted for less than a third of the two percent jump in U.S. economic growth after 1995. Almost half the jump was due to a surge in the growth of capital input, while the rising contribution of labor input accounted for the rest. As a consequence of the advance of information technology, many of the most familiar concepts in growth economics have been superseded. The aggregate production function employed by Robert M. Solow (1957, 1960) heads the list. The production function gives a single output as a function of capital and labor inputs. There is no role for separate prices of investment and consumption goods and, hence, no place for constant quality prices of information technology in measuring the output of investment goods. Similarly, capital stock is no longer adequate to capture the rising importance of IT. This measure of capital input completely obscures the restructuring that is the wellspring of the American growth resurgence.
xx
Preface
Accurate modeling of substitution among different types of capital input, especially information technology and other forms of capital, is essential in assessing the impact of investment. Finally, hours worked omits the rapid shifts in the evaluation of skills as a consequence of advances in information technology. This has been superseded by a measure of labor input that reflects substitution among workers with different skills. The second major theme of this volume is international comparisons of patterns of economic growth in the information age. This is also the primary focus of my volume, International Comparisons of Economic Growth (1995). In chapter 5 Eric Yip and I present empirical support for a neo-classical growth model characterized by persistent differences in productivity, capital quality, labor quality, and hours worked per capita among countries. This can be contrasted with the econometric version of Solow’s (1956) neo-classical model employed in the seminal paper by Gregory Mankiw, David Romer, and David Weil (1991) where these critical differences among countries are suppressed. Yip and I assemble the empirical evidence for our neo-classical growth model by constructing consistent data on the sources of economic growth for the G7 countries, covering the period 1960–1995. Our methodology is based on the same innovations as those employed in modeling the U.S. economy in chapter 1. The cost of capital plays a central role in capturing the impact of investment in tangible assets. We employ a production possibility frontier for each country in order to incorporate the available data on investment in information technology. Yip and I find that the United States has retained its lead in output per capita among the G7 countries throughout the period 1960-1995. The United States has also maintained its lead in input per capita, while relinquishing the lead in productivity to France. Investments in tangible assets and human capital account for the overwhelming proportion of economic growth in the G7 countries and also explain the predominant share of international differences in output per capita. The third major theme of this book is the econometric modeling of economic growth in the information age. An econometric model of the production possibility frontier was the central contribution of “Transcendental Logarithmic Production Frontiers,” chapter 4 in volume 1 of this set, Econometric Modeling of Producer Behavior (2000). This econometric model represents the technology of the U.S. economy in my book with Kun-Young Yun, Lifting the Burden: Tax Reform, the Cost of Capi-
Preface
xxi
tal, and U.S. Economic Growth (2001). We estimate the parameters of this model from a data set that includes the BEA-IBM constant quality price for computers. In “Inflation-Proof Depreciation of Assets,” chapter 8 in Tax Policy and the Cost of Capital (1996), Alan Auerbach and I augment the cost of capital framework by introducing the marginal effective tax rate. The cost of capital summarizes information about the future consequences of investment in tangible assets essential for current decisions. The marginal effective tax rate characterizes the consequence of investment decisions that is particularly suitable for comparisons among alternative tax policies. Efficient capital allocation requires the equalization of marginal effective tax rates on all assets. Yun and I summarize the tax burden on capital income by means of marginal effective tax rates for all assets and all sectors of the U.S. economy. We show that the Tax Reform Act of 1986 significantly reduced differences in the tax burdens among corporate, non-corporate, and household sectors. Differences between short-lived and long-lived depreciable assets were almost eliminated by this legislation. However, substantial differences in marginal effective tax rates between household and corporate sectors still remain. These gaps reveal important opportunities for gains in efficiency through reallocation of capital by means of tax reform. In chapter 6 I employ marginal effective tax rates to compare the effects of reforms of capital income taxation in the G7 countries, Australia, and Sweden during the 1980s and 1990s. In most countries these reforms reversed decades of erosion of the income tax base to provide incentives for saving and investment. Efforts were made to equalize tax rates on assets within the business sector. However, equalization of tax burdens on housing and business capital has proved to be extraordinarily difficult within the framework of the income tax. Although reforms have substantially reduced barriers to efficient allocation of capital, important opportunities for further gains in efficiency remain in all nine countries. Yun and I focus on the determinants of investment in tangible assets, including investments in information technology. Our econometric model combines the production possibility frontier with an econometric representation of preferences. This representation was first presented in “Transcendental Logarithmic Utility Functions,” chapter 1 of Aggregate Consumer Behavior (1997). Yun and I employ our econometric model of economic growth to simulate the impact of alternative tax reforms. We
xxii
Preface
compare the level of social welfare for each tax reform with welfare in the absence of reform, translating these welfare comparisons into monetary terms. In chapter 8 Mun S. Ho and I extend the econometric modeling of economic growth in the information age by incorporating a model of investment in human capital. We treat this investment as the output of the educational sector. Inputs of the sector include purchases of intermediate goods such as school supplies and energy by educational institutions, the services of tangible assets like buildings and equipment employed in these institutions, the services of human capital from teachers, and—most important of all—the services of human capital from students. A detailed set of growth accounts for the educational sector is contained in my paper with Barbara Fraumeni, “The Output of the Educational Sector,” chapter 7 of Postwar U.S. Economic Growth (1995). Our point of departure is that education is a service industry, but its output is investment in human capital. This is measured as increments to the lifetime incomes of all students enrolled in the educational system. The value of investment in education, measured in this way, is roughly equal to the value of the working time of the entire U.S. labor force. Ho and I have evaluated alternative educational policies by transforming changes in welfare associated with policy changes into changes in wealth. We consider policies that would increase educational “quality” by increasing expenditures and taxes that finance them, while holding educational participation rates constant. We also consider policies that would hold expenditures and taxes constant, while increasing participation rates. We conclude that enhancing educational quality would reduce social welfare, while increasing participation rates would increase welfare. In chapter 7 I describe the barriers to extending econometric models of economic growth to encompass intellectual capital. The standard model for investment in intellectual capital, formulated by Zvi Griliches (1973), treats this investment as an output of research and development. The services of intellectual capital are a factor of production, like the services of tangible assets and human capital in my model with Ho. While the output of the educational sector can be defined in terms of increments to lifetime incomes of students, there is no comparable measure for the output of research and development. Pricing this output remains a major barrier to incorporating intellectual capital into econometric models of economic growth.
Preface
xxiii
The fourth major theme of this book is the econometric approach for measuring social welfare in the information age, also the focus of Measuring Social Welfare (1997). The essential idea is to recover measures of individual welfare from an econometric model of aggregate consumer behavior. These are combined into an indicator of welfare that reflects horizontal and vertical equity, as well as economic efficiency. The econometric approach is summarized in chapter 1 of the volume, “Aggregate Consumer Behavior and the Measurement of Social Welfare,” my presidential address to the Econometric Society. Daniel Slesnick provides a much more detailed account in his book, Consumption and Social Welfare (2001). Multi-million dollar budgets are involved in statistical reporting of measures of the cost of living, while millions more are spent on measures of poverty, inequality, and the standard of living. Unfortunately, these well-established programs give highly misleading results and require a complete overhaul. The key to revision of these programs is the effective exploitation of existing surveys of household consumption. In chapter 9 (“Did We Lose the War on Poverty?”) I give a detailed example of econometric measures of the incidence of poverty based on consumption. I show that the War on Poverty was a success, while official estimates based on income rather than consumption purport to show the reverse. In chapter 10, Slesnick and I present a new measure of the cost of living based on the econometric approach to measuring social welfare. This incorporates all the information employed in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) but preserves important features of the data ignored in constructing these price index numbers. For example, the econometric approach captures changes in household spending patterns in response to changes in prices and total expenditure. In addition, it includes the effects of changes in the demographic structure of the population on aggregate spending patterns. Slesnick and I show that inflation rates over the period 1947–1995 are virtually identical for the econometric measure of the cost of living and the CPI. Over the first half of the period, the econometric approach generates slightly higher inflation rates, while the reverse is true for the second half. We find that group cost of living indexes are similar for white and nonwhite households, for female-headed and male-headed households, and for non-elderly households. The elderly have experienced slightly higher inflation rates since 1973. We recommend indexing
xxiv
Preface
government programs, such as Social Security, by group cost of living indexes rather than the CPI. The fifth theme of this volume is econometric general equilibrium modeling in the information age. This is also the subject of Energy, the Environment, and Economic Growth (1998). In chapter 12 Peter J. Wilcoxen and I present an intertemporal general equilibrium model for analyzing the impact of tax policies in the United States. This preserves the key features of more highly aggregated models, like the one presented in chapter 8. However, Wilcoxen and I have disaggregated the representations of technology and preferences in order to provide a more detailed perspective on the impact of changes in tax policy. One important dimension for disaggregation is to introduce a distinction between commodities and industries in order to model business responses to tax-induced price changes. We also distinguish among households by level of wealth and demographic characteristics so that we can model the responses of households to tax policies as well. Finally, we model demands for different types of capital services in each of thirty-five industrial sectors, as well as the household sector. These demands depend on tax policies through measures of the cost of capital that incorporate the characteristic features of U.S. tax law described in my book with Yun. We consider the economic impact of substituting a tax on consumption for the existing system of income taxes in the United States. We first consider the Armey-Shelby Flat Tax. This proposal levies taxes on the difference between business receipts and the sum of business purchases from other firms and payrolls. Labor income is taxed at the individual level. An important feature of this proposal is a system of personal exemptions that have the effect of setting the marginal rates of taxation equal to zero up to the exempt amount of income. The purpose of the exemptions is to introduce progressivity into the rate structure, since average tax rates rise gradually from zero to the flat tax rate as household income increases. The second tax reform proposal we consider is the National Retail Sales Tax. The tax base is the same as in our simulations of the Flat Tax. However, the method of collection is different. The Flat Tax preserves the existing structures of the corporate and individual income taxes but alters the tax base. The National Retail Sales Tax eliminates corporate and individual income taxes and relies on retail establishments to collect the taxes. This definition of retail establishments would include real estate developers and providers of professional services, such as legal
Preface
xxv
and medical services. Most important, no personal exemptions would be provided. The National Retail Sales tax would generate a substantial acceleration in economic growth, initially through a sharp rise in the labor supply, since capital stock is fixed in the short run. In the longer run a higher level of economic activity would be generated by added capital formation. By contrast, the Flat Tax would generate a very modest rise in the level of economic activity through increases in the labor supply. Capital formation would fall initially and would remain depressed, relative to levels that would prevail in the absence of tax reform. In chapter 11 Richard Garbaccio, Ho, and I present an intertemporal general equilibrium model of the Chinese economy. The main features of the model are the same as those of the U.S. model given in Chapter 11. We account for the effects of population growth, capital accumulation, changes in technology, and changing patterns of demand in China. Our model of the Chinese economy reflects the fact that plan and market institutions continue to coexist. Although the scope of central planning has been drastically reduced for most commodities, it still affects the allocation of energy. In addition, capital markets are largely under government control, either directly through the state budget or indirectly through the state-owned banking system. Although there is a wide range of forecasts of future emissions of carbon dioxide in China, they are unanimous in projecting that China will become the largest emitter within a few decades. In chapter 11 we show how carbon taxes could be used to control emissions. The extra revenue raised by a carbon tax is offset by reductions in all other taxes. The effect of a carbon tax would be to reduce household income and raise the retained earnings of enterprises. Spending would shift from consumption to investment and higher investment would lead to increases in future output. There would a “double dividend” from imposing a carbon tax, namely, reductions in carbon emissions combined with future increases in output and consumption. An important issue is whether the coexistence of plan and market institutions reduces the responsiveness of energy demand to price changes. The price responsiveness of energy demand in the United States is analyzed in the companion volume, Econometric General Equilibrium Modeling (1998). Between 1978 and 1995 the energy-output ratio in China decreased by 55 percent as the Chinese economy expanded at double-digit rates. Using input-output tables for China for 1987 and 1992, Garbaccio, Ho, and I show in chapter 4 that this can be explained
xxvi
Preface
by declines in energy-output ratios within individual Chinese industries. Energy-intensive industries in China actually increased in relative importance from 1987 to 1992, raising the Chinese energy-output ratio. Increasing imports of energy-intensive products made a modest contribution to the decline in the energy-output ratio. We conclude that demands for energy are very responsive to the price changes that have accompanied the transition to a market economy in China. Accordingly, market-based approaches to environmental policy, such as a carbon tax, are not only feasible but also likely to be highly effective. I conclude that the steadily rising importance of information technology has created new research opportunities in all areas of economics. Economic historians, led by Alfred Chandler (2000) and Paul David (2000), have made substantial progress in placing the Information Age in historical context. Chandler traces the development of information technology in America over the past two centuries, establishing persistent features of the advance of this technology. David emphasizes similarities and differences between the diffusion of information technology and the diffusion of innovations such as electricity generation. Several models of the semiconductor industry exist, but none successfully account for the shift from a three-year product cycle to a twoyear cycle that took place in 1995. In chapter 1 I show that this is the driving force behind the resurgence of American economic growth in the last half of the 1990s. A two-year cycle would continue to propel semiconductor prices on an accelerated downward course and produce rapid productivity growth in the IT-producing industries. Reversion to a three-year cycle would reduce this productivity growth to the more moderate pace that prevailed before 1995. Capital and labor markets have been severely impacted by the advance of information technology. Enormous uncertainties surround the relationship between equity valuations and the future growth prospects of the American economy. One theory attributes rising valuations of equities after 1995 to the accumulation of intangible assets, such as intellectual property and organizational capital. A competing theory treats these high valuations as a bubble that burst in the year 2000. The behavior of labor markets impacted by the spread of information technology also poses important questions. Widening wage differentials by skill have been attributed to computerization of the workplace. In this view high-skilled workers are complementary to IT, while low-skilled workers are substitutable. An alternative explanation is that advances in information technology are skill-biased, raising the wages of skilled workers relative to the wages of the unskilled.
Preface
xxvii
Finally, the semiconductor and information technology industries are global in their scope with an elaborate international division of labor. Where is the evidence of accelerated growth in other leading industrialized countries? An important limitation on the availability of this evidence is the lack of satisfactory price indexes for semiconductors and information technology products outside the U.S. Several of the most important participants in the information technology industry are the newly industrialized countries of Asia—Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, and Taiwan. What does this portend for growth in developing countries like India and China? As policymakers attempt to fill the widening gaps between the available economic data and the information required for sound policy, the traditional division of labor between statistical agencies and policymaking bodies is breaking down. In the meantime monetary policymakers must set policies without accurate measures of price change. Similarly, fiscal policymakers must confront rising levels of uncertainty about future prospects for economic growth that drastically affect the outlook for future tax revenues and government spending. Resolving the uncertainties about future economic growth arising from advances in information technology is increasingly urgent. The practical need for better understanding of the impact of this technology is already generating a rising tide of research. This is sweeping away many older perspectives on economic growth, including some that were “new” only a decade ago. Economists are the fortunate beneficiaries of a fresh agenda for research that will revitalize economic thinking and enrich economics as a discipline. Renate D’Arcangelo of the Editorial Office of the Division of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Harvard assembled the manuscripts in machine-readable form, edited them, proofread the final versions, and prepared them for typesetting. William Richardson and his associates provided the index. Paul Anagnostopoulos of Windfall Software typeset the manuscript and provided the machine-readable copy for publication. The staff of The MIT Press, especially Elizabeth Murry, Jane Macdonald, Mel Goldsipe, Chryseis Fox, and Michael Sims, was helpful at every stage of the project. Financial support for the publication was provided by the Program on Technology and Economic Policy of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. As always, the author retains sole responsibility for any remaining deficiencies in the volume.
This page intentionally left blank
List of Sources
1. Dale W. Jorgenson. 2001. Information Technology and the U.S. Economy. American Economic Review 91, no. 1 (March): 1–32. Reprinted with permission. 2. Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh. 1995. Computers and Growth. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 3, nos. 3–4: 295–316. Reprinted with permission from Taylor & Francis Ltd. 3. Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh. 2000. Raising the Speed Limit: U.S. Economic Growth in the Information Age. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1. Reprinted with permission. 4. Richard F. Garbaccio, Mun S. Ho, and Dale W. Jorgenson. 1999. Why Has the Energy Output Ratio Fallen in China? Energy Journal 20, no. 3 (July): 6391. Reprinted with permission. 5. Dale W. Jorgenson and Eric Yip. 2000. Whatever Happened to Productivity Growth? In New Developments in Productivity Analysis, eds. Charles R. Hulten, Edwin R. Dean, and Michael J. Harper, 509–540. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. © 2000 by the National Bureau of Economic Research. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission. 6. Dale W. Jorgenson. 1993. Tax Reform and the Cost of Capital. In Tax Reform and the Cost of Capital: An International Comparison, eds. Dale W. Jorgenson and Ralph Landau, 1–56. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Reprinted with permission. 7. Dale W. Jorgenson. 1998. Investment and Growth. In Econometrics and Economic Theory in the 20th Century, ed. Steinar Strom, 204–237. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted with the permission of Cambridge University Press. 8. Mun S. Ho and Dale W. Jorgenson. 2000. Policies to Stimulate Growth. In Using Dynamic General Equilibrium Models for Policy Analysis, eds.
xxx
List of Sources
Glenn W. Harrison, Svend E. H. Jensen, Lars H. Pedersen, and Thomas H. Rutherford, 223–258. Amsterdam: The Netherlands: North-Holland. Reprinted with permission. Elsevier-Science-NL, Sara Burgerhartstraat 25, 1055 KV Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 9. Dale W. Jorgenson. 1998. Did We Lose the War on Poverty? Journal of Economic Perspectives 12, no. 1 (Winter): 79–86. Reprinted with permission. 10. Dale W. Jorgenson and D. T. Slesnick 1999. Indexing Government Programs for Changes in the Cost of Living. Journal of Business Economics and Statistics. Vol. 16, No. 2, April 1999. pp. 170–181. Reprinted with permission from Journal of Business and Economic Statistics. Copyright 1999 by the American Statistical Association. All rights reserved. 11. Richard F. Garbaccio, Mun S. Ho, and Dale W. Jorgenson. 1999. Controlling Carbon Emissions in China. Environment and Development 2, part 4 (October), 493–518. Reprinted with permission of Cambridge University Press. 12. Dale W. Jorgenson and Peter J. Wilcoxen. 2002. The Economic Impact of Fundamental Tax Reform. In United States Tax Reform in the 21st Century, eds. George R. Zodrow and Peter Mieskowki, 55–88. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted with permission of Cambridge University Press.
1
Information Technology and the U.S. Economy Dale W. Jorgenson
The resurgence of the American economy since 1995 has outrun all but the most optimistic expectations. Economic forecasting models have been seriously off track and growth projections have been revised to reflect a more sanguine outlook only recently.1 It is not surprising that the unusual combination of more rapid growth and slower inflation in the 1990s has touched off a strenuous debate among economists about whether improvements in America’s economic performance can be sustained. The starting point for the economic debate is the thesis that the 1990s are a mirror image of the 1970s, when an unfavorable series of “supply shocks” led to stagflation—slower growth and higher inflation.2 In this view, the development of information technology (IT) is one of a series of positive, but temporary, shocks. The competing perspective is that IT has produced a fundamental change in the U.S. economy, leading to a permanent improvement in growth prospects.3 The relentless decline in the prices of information technology equipment has steadily enhanced the role of IT investment as a source of American economic growth. Productivity growth in IT-producing industries has gradually risen in importance and a productivity revival is now underway in the rest of the economy. Despite differences in methodology and data sources, a consensus is building that the remarkable behavior of IT prices provides the key to the surge in economic growth. Section 1.1 illustrates that the foundation for the American growth resurgence is the development and deployment of semiconductors. The decline in IT prices is rooted in developments in semiconductor technology that are widely understood by technologists and economists. This technology has found its broadest applications in computing and communications equipment, but has reduced the cost of a wide variety of other products.
2
Dale W. Jorgenson
A substantial acceleration in the IT price decline occurred in 1995, triggered by a much sharper acceleration in the price decline of semiconductors in 1994. Although the decline in semiconductor prices has been projected to continue for at least another decade, the recent acceleration could be temporary. This can be traced to a shift in the product cycle for semiconductors from three years to two years that took place in 1995 as the consequence of intensifying competition in markets for semiconductor products. In section 1.2, I outline a framework for analyzing the role of information technology in the American growth resurgence. Constant quality price indexes separate the change in the performance of IT equipment from the change in price for a given level of performance. Accurate and timely computer prices have been part of the U.S. National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) since 1985. Unfortunately, important information gaps remain, especially on trends in prices for closely related investments, such as software and communications equipment. The cost of capital is an essential concept for capturing the economic impact of information technology prices. Swiftly falling prices provide powerful economic incentives for the substitution of IT equipment for other forms of capital and for labor services. The rate of the IT price decline is a key component of the cost of capital, required for assessing the impacts of rapidly growing stocks of computers, communications equipment, and software. In section 1.3, I analyze the impact of the 1995 acceleration in the information technology price decline on U.S. economic growth. I introduce a production possibility frontier that encompasses substitutions between outputs of consumption and investment goods, as well as inputs of capital and labor services. This frontier treats IT equipment as part of investment goods output and the capital services from this equipment as a component of capital input. Capital input has been the most important source of U.S. economic growth throughout the postwar period. More rapid substitution toward information technology has given much additional weight to components of capital input with higher marginal products. The vaulting contribution of capital input since 1995 has boosted growth by nearly a full percentage point. The contribution of IT accounts for more than half of this increase. Computers have been the predominant impetus to faster growth, but communications equipment and software have made important contributions as well.
Information Technology and the U.S. Economy
3
The accelerated information technology price decline signals faster productivity growth in IT-producing industries. In fact, these industries have been the source of most of aggregate productivity growth throughout the 1990s. Before 1995 this was due to the decline of productivity growth elsewhere in the economy. The IT-producing industries have accounted for about half the surge in productivity growth since 1995, but faster growth is not limited to these industries. I conclude that the decline in IT prices will continue for some time. This will provide incentives for the ongoing substitution of IT for other productive inputs. Falling IT prices also serve as an indicator of rapid productivity growth in IT-producing industries. However, it would be premature to extrapolate the recent acceleration in productivity growth in these industries into the indefinite future, since this depends on the persistence of a two-year product cycle for semiconductors. In section 1.4, I outline research opportunities created by the development and diffusion of information technology. A voluminous and rapidly expanding business literature is testimony to the massive impact of IT on firms and product markets. Highest priority must be given to a better understanding of the markets for semiconductors. Although several models of the market for semiconductors already exist, none explains the shift from a three-year to a two-year product cycle. The dramatic effects of information technology on capital and labor markets have already generated a substantial and growing economic literature, but many important issues remain to be resolved. For capital markets the relationship between equity valuations and growth prospects merits much further study. For labor markets more research is needed on investment in information technology and substitution among different types of labor. 1.1
The Information Age
The development and deployment of information technology is the foundation of the American growth resurgence. A mantra of the “new economy”—faster, better, cheaper—captures the speed of technological change and product improvement in semiconductors and the precipitous and continuing fall in semiconductor prices. The price decline has been transmitted to the prices of products that rely heavily on semiconductor technology, like computers and telecommunications equipment. This technology has also helped to reduce the cost of aircraft, automobiles, scientific instruments, and a host of other products.
4
Dale W. Jorgenson
Modern information technology begins with the invention of the transistor, a semiconductor device that acts as an electrical switch and encodes information in binary form. A binary digit or bit takes the values zero and one, corresponding to the off and on positions of a switch. The first transistor, made of the semiconductor germanium, was constructed at Bell Laboratories in 1947 and won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1956 for the inventors—John Bardeen, Walter Brattain, and William Shockley.4 The next major milestone in information technology was the coinvention of the integrated circuit by Jack Kilby of Texas Instruments in 1958 and Robert Noyce of Fairchild Semiconductor in 1959. An integrated circuit consists of many, even millions, of transistors that store and manipulate data in binary form. Integrated circuits were originally developed for data storage and retrieval and semiconductor storage devices became known as memory chips.5 The first patent for the integrated circuit was granted to Noyce. This resulted in a decade of litigation over the intellectual property rights. The litigation and its outcome demonstrate the critical importance of intellectual property in the development of information technology. Kilby was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2000 for discovery of the integrated circuit; regrettably, Noyce died in 1990.6 1.1.1
Moore’s Law
In 1965 Gordon E. Moore, then Research Director at Fairchild Semiconductor, made a prescient observation, later known as Moore’s Law.7 Plotting data on memory chips, he observed that each new chip contained roughly twice as many transistors as the previous chip and was released within 18–24 months of its predecessor. This implied exponential growth of chip capacity at 35–45 percent per year! Moore’s prediction, made in the infancy of the semiconductor industry, has tracked chip capacity for thirty-five years. He recently extrapolated this trend for at least another decade.8 In 1968 Moore and Noyce founded Intel Corporation to speed the commercialization of memory chips.9 Integrated circuits gave rise to microprocessors with functions that can be programmed by software, known as logic chips. Intel’s first general purpose microprocessor was developed for a calculator produced by Busicom, a Japanese firm. Intel retained the intellectual property rights and released the device commercially in 1971.
Information Technology and the U.S. Economy
5
The rapidly rising trends in the capacity of microprocessors and storage devices illustrate the exponential growth predicted by Moore’s Law. The first logic chip in 1971 had 2,300 transistors, while the Pentium 4 released on November 20, 2000, had 42 million! Over this twenty-nine year period the number of transistors increased by thirty-four percent per year. The rate of productivity growth for the U.S. economy during this period was slower by two orders of magnitude. 1.1.2
Semiconductor Prices
Moore’s Law captures the fact that successive generations of semiconductors are faster and better. The economics of semiconductors begins with the closely related observation that semiconductors have become cheaper at a truly staggering rate! Figure 1.1 gives semiconductor price indexes constructed by Bruce T. Grimm (1998) of the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and employed in the U.S. National Income and Product Accounts since 1996. These are divided between memory chips and logic chips. The underlying detail includes seven types of memory chips and two types of logic chips. Between 1974 and 1996 prices of memory chips decreased by a factor of 27,270 times, or at 40.9 percent per year, while the implicit deflator
Figure 1.1 Relative prices of computers and semiconductors, 1959–1999. Note: All price indexes are divided by the output price index.
6
Dale W. Jorgenson
for the gross domestic product (GDP) increased by almost 2.7 times, or 4.6 percent per year! Prices of logic chips, available for the shorter period 1985 to 1996, decreased by a factor of 1,938 or 54.1 percent per year, while the GDP deflator increased by 1.3 times or 2.6 percent per year! Semiconductor price declines closely parallel Moore’s Law on the growth of chip capacity, setting semiconductors apart from other products. Figure 1.1 also reveals a sharp acceleration in the decline of semiconductor prices in 1994 and 1995. The microprocessor price decline leapt to more than ninety percent per year as the semiconductor industry shifted from a three-year product cycle to a greatly accelerated two-year cycle. This is reflected in the 2000 Update of the International Technology Road Map for Semiconductors,10 prepared by a consortium of industry associations. 1.1.3
Constant Quality Price Indexes
The behavior of semiconductor prices is a severe test for the methods used in the official price statistics. The challenge is to separate observed price changes between changes in semiconductor performance and changes in price that hold performance constant. Achieving this objective has required a detailed understanding of the technology, the development of sophisticated measurement techniques, and the introduction of novel methods for assembling the requisite information. Ellen R. Dulberger (1993) of IBM introduced a “matched model” index for semiconductor prices. A matched model index combines price relatives for products with the same performance at different points of time. Dulberger presented constant quality price indexes based on index number formulas, including the [Irving] Fisher (1922) ideal index used in the in the U.S. national accounts.11 The Fisher index is the geometric average of the familiar Laspeyres and Paasche indexes. W. Erwin Diewert (1976) defined a superlative index number as an index that exactly replicates a flexible representation of the underlying technology (or preferences). A flexible representation provides a secondorder approximation to an arbitrary technology (or preferences). A. A. Konus and S. S. Byushgens (1926) first showed that the Fisher ideal index is superlative in this sense. Laspeyres and Paasche indexes are not superlative and fail to capture substitutions among products in response to price changes accurately. Grimm (1998) combined matched model techniques with hedonic methods, based on an econometric model of semiconductor prices at
Information Technology and the U.S. Economy
7
different points of time. A hedonic model gives the price of a semiconductor product as a function of the characteristics that determine performance, such as speed of processing and storage capacity. A constant quality price index isolates the price change by holding these characteristics of semiconductors fixed. Beginning in 1997, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) incorporated a matched model price index for semiconductors into the Producer Price Index (PPI) and since then the national accounts have relied on data from the PPI. Reflecting long-standing BLS policy, historical data were not revised backward. Semiconductor prices reported in the PPI prior to 1997 do not hold quality constant, failing to capture the rapid semiconductor price decline and the acceleration in 1994. 1.1.4
Computers
The introduction of the Personal Computer (PC) by IBM in 1981 was a watershed event in the deployment of information technology. The sale of Intel’s 8086–8088 microprocessor to IBM in 1978 for incorporation into the PC was a major business breakthrough for Intel.12 In 1981 IBM licensed the MS-DOS operating system from the Microsoft Corporation, founded by Bill Gates and Paul Allen in 1975. The PC established an Intel/Microsoft relationship that has continued up to the present. In 1985 Microsoft released the first version of Windows, its signature operating system for the PC, giving rise to the Wintel (Windows-Intel) nomenclature for this ongoing collaboration. Mainframe computers, as well as PCs, have come to rely heavily on logic chips for central processing and memory chips for main memory. However, semiconductors account for less than half of computer costs and computer prices have fallen much less rapidly than semiconductor prices. Precise measures of computer prices that hold product quality constant were introduced into the NIPA in 1985 and the PPI during the 1990s. The national accounts now rely on PPI data, but historical data on computers from the PPI, like the PPI data on semiconductors, do not hold quality constant. Gregory C. Chow (1967) pioneered the use of hedonic techniques for constructing a constant quality index of computer prices in research conducted at IBM. Chow documented price declines at more than twenty percent per year during 1960–1965, providing an initial glimpse of the remarkable behavior of computer prices.13 In 1985 the Bureau of Economic Analysis incorporated constant quality price indexes for computers and peripheral equipment constructed by Rosanne Cole, Y. C. Chen,
8
Dale W. Jorgenson
Joan A. Barquin-Stolleman, Ellen R. Dulberger, Nurthan Helvacian, and James H. Hodge (1986) of IBM into the NIPA. Jack E. Triplett (1986) discussed the economic interpretation of these indexes, bringing the rapid decline of computer prices to the attention of a very broad audience. The BEA-IBM constant quality price index for computers provoked a heated exchange between BEA and Edward F. Denison (1989), one of the founders of national accounting methodology in the 1950s and head of the national accounts at BEA from 1979 to 1982. Denison sharply attacked the BEA-IBM methodology and argued vigorously against the introduction of constant quality price indexes into the national accounts.14 Allan Young (1989), then Director of BEA, reiterated BEA’s rationale for introducing constant quality price indexes. Dulberger (1989) presented a more detailed report on her research on the prices of computer processors for the BEA-IBM project. Speed of processing and main memory played central roles in her model. Triplett (1989) provided an exhaustive survey of research on hedonic price indexes for computers. Robert J. Gordon (1989, 1990) gave an alternative model of computer prices and identified computers and communications equipment, along with commercial aircraft, as assets with the highest rates of price decline. Figure 1.2 gives BEA’s constant quality index of prices of computers and peripheral equipment and its components, including mainframes,
Figure 1.2 Relative prices of computers, communications, software, and services 1948–1999. Note: All price indexes are divided by the output price index.
Information Technology and the U.S. Economy
9
PCs, storage devices, other peripheral equipment, and terminals. The decline in computer prices follows the behavior of semiconductor prices presented in figure 1.1, but in much attenuated form. The 1995 acceleration in the computer price decline parallels the acceleration in the semiconductor price decline that resulted from the changeover from a three-year product cycle to a two-year cycle in 1995. 1.1.5
Communications Equipment and Software
Communications technology is crucial for the rapid development and diffusion of the Internet, perhaps the most striking manifestation of information technology in the American economy.15 Kenneth Flamm (1989) was the first to compare the behavior of computer prices and the prices of communications equipment. He concluded that the communications equipment prices fell only a little more slowly than computer prices. Gordon (1990) compared Flamm’s results with the official price indexes, revealing substantial bias in the official indexes. Communications equipment is an important market for semiconductors, but constant quality price indexes cover only a portion of this equipment. Switching and terminal equipment rely heavily on semiconductor technology, so that product development reflects improvements in semiconductors. Grimm’s (1997) constant quality price index for digital telephone switching equipment, given in figure 1.3, was incorporated into the national accounts in 1996. The output of communications services in the NIPA also incorporates a constant quality price index for cellular phones. Substantial communications investment takes the form of the transmission gear, connecting data, voice, and video terminals to switching equipment. Technologies such as fiber optics, microwave broadcasting, and communications satellites have progressed at rates that outrun even the dramatic pace of semiconductor development. An example is dense wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM), a technology that sends multiple signals over an optical fiber simultaneously. Installation of DWDM equipment, beginning in 1997, has doubled the transmission capacity of fiber optic cables every 6–12 months.16 Both software and hardware are essential for information technology and this is reflected in the large volume of software expenditures. The eleventh comprehensive revision of the national accounts, released by BEA on October 27, 1999, reclassified computer software as investment.17 Before this important advance, business expenditures
10
Dale W. Jorgenson
Figure 1.3 Relative prices of computers, communications, and software, 1959–1999. Note: All price indexes are divided by the output price index.
on software were treated as current outlays, while personal and government expenditures were treated as purchases of nondurable goods. Software investment is growing rapidly and is now much more important than investment in computer hardware. Robert P. Parker and Grimm (2000b) describe the new estimates of investment in software. BEA distinguishes among three types of software—prepackaged, custom, and own-account software. Prepackaged software is sold or licensed in standardized form and is delivered in packages or electronic files downloaded from the Internet. Custom software is tailored to the specific application of the user and is delivered along with analysis, design, and programming services required for customization. Own-account software consists of software created for a specific application. However, only price indexes for prepackaged software hold performance constant. Parker and Grimm (2000b) present a constant quality price index for prepackaged software, given in figure 1.3. This combines a hedonic model of prices for business applications software and a matched model index for spreadsheet and word processing programs developed by Steven D. Oliner and Daniel E. Sichel (1994). Prepackaged software prices decline at more than ten percent per year over the period 1962– 1998. Since 1998 the BEA has relied on a matched model price index for
Information Technology and the U.S. Economy
11
all prepackaged software from the PPI; prior to 1998 the PPI data do not hold quality constant. BEA’s prices for own-account software are based on programmer wage rates. This implicitly assumes no change in the productivity of computer programmers, even with growing investment in hardware and software to support the creation of new software. Custom software prices are a weighted average of prepackaged and own-account software prices with arbitrary weights of 75 percent for own-account and 25 percent for prepackaged software. These price indexes do not hold the software performance constant and present a distorted picture of software prices, as well as software output and investment. 1.1.6
Research Opportunities
The official price indexes for computers and semiconductors provide the paradigm for economic measurement. These indexes capture the steady decline in IT prices and the recent acceleration in this decline. The official price indexes for central office switching equipment and prepackaged software also hold quality constant. BEA and BLS, the leading statistical agencies in price research, have carried out much of the best work in this area. However, a critical role has been played by price research at IBM, long the dominant firm in information technology.18 It is important to emphasize that information technology is not limited to applications of semiconductors. Switching and terminal equipment for voice, data, and video communications have come to rely on semiconductor technology and the empirical evidence on prices of this equipment reflects this fact. Transmission gear employs technologies with rates of progress that far outstrip those of semiconductors. This important gap in our official price statistics can only be filled by constant quality price indexes for all types of communications equipment. Investment in software is more important than investment in hardware. This was essentially invisible until BEA introduced new measures of prepackaged, custom, and own-account software investment into the national accounts in 1999. This is a crucial step in understanding the role of information technology in the American economy. Unfortunately, software prices are another statistical blind spot with only prices of prepackaged software adequately represented in the official system of price statistics. The daunting challenge that lies ahead is to construct constant quality price indexes for custom and own-account software.
12
1.2
Dale W. Jorgenson
The Role of Information Technology
At the aggregate level IT is identified with the outputs of computers, communications equipment, and software. These products appear in the GDP as investments by businesses, households, and governments along with net exports to the rest of the world. The GDP also includes the services of IT products consumed by households and governments. A methodology for analyzing economic growth must capture the substitution of IT outputs for other outputs of goods and services. While semiconductor technology is the driving force behind the spread of IT, the impact of the relentless decline in semiconductor prices is transmitted through falling IT prices. Only net exports of semiconductors, defined as the difference between U.S. exports to the rest of the world and U.S. imports appear in the GDP. Sales of semiconductors to domestic manufacturers of IT products are precisely offset by purchases of semiconductors and are excluded from the GDP. Constant quality price indexes, like those reviewed in the previous section, are a key component of the methodology for analyzing the American growth resurgence. Computer prices were incorporated into the NIPA in 1985 and are now part of the PPI as well. Much more recently, semiconductor prices have been included in the NIPA and the PPI. Unfortunately, evidence on the prices of communications equipment and software is seriously incomplete, so that the official price indexes are seriously misleading. 1.2.1
Output
The output data in table 1.1 are based on the most recent benchmark revision of the national accounts, updated through 1999.19 The output concept is similar, but not identical, to the concept of gross domestic product used by the BEA. Both measures include final outputs purchased by businesses, governments, households, and the rest of the world. Unlike the BEA concept, the output measure in table 1.1 also includes imputations for the service flows from durable goods, including IT products, employed in the household and government sectors. The imputations for services of IT equipment are based on the cost of capital for IT described in more detail below. The cost of capital is multiplied by the nominal value of IT capital stock to obtain the imputed service flow from IT products. In the business sector this accrues as capital income to the firms that employ these products as inputs. In the
Information Technology and the U.S. Economy
13
household and government sectors the flow of capital income must be imputed. This same type of imputation is used for housing in the NIPA. The rental value of renter-occupied housing accrues to real estate firms as capital income, while the rental value of owner-occupied housing is imputed to households. Current dollar GDP in table 1.1 is $9.8 trillions in 1999, including imputations, and real output growth averaged 3.46 percent for the period 1948–1999. These magnitudes can be compared to the current dollar value of $9.3 trillions in 1999 and the average real growth rate of 3.40 percent for period 1948–1999 for the official GDP. Table 1.1 presents the current dollar value and price indexes of the GDP and IT output. This includes outputs of investment goods in the form of computers, software, communications equipment, and non-IT investment goods. It also includes outputs of non-IT consumption goods and services as well as imputed IT capital service flows from households and governments. The most striking feature of the data in table 1.1 is the rapid price decline for computer investment, 17.1 percent per year from 1959 to 1995. Since 1995 this decline has almost doubled to 32.1 percent per year. By contrast the relative price of software has been flat for much of the period and began to fall only in the late 1980s. The price of communications equipment behaves similarly to the software price, while the consumption of capital services from computers and software by households and governments shows price declines similar to computer investment. The top panel of table 1.2 summarizes the growth rates of prices and quantities for major output categories for 1990–1995 and 1995-1999. Business investments in computers, software, and communications equipment are the largest categories of IT spending. Households and governments have also spent sizable amounts on computers, software, communications equipment and the services of information technology. Figure 1.4 shows that the output of software is the largest IT category as a share of GDP, followed by the outputs of computers and communications equipment. 1.2.2
Capital Services
This section presents capital estimates for the U.S. economy for the period 1948 to 1999.20 These begin with BEA investment data; the perpetual inventory method generates estimates of capital stocks and these are aggregated, using service prices as weights. This approach, originated by Jorgenson and Zvi Griliches (1997), is based on the identification of
14
Dale W. Jorgenson
Table 1.1 Information technology output and Gross Domestic Product
Computer Year
Value
Price
Software Value
Price
Communications
IT Services
Total IT
Gross Domestic Product
Value
Price
Value
Price
Value
Price
Value
Price
1948
1.8
0.81
0.4
3.26
2.3
2.47
307.7
0.19
1949
1.7
0.81
0.4
2.19
2.0
2.29
297.0
0.18
1950
1.9
0.83
0.6
2.38
2.5
2.38
339.0
0.19
1951
2.2
0.86
0.8
2.30
3.0
2.43
370.6
0.19
1952
2.7
0.84
1.1
2.50
3.9
2.43
387.4
0.19
1953
3.0
0.80
1.5
2.56
4.5
2.38
418.2
0.20
1954
2.7
0.81
1.3
1.86
3.9
2.15
418.3
0.20
1955
3.0
0.81
1.8
2.25
4.7
2.30
461.3
0.20
1956
3.7
0.82
2.0
2.27
5.7
2.33
484.7
0.21
1957
4.3
0.85
1.9
1.79
6.2
2.22
503.6
0.21
1958
3.8
0.86
2.1
1.84
5.9
2.25
507.2
0.22
4.7
0.86
2.7
2.14
7.4
2.37
551.9
0.22
1959
0.0
662.98
1960
0.2
662.98
0.1
0.58
5.1
0.84
2.8
1.99
8.2
2.28
564.9
0.22
1961
0.3
497.23
0.2
0.59
5.6
0.82
2.8
1.88
9.0
2.19
581.8
0.22
1962
0.3
350.99
0.2
0.59
6.2
0.82
3.3
1.99
10.0
2.20
623.3
0.22
1963
0.8
262.69
0.5
0.59
6.2
0.81
3.3
1.81
10.8
2.08
666.9
0.23
1964
1.0
218.30
0.6
0.57
6.9
0.79
3.6
1.76
12.1
2.01
726.5
0.24
1965
1.3
179.45
0.9
0.58
8.1
0.78
4.7
1.99
15.0
2.03
795.1
0.25
1966
1.9
126.16
1.2
0.54
9.7
0.76
5.2
1.85
18.0
1.88
871.3
0.25
1967
2.1
102.41
1.5
0.58
10.7
0.76
5.0
1.50
19.3
1.75
918.2
0.26
1968
2.1
87.48
1.6
0.58
11.6
0.78
5.4
1.40
20.7
1.71
973.0
0.26
1969
2.7
79.16
2.3
0.63
13.0
0.79
5.8
1.31
23.8
1.70
1,045.8
0.27
1970
3.0
71.13
3.1
0.70
14.4
0.81
6.7
1.34
27.1
1.73
1,105.2
0.29
1971
3.1
54.17
3.2
0.69
14.7
0.83
8.1
1.47
29.0
1.73
1,178.8
0.30
1972
3.9
43.67
3.7
0.70
15.6
0.85
9.0
1.48
32.2
1.72
1,336.2
0.32
1973
3.9
41.39
4.3
0.72
18.2
0.86
12.1
1.78
38.4
1.82
1,502.5
0.34
1974
4.3
33.80
5.3
0.77
19.9
0.90
10.9
1.45
40.4
1.73
1,605.9
0.37
1975
4.0
31.27
6.6
0.83
21.3
0.96
12.0
1.46
43.9
1.79
1,785.8
0.41
1976
4.9
26.12
7.1
0.85
23.8
0.98
14.2
1.58
50.0
1.83
2,017.5
0.44
1977
6.3
22.72
7.5
0.87
28.1
0.97
22.5
2.28
64.4
2.02
2,235.7
0.46
1978
8.5
15.44
9.2
0.90
32.7
0.99
20.3
1.86
70.6
1.85
2,517.7
0.49
1979
11.4
12.81
11.9
0.94
38.4
1.02
26.5
2.18
88.2
1.92
2,834.9
0.54
1980
14.0
9.97
14.5
1.00
43.9
1.07
23.5
1.73
95.9
1.80
2,964.5
0.57
1981
19.2
8.75
17.8
1.08
48.6
1.13
22.4
1.46
108.0
1.76
3,285.2
0.62
1982
22.0
7.80
21.1
1.12
50.9
1.17
25.6
1.49
119.5
1.77
3,445.4
0.66
1983
28.8
6.44
24.9
1.13
55.0
1.17
29.5
1.50
138.1
1.71
3,798.8
0.70
1984
37.4
5.24
30.4
1.15
62.9
1.18
33.3
1.44
163.9
1.63
4,288.1
0.74
Information Technology and the U.S. Economy
15
Table 1.1 (continued)
Computer Year
Value
1985 1986
Software
Communications
IT Services
Total IT
Gross Domestic Product
Price
Value
Price
Value
Price
Value
Price
Value
Price
Value
Price
39.6
4.48
35.2
1.15
69.9
1.17
38.5
1.44
183.1
1.57
4,542.6
0.75
45.9
4.45
38.5
1.13
72.7
1.17
42.7
1.36
199.7
1.54
4,657.4
0.74
1987
48.6
3.93
43.7
1.14
74.9
1.15
50.3
1.37
217.5
1.50
5,078.1
0.78
1988
54.1
3.72
51.2
1.15
82.1
1.14
59.3
1.40
246.7
1.48
5,652.0
0.83
1989
56.9
3.52
61.4
1.13
85.1
1.13
63.0
1.31
266.3
1.43
5,988.8
0.85
1990
52.4
3.09
69.3
1.12
86.5
1.12
68.5
1.28
276.6
1.38
6,284.9
0.88
1991
52.6
2.85
78.2
1.13
83.9
1.12
67.5
1.13
282.2
1.32
6,403.3
0.90
1992
54.9
2.44
83.9
1.06
88.1
1.11
77.3
1.15
304.1
1.27
6,709.9
0.92
1993
54.8
2.02
95.5
1.06
92.6
1.09
84.7
1.11
327.6
1.21
6,988.8
0.93
1994
57.6
1.80
104.6
1.04
102.6
1.07
96.6
1.12
361.4
1.17
7,503.9
0.96
1995
70.5
1.41
115.7
1.03
112.4
1.03
108.7
1.10
407.2
1.11
7,815.3
0.97
1996
78.3
1.00
131.0
1.00
120.1
1.00
115.1
1.00
444.5
1.00
8,339.0
1.00
1997
86.0
0.73
158.1
0.97
131.5
0.98
123.0
0.90
498.7
0.91
9,009.4
1.04
1998
86.9
0.53
193.3
0.94
140.4
0.95
131.9
0.79
552.5
0.82
9,331.1
1.03
1999
92.4
0.39
241.2
0.94
158.1
0.92
140.9
0.69
632.6
0.75
9,817.4
1.04
Notes: Values are in billions of current dollars. Prices are normalized to one in 1996. Information technology output is gross domestic product by type of product.
service prices with marginal products of different types of capital. The service price estimates incorporate the cost of capital.21 The cost of capital is an annualization factor that transforms the price of an asset into the price of the corresponding capital input.22 This includes the nominal rate of return, the rate of depreciation, and the rate of capital loss due to declining prices. The cost of capital is an essential concept for the economics of information technology,23 due to the astonishing decline of IT prices given in table 1.1. The cost of capital is important in many areas of economics, especially in modeling producer behavior, productivity measurement, and the economics of taxation.24 Many of the important issues in measuring the cost of capital have been debated for decades. The first of these is incorporation of the rate of decline of asset prices into the cost of capital. The assumption of perfect foresight or rational expectations quickly emerged as the most appropriate formulation and has been used in almost all applications of the cost of capital.25 The second empirical issue is the measurement of economic depreciation. The stability of patterns of depreciation in the face of changes in tax
16
Dale W. Jorgenson
Table 1.2 Growth rates of outputs and inputs 1990–1995
1995–1999
Prices
Quantities
Prices
Quantities
1.99 −4.42 −15.77 −1.62 −1.77
2.36 12.15 21.71 11.86 7.01
1.62 −9.74 −32.09 −2.43 −2.90
4.08 20.75 38.87 20.80 11.42
−2.95 2.15 2.35
12.19 1.22 2.06
−11.76 2.20 2.31
18.24 4.21 2.79
2.23 −2.70 −11.71 −1.83 2.18 1.53
2.13 11.51 20.27 12.67 5.45 1.72
2.36 −10.46 −24.81 −2.04 −5.90 2.48
3.33 19.41 36.36 16.30 8.07 2.94
3.02
1.70
3.39
2.18
Outputs Gross domestic product Information technology Computers Software Communications equipment Information technology services Non-information technology investment Non-information technology consumption
Inputs Gross domestic income Information technology capital services Computer capital services Software capital services Communications equipment capital services Non-information technology capital services Labor services Note: Average annual percentage rates of growth.
policy and price shocks has been carefully documented. The depreciation rates presented by Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh (2000b) summarize a large body of empirical research on the behavior of asset prices.26 A third empirical issue is the description of the tax structure for capital income. This depends on the tax laws prevailing at each point of time. The resolution of these issues has cleared the way for detailed measurements of the cost of capital for all assets that appear in the national accounts, including information technology.27 The definition of capital includes all tangible assets in the U.S. economy, equipment and structures, as well as consumers’ and government durables, land, and inventories. The capital service flows from durable goods employed by households and governments enter measures of both output and input. A steadily rising proportion of these service flows are associated with investments in IT. Investments in IT by business, household, and government sectors must be included in the GDP,
Information Technology and the U.S. Economy
17
Figure 1.4 Output shares of information technology by type, 1948–1999. Note: Percent of current dollar gross domestic product.
along with household and government IT capital services, in order to capture the full impact of IT on the U.S. economy. Table 1.3 gives capital stocks from 1948 to 1999, as well as price indexes for total domestic tangible assets and IT assets—computers, software, and communications equipment. The estimate of domestic tangible capital stock in table 1.3 is $35.4 trillions in 1999, considerably greater than the $27.9 trillions in fixed capital estimated by Shelby W. Herman (2000) of BEA. The most important differences reflect the inclusion of inventories and land in table 1.3. Business IT investments, as well as purchases of computers, software, and communications equipment by households and governments, have grown spectacularly in recent years, but remain relatively small. The stocks of all IT assets combined account for only 4.35 percent of domestic tangible capital stock in 1999. Table 1.4 presents estimates of the flow of capital services and corresponding price indexes for 1948–1999. The difference between growth in capital services and capital stock is the improvement in capital quality. This represents the substitution towards assets with higher marginal products. The shift toward IT increases the quality of capital, since computers, software, and communications equipment have relatively high marginal products. Capital stock
18
Dale W. Jorgenson
Table 1.3 Information technology capital stock and domestic tangible assets Computer Year
Value
Price
Software
Communications
Total IT
Total domestic tangible assets
Value Price Value
Price
Value
Price
Value
Price
1948 1949 1950 1951
4.7 5.9 7.3 9.0
0.81 0.82 0.84 0.87
4.7 5.9 7.3 9.0
1.37 1.37 1.41 1.46
711.7 750.5 824.5 948.1
0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14
1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958
10.6 12.2 13.7 15.2 17.5 20.7 22.5
0.84 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.82 0.86 0.86
10.6 12.2 13.7 15.2 17.5 20.7 22.5
1.41 1.36 1.37 1.36 1.38 1.44 1.45
1,017.5 1,094.9 1,146.9 1,238.4 1,373.2 1,494.1 1,562.3
0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.17
1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965
0.2 0.2 0.5 0.6 1.1 1.6 2.2
752.87 752.87 564.66 398.58 298.31 247.90 203.79
0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.8 1.1 1.6
0.54 0.54 0.55 0.55 0.56 0.55 0.55
24.7 26.5 28.8 31.7 33.8 36.4 40.0
0.86 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.81 0.79 0.78
25.0 26.8 29.5 32.7 35.7 39.1 43.8
1.45 1.42 1.39 1.38 1.34 1.31 1.28
1,655.7 1,755.3 1,854.8 1,982.7 2,088.5 2,177.3 2,315.4
0.18 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.20
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
2.9 3.7 4.3 5.3 6.2 6.3 7.3
143.27 116.30 99.34 89.90 80.77 61.52 49.59
2.3 3.2 3.8 5.1 7.0 7.9 9.1
0.52 0.56 0.56 0.61 0.68 0.67 0.67
44.5 50.8 57.7 65.4 74.4 82.1 90.6
0.76 0.77 0.79 0.80 0.83 0.84 0.86
49.7 57.6 65.7 75.7 87.5 96.3 107.0
1.22 1.22 1.23 1.25 1.29 1.28 1.29
2,512.1 2,693.3 2,986.0 3,319.1 3,595.0 3,922.6 4,396.8
0.20 0.21 0.22 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.28
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
8.6 9.1 9.7 10.4 12.4 14.1 19.3
47.00 38.38 35.51 29.66 25.81 17.46 14.47
10.7 13.2 16.3 18.3 20.4 23.5 28.7
0.69 0.75 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.87 0.91
99.9 112.8 128.7 142.1 152.3 171.8 195.0
0.88 0.91 0.98 1.01 0.99 1.02 1.04
119.2 135.0 154.6 170.7 185.1 209.4 243.0
1.31 1.35 1.43 1.45 1.42 1.42 1.43
4,960.3 5,391.6 6,200.5 6,750.0 7,574.4 8,644.9 9,996.7
0.31 0.32 0.36 0.38 0.41 0.46 0.51
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
24.2 33.6 42.4 52.6 66.2
11.27 9.90 8.84 7.32 5.95
35.3 43.6 52.0 60.6 72.3
0.97 1.04 1.08 1.09 1.11
225.7 260.9 290.0 314.3 344.8
1.09 1.15 1.19 1.20 1.20
285.2 338.1 384.3 427.5 483.3
1.47 1.53 1.55 1.53 1.50
11,371.0 13,002.5 13,964.7 14,526.0 15,831.0
0.56 0.63 0.66 0.68 0.71
Information Technology and the U.S. Economy
19
Table 1.3 (continued) Computer
Software
Year
Value
Price
1985
77.7
5.08
84.2
1.11
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
86.0 94.1 107.2 121.0 122.3
4.34 3.71 3.45 3.23 2.89
94.9 108.5 125.2 144.4 165.2
1.10 1.11 1.12 1.11 1.10
1991 1992 1993
124.6 128.2 135.6
2.58 2.17 1.82
189.9 203.8 231.8
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
150.4 170.3 181.6 198.7 210.0 232.4
1.61 1.33 1.00 0.76 0.55 0.41
255.8 286.7 318.1 365.2 431.2 530.6
Communications
Value Price Value
Total IT
Total domestic tangible assets
Price
Value
Price
Value
Price
375.0
1.20
537.0
1.46
17,548.6
0.77
404.3 434.8 467.7 499.7 527.1
1.18 1.17 1.16 1.15 1.14
585.1 637.4 700.0 765.1 814.5
1.41 1.37 1.35 1.33 1.29
18,844.3 20,216.2 21,880.1 23,618.7 24,335.1
0.80 0.84 0.89 0.93 0.94
1.10 1.04 1.05
548.3 569.7 589.5
1.13 1.11 1.10
862.8 901.7 956.9
1.27 1.21 1.17
24,825.7 25,146.8 25,660.4
0.95 0.95 0.95
1.02 1.03 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.95
612.8 634.1 659.3 695.8 730.9 778.5
1.07 1.03 1.00 0.98 0.94 0.90
1,019.0 1,091.1 1,158.9 1,259.7 1,372.1 1,541.5
1.13 1.07 1.00 0.94 0.87 0.81
26,301.0 27,858.4 29,007.9 30,895.3 32,888.5 35,406.9
0.95 0.98 1.00 1.04 1.07 1.11
Notes: Values are in billions of current dollars. Prices are normalized to one in 1996. Domestic tangible assets include fixed assets and consumer durable goods, land, and inventories.
estimates fail to account for this increase in quality and substantially underestimate the impact of IT investment on growth. The growth of capital quality is slightly less than twenty percent of capital input growth for the period 1948–1995. However, improvements in capital quality have increased steadily in relative importance. These improvements jumped to 44.9 percent of total growth in capital input during the period 1995–1999 reflecting very rapid restructuring of capital to take advantage of the sharp acceleration in the IT price decline. Capital stock has become progressively less accurate as a measure of capital input and is now seriously deficient. Figure 1.5 gives the IT capital service flows as a share of gross domestic income. The second panel of table 1.2 summarizes the growth rates of prices and quantities of capital inputs for 1990–1955 and 1995–1999. Growth of IT capital services jumps from 11.51 percent per year in 1990–1995 to 19.41 percent in 1995–1999, while growth of non-IT capital services increases from 1.72 percent to 2.94 percent. This reverses the trend toward slower capital growth through 1995.
20
Dale W. Jorgenson
Table 1.4 Information technology capital services and gross domestic income Computer Year
Value
Price
Software Value
Price
Communications
Total IT
Gross domestic income
Value
Price
Value
Price
Value
Price
1948 1949 1950 1951
1.7 1.3 1.8 2.1
1.20 0.79 0.91 0.90
1.7 1.3 1.8 2.1
4.31 2.83 3.27 3.21
307.7 297.0 339.0 370.6
0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15
1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958
2.6 3.2 2.7 3.6 4.2 3.7 4.1
0.94 0.96 0.70 0.85 0.87 0.68 0.68
2.6 3.2 2.7 3.6 4.2 3.7 4.1
3.36 3.46 2.49 3.05 3.12 2.44 2.45
387.4 418.2 418.3 461.3 484.7 503.6 507.2
0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.17
1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965
0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.3
444.36 433.59 637.21 508.68 311.81 211.28 182.17
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6
0.63 0.62 0.58 0.62 0.58 0.60 0.59
5.2 5.4 5.6 6.6 6.5 7.1 9.1
0.80 0.75 0.71 0.76 0.67 0.67 0.78
5.5 5.6 6.0 7.2 7.3 8.3 11.0
2.87 2.68 2.59 2.71 2.34 2.26 2.52
551.9 564.9 581.8 623.3 666.9 726.5 795.1
0.18 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.22
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
2.2 2.3 2.6 2.8 3.6 5.2 4.9
173.57 110.97 87.05 68.23 65.38 72.48 48.57
1.0 1.1 1.6 1.7 2.3 3.7 4.0
0.64 0.50 0.60 0.52 0.56 0.77 0.71
9.6 9.8 10.2 11.3 13.3 14.9 16.6
0.73 0.66 0.61 0.61 0.65 0.67 0.69
12.8 13.2 14.5 15.8 19.1 23.9 25.4
2.40 2.01 1.86 1.76 1.83 1.99 1.85
871.3 918.2 973.0 1,045.8 1,105.2 1,178.8 1,336.2
0.23 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.30
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
4.4 6.6 5.9 6.6 7.0 11.8 11.6
33.06 38.82 28.43 26.07 20.69 22.49 13.33
4.5 5.1 6.7 7.7 8.4 9.7 11.6
0.71 0.70 0.80 0.81 0.82 0.86 0.90
22.8 20.3 23.2 25.0 41.8 35.5 47.9
0.88 0.72 0.77 0.78 1.20 0.93 1.14
31.7 32.0 35.7 39.2 57.2 57.0 71.1
2.04 1.84 1.85 1.84 2.40 2.07 2.15
1,502.5 1,605.9 1,785.8 2,017.5 2,235.7 2,517.7 2,834.9
0.32 0.34 0.37 0.41 0.44 0.47 0.51
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
16.6 17.7 19.6 26.4 36.1
11.81 7.89 5.93 5.46 4.87
13.6 15.5 17.6 20.6 25.4
0.91 0.90 0.89 0.91 0.96
42.0 40.5 43.1 49.4 54.3
0.90 0.79 0.77 0.82 0.83
72.2 73.6 80.3 96.4 115.7
1.82 1.53 1.41 1.43 1.41
2,964.5 3,285.2 3,445.4 3,798.8 4,288.1
0.53 0.58 0.60 0.66 0.71
Information Technology and the U.S. Economy
21
Table 1.4 (continued) Computer
Software
Communications
Total IT
Gross domestic income
Year
Value
Price
Value
Price
Value
Price
Value
Price
Value
Price
1985
39.6
3.70
30.6
0.99
63.1
0.89
133.3
1.35
4,542.6
0.73
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
43.1 53.4 52.7 57.6 64.7
3.04 2.93 2.31 2.08 2.01
35.3 42.1 50.5 60.4 67.2
0.99 1.04 1.10 1.13 1.08
69.3 86.5 104.1 105.8 109.8
0.89 1.02 1.14 1.07 1.04
147.6 181.9 207.3 223.8 241.7
1.27 1.36 1.36 1.29 1.25
4,657.4 5,078.1 5,652.0 5,988.8 6,284.9
0.73 0.77 0.81 0.84 0.86
1991 1992 1993
64.2 71.7 77.8
1.76 1.66 1.45
70.8 89.9 90.4
1.00 1.11 0.98
104.2 112.2 126.9
0.93 0.96 1.03
239.2 273.7 295.1
1.12 1.16 1.11
6,403.3 6,709.9 6,988.8
0.88 0.91 0.92
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
80.1 99.3 123.6 134.7 152.5 157.7
1.19 1.12 1.00 0.76 0.59 0.42
109.5 115.5 131.9 156.2 178.2 204.4
1.05 0.99 1.00 1.02 0.97 0.91
142.4 160.7 149.0 157.1 162.0 175.3
1.10 1.16 1.00 0.98 0.93 0.91
331.9 375.6 404.5 448.1 492.6 537.4
1.10 1.09 1.00 0.92 0.82 0.72
7,503.9 7,815.3 8,339.0 9,009.4 9,331.1 9,817.4
0.96 0.96 1.00 1.04 1.04 1.06
Note: Values are in billions of current dollars. Prices are normalized to one in 1996.
Figure 1.5 Input shares of information technology by type, 1948–1999. Note: Percent of current dollar domestic income.
22
1.2.3
Dale W. Jorgenson
Labor Services
This section presents estimates of labor input for the U.S. economy from 1948 to 1999. These incorporate individual data from the Censuses of Population for 1970, 1980, and 1990, as well as the annual Current Population Surveys. Constant quality indexes for the price and quantity of labor input account for the heterogeneity of the work force across sex, employment class, age, and education levels. This follows the approach of Jorgenson, Frank M. Gollop, and Barbara M. Fraumeni (1987). The estimates have been revised and updated by Mun S. Ho and Jorgenson (2000).28 The distinction between labor input and labor hours is analogous to the distinction between capital services and capital stock. The growth in labor quality is the difference between the growth in labor input and hours worked. Labor quality reflects the substitution of workers with high marginal products for those with low marginal products. Table 1.5 presents estimates of labor input, hours worked, and labor quality. The value of labor expenditures in table 1.5 is $5.8 trillions in 1999, 59.3 percent of the value of output. This share accurately reflects the concept of gross domestic income, including imputations for the value of capital services in household and government sectors. As shown in table 1.2, the growth rate of labor input accelerated to 2.18 percent for 1995–1999 from 1.70 percent for 1990–1995. This is primarily due to the growth of hours worked, which rose from 1.17 percent for 1990–1995 to 1.98 percent for 1995–1999, as labor force participation increased and unemployment rates plummeted. The growth of labor quality has declined considerably in the late 1990s, dropping from 0.53 percent for 1990–1995 to 0.20 percent for 1995–1999. This slowdown captures well-known demographic trends in the composition of the work force, as well as exhaustion of the pool of available workers. Growth in hours worked does not capture these changes in labor quality growth and is a seriously misleading measure of labor input. 1.3
The American Growth Resurgence
The American economy has undergone a remarkable resurgence since the mid-1990s with accelerating growth in output, labor productivity, and total factor productivity. The purpose of this section is to quantify
Information Technology and the U.S. Economy
23
the sources of growth for 1948–1999 and various subperiods. An important objective is to account for the sharp acceleration in the level of economic activity since 1995 and, in particular, to document the role of information technology. The appropriate framework for analyzing the impact of information technology is the production possibility frontier, giving outputs of IT investment goods as well as inputs of IT capital services. An important advantage of this framework is that prices of IT outputs and inputs are linked through the price of IT capital services. This framework successfully captures the substitutions among outputs and inputs in response to the rapid deployment of IT. It also encompasses costs of adjustment, while allowing financial markets to be modeled independently. As a consequence of the swift advance of information technology, a number of the most familiar concepts in growth economics have been superseded. The aggregate production function heads this list. Capital stock as a measure of capital input is now longer adequate to capture the rising importance of IT. This completely obscures the restructuring of capital input that is such an important wellspring of the growth resurgence. Finally, hours worked must be replaced as a measure of labor input. 1.3.1
Production Possibility Frontier
The production possibility frontier describes efficient combinations of outputs and inputs for the economy as a whole.29 Aggregate output Y consists of outputs of investment goods and consumption goods. These outputs are produced from aggregate input X, consisting of capital services and labor services. Productivity is a “Hicks-neutral” augmentation of aggregate input. The production possibility frontier takes the form: Y (In, Ic , Is , It , Cn, Cc ) = A · X(Kn, Kc , Kt , L),
(1.1)
where the outputs include non-IT investment goods In and investments in computers Ic , software Is , and communications equipment It , as well as non-IT consumption goods and services Cn and IT capital services to households and governments Cc . Inputs include non-IT capital services Kn and the services of computers Kc , software Ks , and telecommunications equipment Kt , as well as labor input L.30 Total factor productivity (TFP) is denoted by A.
24
Dale W. Jorgenson
Table 1.5 Labor Services Labor Services Year Price Quantity
Value
Quality Employment
Weekly Hourly Hours hours compensation worked
1948
0.08
1,924.6
156.1
0.75
61,536
39.1
1.2
125,127
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953
0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11
1,860.0 1,961.0 2,133.0 2,197.2 2,254.3
171.5 179.2 214.4 227.2 241.8
0.75 0.76 0.78 0.79 0.80
60,437 62,424 66,169 67,407 68,471
38.5 38.5 38.7 38.5 38.3
1.4 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.8
121,088 125,144 133,145 135,067 136,331
1954 1955 1956
0.11 0.11 0.12
2,190.3 2,254.9 2,305.0
243.9 256.7 275.0
0.81 0.81 0.82
66,843 68,367 69,968
37.8 37.8 37.5
1.9 1.9 2.0
131,477 134,523 136,502
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963
0.13 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
2,305.1 2,245.3 2,322.1 2,352.2 2,378.5 2,474.1 2,511.4
295.5 309.1 320.1 344.1 355.0 376.7 386.2
0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.86 0.87 0.88
70,262 68,578 70,149 71,128 71,183 72,673 73,413
37.0 36.7 36.8 36.5 36.3 36.4 36.4
2.2 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8
135,189 130,886 134,396 135,171 134,451 137,612 139,050
1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970
0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.22 0.23
2,578.1 2,670.6 2,788.5 2,842.4 2,917.0 2,992.1 2,938.6
417.6 451.9 500.3 525.5 588.3 646.6 687.3
0.88 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.91
74,990 77,239 80,802 82,645 84,733 87,071 86,867
36.3 36.3 36.0 35.7 35.5 35.4 34.9
3.0 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.8 4.0 4.4
141,447 145,865 151,448 153,345 156,329 160,174 157,488
1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977
0.26 0.27 0.29 0.31 0.35 0.38 0.41
2,924.9 3,011.7 3,135.0 3,148.2 3,082.9 3,174.4 3,277.4
744.5 817.6 909.4 988.5 1,063.9 1,194.0 1,334.5
0.90 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92
86,715 88,838 92,542 94,121 92,575 94,922 98,202
34.8 34.8 34.8 34.2 33.8 33.9 33.8
4.7 5.1 5.4 5.9 6.5 7.1 7.7
156,924 160,873 167,271 167,425 162,879 167,169 172,780
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
0.44 0.47 0.52 0.55 0.60 0.63 0.66
3,430.3 3,554.7 3,535.7 3,563.8 3,519.7 3,586.7 3,786.7
1,504.2 1,673.2 1,827.9 1,968.8 2,096.3 2,269.8 2,499.1
0.92 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.94
102,931 106,463 107,061 108,050 106,749 107,810 112,604
33.8 33.7 33.3 33.2 32.9 33.1 33.2
8.3 9.0 9.9 10.6 11.5 12.2 12.9
180,842 186,791 185,591 186,257 182,772 185,457 194,555
Information Technology and the U.S. Economy
25
Table 1.5 (continued) Labor Services Quality Employment
Weekly Hourly Hours hours compensation worked
Year Price Quantity
Value
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
0.69 0.75 0.74 0.75 0.80 0.84
3,882.9 3,926.3 4,075.1 4,207.7 4,348.4 4,381.5
2,679.0 2,931.1 3,019.7 3,172.2 3,457.8 3,680.8
0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97
115,205 117,171 120,474 123,927 126,755 128,341
33.1 32.9 32.9 32.9 33.0 32.9
13.5 14.6 14.6 15.0 15.9 16.8
198,445 200,242 206,312 211,918 217,651 219,306
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
0.88 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.03
4,322.0 4,353.9 4,497.4 4,628.3 4,770.7 4,861.7 4,987.9
3,800.2 4,086.9 4,297.7 4,453.1 4,660.5 4,861.7 5,122.0
0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
127,080 127,238 129,770 132,799 135,672 138,018 141,184
32.5 32.6 32.8 32.9 33.0 32.8 33.0
17.7 19.0 19.5 19.6 20.0 20.6 21.1
214,994 215,477 221,003 226,975 232,545 235,798 242,160
1998 1999
1.08 1.12
5,108.8 5,204.8
5,491.5 5,823.4
1.00 1.00
144,305 147,036
33.0 32.9
22.2 23.1
247,783 251,683
Notes: Value is in billions of current dollars. Quantity is in billions of 1996 dollars. Price and quality are normalized to one in 1996. Employment is in thousands of workers. Weekly hours is hours per worker, divided by 52. Hourly compensation is in current dollars. Hours worked are in millions of hours.
The most important advantage of the production possibility frontier is the explicit role that it provides for constant quality prices of IT products. These are used as deflators for nominal expenditures on IT investments to obtain the quantities of IT outputs. Investments in IT are cumulated into stocks of IT capital. The flow of IT capital services is an aggregate of these stocks with service prices as weights. Similarly, constant quality prices of IT capital services are used in deflating the nominal values of consumption of these services. Another important advantage of the production possibility frontier is the incorporation of costs of adjustment. For example, an increase in the output of IT investment goods requires foregoing part of the output of consumption goods and non-IT investment goods, so that adjusting the rate of investment in IT is costly. However, costs of adjustment are external to the producing unit and are fully reflected in IT prices. These prices incorporate forward-looking expectations of the future prices of IT capital services.
26
1.3.2
Dale W. Jorgenson
Aggregate Production Function
The aggregate production function employed by Robert M. Solow (1957, 1960) and, more recently, by Jeremy Greenwood, Zvi Hercowitz, and Per Krusell (1997, 2000), Hercowitz (1998), and Arnold C. Harberger (1998) is a competing methodology. The production function gives a single output as a function of capital and labor inputs. There is no role for separate prices of investment and consumption goods and, hence, no place for constant quality IT price indexes for outputs of IT investment goods. Greenwood, Hercowitz, and Krusell employ a price index for consumption to deflate the output of all investment goods, including information technology. Confronted by the fact that constant quality prices of investment goods differ from consumption goods prices, they borrow the concept of embodiment from Solow (1960) in order to convert investment goods output into an appropriate form for measuring capital stock.31 Investment has two prices, one used in the measuring output and the other used in measuring capital stock. This inconsistency can be removed by simply distinguishing between outputs of consumption and investment goods, as in the national accounts and equation (1.1). The concept of embodiment can then be dropped. Perhaps inadvertently, Greenwood, Hercowitz, and Krusell have revisited the controversy accompanying the introduction of a constant quality price index for computers into the national accounts. They have revived Denison’s (1993) proposal to use a consumption price index to deflate investment in the NIPA. Denison found this appealing as a means of avoiding the introduction of constant quality price indexes for computers. Denison’s approach leads to a serious underestimate of GDP growth and an overestimate of inflation. Another limitation of the aggregate production function is that it fails to incorporate costs of adjustment. Robert E. Lucas, Jr. (1967) presented a production model with internal costs of adjustment. Fumio Hayashi (2000) shows how to identify these adjustment costs from James Tobin’s (1969) Q-ratio, the ratio of the stock market value of the producing unit to the market value of the unit’s assets. Implementation of this approach requires simultaneous modeling of production and asset valuation. If costs of adjustment are external, as in the production possibility frontier (1.1), asset valuation can be modeled separately from production.32
Information Technology and the U.S. Economy
1.3.3
27
Sources of Growth
Under the assumption that product and factor markets are competitive producer equilibrium implies that the share-weighted growth of outputs is the sum of the share-weighted growth of inputs and growth in total factor productivity: w I,n ln In + w I,c ln Ic + w I,s ln Is + w I,t ln It + w C,nCn + w C,c ln Cc = v K,n ln Kn + v K,c ln Kc + v K,s ln Ks + v K,t ln Kt + v L ln L + ln A
(1.2)
where w and v denote average value shares. The shares of outputs and inputs add to one under the additional assumption of constant returns, w I ,n + w I ,c + w I ,s + w I ,t + w C,n + w C,c = v K,n + v K,c + v K,s + v K,t + v L = 1. Equation (1.2) makes it possible to identify the contributions of outputs as well as inputs to U.S. economic growth. The growth rate of output is a weighted average of growth rates of investment and consumption goods outputs. The contribution of each output is its weighted growth rate. Similarly, the growth rate of input is a weighted average of growth rates of capital and labor services and the contribution of each input is its weighted growth rate. The contribution of TFP, the growth rate of the augmentation factor A in equation (1.2), is the difference between growth rates of output and input. Table 1.6 presents results of a growth accounting decomposition, based on equation (1.2), for the period 1948–1999 and various subperiods, following Jorgenson and Stiroh (1999, 2000b). Economic growth is broken down by output and input categories, quantifying the contribution of information technology to investment and consumption outputs, as well as capital inputs. These estimates identify computers, software, and communications equipment as distinct types of information technology. Rearranging equation (1.2), the results can be presented in terms of average labor productivity (ALP), defined as y = Y /H , the ratio of output Y to hours worked H , and k = K/H is the ratio of capital services K to hours worked: ln y = v K ln k + v L( ln L − ln H ) + ln A.
(1.3)
28
Dale W. Jorgenson
Table 1.6 Sources of Gross Domestic Product growth 1948– 1999
1948– 1973
Gross domestic product
3.46
3.99
Contribution of information technology
0.40
0.20
Computers
0.12
Software
0.08
1973– 1990
1990– 1995
1995– 1999
2.86
2.36
4.08
0.46
0.57
1.18
0.04
0.16
0.18
0.36
0.02
0.09
0.15
0.39
Outputs
Commmunications equipment
0.10
0.08
0.10
0.10
0.17
Information technology services
0.10
0.06
0.10
0.15
0.25
Contribution of non-information technology
3.06
3.79
2.40
1.79
2.91
Contribution of non-information technology investment
0.72
1.06
0.34
0.23
0.83
Contribution of non-information technology consumption
2.34
2.73
2.06
1.56
2.08
Gross domestic income
2.84
3.07
2.61
2.13
3.33
Contribution of information technology capital services
0.34
0.16
0.40
0.48
0.99
Computers
0.15
0.04
0.20
0.22
0.55
Software
0.07
0.02
0.08
0.16
0.29
Communications equipment
0.11
0.10
0.12
0.10
0.14
Contribution of non-information technology capital services
1.36
1.77
1.05
0.61
1.07
Inputs
Contribution of labor services
1.14
1.13
1.16
1.03
1.27
Total factor productivity
0.61
0.92
0.25
0.24
0.75
Notes: Average annual percentage rates of growth. The contribution of an output or input is the rate of growth, multiplied by the value share.
Equation (1.3) allocates ALP growth among three sources. The first is capital deepening, the growth in capital input per hour worked, and reflects the capital-labor substitution. The second is improvement in labor quality and captures the rising proportion of hours by workers with higher marginal products. The third is TFP growth, which contributes point-for-point to ALP growth.
Information Technology and the U.S. Economy
1.3.4
29
Contributions of IT Investment
Figure 1.5 depicts the rapid increase in the importance of IT services, reflecting the accelerating pace of IT price declines. In 1995–1999 the capital service price for computers fell 24.81 percent per year, compared to an increase of 36.36 percent in capital input from computers. As a consequence, the value of computer services grew substantially. However, the current dollar value of computers was only 1.6 percent of gross domestic income in 1999. The rapid accumulation of software appears to have different sources. The price of software services has declined only 2.04 percent per year for 1995–1999. Nonetheless, firms have been accumulating software very rapidly, with real capital services growing 16.30 percent per year. A possible explanation is that firms respond to computer price declines by investing in complementary inputs like software. However, a more plausible explanation is that the price indexes used to deflate software investment fail to hold quality constant. This leads to an overstatement of inflation and an understatement of growth. Although the price decline for communications equipment during the period 1995–1999 is comparable to that of software, investment in this equipment is more in line with prices. However, prices of communications equipment also fail to hold quality constant. The technology of switching equipment, for example, is similar to that of computers; investment in this category is deflated by a constant-quality price index developed by BEA. Conventional price deflators are employed for transmission gear, such as fiber-optic cables. This leads to an underestimate of the growth rates of investment, capital stock, capital services, and the GDP, as well as an overestimate of the rate of inflation. Figures 1.6 and 1.7 highlight the rising contributions of IT outputs to U.S. economic growth. Figure 1.6 shows the breakdown between IT and non-IT outputs for subperiods from 1948 to 1999, while figure 1.7 decomposes the contribution of IT into its components. Although the importance of IT has steadily increased, figure 1.6 shows that the recent investment and consumption surge nearly doubled the output contribution of IT. Figure 1.7 shows that computer investment is the largest single IT contributor in the late 1990s, but that investments in software and communications equipment are becoming increasingly important.
30
Dale W. Jorgenson
Figure 1.6 Output contribution of information technology. Note: Output contributions are the average annual (percentage) growth rates, weighted by the output shares.
Figure 1.7 Output contribution of information technology by type. Note: Output contributions are the average annual (percentage) growth rates, weighted by the output shares.
Information Technology and the U.S. Economy
31
Figure 1.8 Capital input contribution of information technology. Note: Input contributions are the average annual (percentage) growth rates, weighted by the income shares.
Figures 1.8 and 1.9 present a similar decomposition of IT inputs into production. The contribution of these inputs is rising even more dramatically. Figure 1.8 shows that the contribution of IT now accounts for more than 48.1 percent of the total contribution of capital input. Figure 1.9 shows that computer hardware is the largest IT contributor on the input side, reflecting the growing share and accelerating growth rate of computer investment in the late 1990s. Private business investment predominates in the output of IT, as shown by Jorgenson and Stiroh (1999, 2000b).33 Household purchases of IT equipment and services are next in importance. Government purchases of IT equipment and services, as well as net exports of IT products, must be included in order to provide a complete picture. Firms, consumers, governments, and purchasers of U.S. exports are responding to relative price changes, increasing the contributions of computers, software, and communications equipment. Table 1.2 shows that the price of computer investment fell by more than 32 percent per year, the price of software 2.4 percent, and the price of communications equipment 2.9 percent, and the price of IT services 11.8 percent during the period 1995–1999, while non-IT prices rose 2.2 percent. In response to these price changes, firms, households, and
32
Dale W. Jorgenson
Figure 1.9 Capital input contribution of information technology by type. Note: Input contributions are the average annual (percentage) growth rates, weighted by the income shares.
governments have accumulated computers, software, and communications equipment much more rapidly than other forms of capital. 1.3.5
Total Factor Productivity
The price or “dual” approach to productivity measurement makes it possible to identify the role of IT production as a source of productivity growth at the industry level.34 The rate of productivity growth is measured as the decline in the price of output, plus a weighted average of the growth rates of input prices with value shares of the inputs as weights. For the computer industry this expression is dominated by two terms: The decline in the price of computers and the contribution of the price of semiconductors. For the semiconductor industry the expression is dominated by the decline in the price of semiconductors.35 Jorgenson, Gollop, and Fraumeni (1987) have employed Evsey Domar’s (1961) model to trace aggregate productivity growth to its sources at the level of individual industries.36 More recently, Harberger (1998), William Gullickson and Michael J. Harper (1999) and Jorgenson and Stiroh (2000a, 2000b) have used the model for similar purposes. Productivity growth for each industry is weighted by the ratio of the gross
Information Technology and the U.S. Economy
33
output of the industry to GDP to estimate the industry contribution to aggregate TFP growth. If semiconductor output were only used to produce computers, then its contribution to computer industry productivity growth, weighted by computer industry output, would precisely cancel its independent contribution to aggregate TFP growth. This is the ratio of the value of semiconductor output to GDP, multiplied by the rate of semiconductor price decline. In fact, semiconductors are used to produce telecommunications equipment and many other products. However, the value of semiconductor output is dominated by inputs into IT production. The Domar aggregation formula can be approximated by expressing the declines in prices of computers, communications equipment, and software relative to the price of gross domestic income, an aggregate of the prices of capital and labor services. The rates of relative IT price decline are weighted by ratios of the outputs of IT products to the GDP. Table 1.7 reports details of this TFP decomposition for 1990–1995 and 1995–1999; the IT and non-IT contributions are presented in figure 1.10. The IT products contribute 0.50 percentage points to TFP growth for
Figure 1.10 Contributions of information technology to total factor productivity growth. Note: Contributions are average annual (percentage) relative price changes, weighted by average nominal output shares from table 1.7.
34
Dale W. Jorgenson
Table 1.7 Sources of total factor productivity growth 1948–99 Total factor productivity growth
0.61
Information technology Computers Software Communications equipment
0.16 0.09 0.02 0.05
Non-information technology
0.45
Information technology Computers Software Communications equipment Non-information technology
−6.16 −23.01 −3.29 −3.71 −0.41
Information technology Computers Software Communications equipment Non-information technology
2.07 0.40 0.51 1.16 97.20
1948–73
1973–90
1990–95
1995–99
0.92 0.25 0.24 Contributions to TFP Growth 0.06 0.19 0.25 0.02 0.12 0.15 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.05
0.75
0.86 0.06 −0.01 Relative Price Changes −4.3 −7.4 −7.2 −23.5 −21.1 −18.0 −3.0 −3.2 −3.9 −3.1 −4.2 −4.0 −0.9 0.0 0.1 Average Nominal Shares 1.09 0.10 0.08 0.91 98.46
2.60 0.61 0.60 1.39 96.55
3.46 0.81 1.30 1.34 95.35
0.50 0.32 0.09 0.08 0.25 −11.5 −34.5 −4.8 −5.3 −0.1 4.26 0.94 1.84 1.48 94.35
Notes: Average annual rates of growth. Prices are relative to the price of gross domestic income. Contributions are relative price changes, weighted by average nominal output shares.
1995–1999, compared to 0.25 percentage points for 1990–1995. This reflects the accelerating decline in relative price changes resulting from shortening the product cycle for semiconductors. 1.3.6
Output Growth
This subsection presents the sources of GDP growth for the entire period 1948 to 1999. Capital services contribute 1.70 percentage points, labor services 1.14 percentage points, and TFP growth only 0.61 percentage points. Input growth is the source of nearly 82.3 percent of U.S. growth over the past half century, while TFP has accounted for 17.7 percent. Figure 1.11 shows the relatively modest contributions of TFP in all subperiods. More than three quarters of the contribution of capital reflects the accumulation of capital stock, while improvement in the quality of
Information Technology and the U.S. Economy
35
Figure 1.11 Sources of gross domestic product growth. Notes: Input contributions are average annual (percentage) rates of growth, weighted by average nominal income shares from table 1.6. Productivity contributions are from table 1.7.
capital accounts for about one quarter. Similarly, increased labor hours account for 80 percent of labor’s contribution; the remainder is due to improvements in labor quality. Substitutions among capital and labor inputs in response to price changes are essential components of the sources of economic growth. A look at the U.S. economy before and after 1973 reveals familiar features of the historical record. After strong output and TFP growth in the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s, the U.S. economy slowed markedly through 1990, with output growth falling from 3.99 percent to 2.86 percent and TFP growth declining from 0.92 percent to 0.25 percent. Growth in capital inputs also slowed from 4.64 percent for 1948–1973 to 3.57 percent for 1973–1990. This contributed to sluggish ALP growth— 2.82 percent for 1948–1973 and 1.26 percent for 1973–1990. Relative to the early 1990s, output growth increased by 1.72 percent in 1995–1999. The contribution of IT production almost doubled, relative to 1990–1995, but still accounted for only 28.9 percent of the increased growth of output. Although the contribution of IT has increased steadily throughout the period 1948–1999, there has been a sharp response to the acceleration in the IT price decline in 1995. Nonetheless, more than 70 percent of the increased output growth can be attributed to non-IT products.
36
Dale W. Jorgenson
Between 1990–1995 and 1995-1999 the contribution of capital input jumped by 0.95 percentage points, the contribution of labor input rose by only 0.24 percent, and TFP accelerated by 0.51 percent. Growth in ALP rose 0.92 as more rapid capital deepening and growth in TFP offset slower improvement in labor quality. Growth in hours worked accelerated as unemployment fell to a 30-year low. Labor markets have tightened considerably, even as labor force participation rates increased.37 The contribution of capital input reflects the investment boom of the late 1990s as businesses, households, and governments poured resources into plant and equipment, especially computers, software, and communications equipment. The contribution of capital, predominantly IT, is considerably more important than the contribution of labor. The contribution of IT capital services has grown steadily throughout the period 1948–1999, but figure 1.9 reflects the impact of the accelerating decline in IT prices. After maintaining an average rate of 0.25 percent for the period 1973– 1990, TFP growth fell to 0.24 percent for 1990–1995 and then vaulted to 0.75 percent per year for 1995–1999. This is a major source of growth in output and ALP for the U.S. economy (figures 1.11 and 1.12). While TFP growth for 1995–1999 is lower than the rate of 1948–1973, the U.S. economy is recuperating from the anemic productivity growth of the past two decades. Although only half of the acceleration in TFP from 1990–1995 to 1995–1999 can be attributed to IT production, this is far greater than the 4.26 percent share of IT in the GDP. 1.3.7
Average Labor Productivity
Output growth is the sum of growth in hours and average labor productivity. Table 1.8 shows the breakdown between growth in hours and ALP for the same periods as in table 1.6. For the period 1948–1999, ALP growth predominated in output growth, increasing just over 2 percent per year for 1948–1999, while hours increased about 1.4 percent per year. As shown in equation (1.3), ALP growth depends on capital deepening, a labor quality effect, and TFP growth. Figure 1.12 reveals the well-known productivity slowdown of the 1970s and 1980s, emphasizing the acceleration in labor productivity growth in the late 1990s. The slowdown through 1990 reflects reduced capital deepening, declining labor quality growth, and decelerating growth in TFP. The growth of ALP slipped further during the early 1990s with a slump in capital deepening only partly offset by a revival in labor
Information Technology and the U.S. Economy
37
Table 1.8 Sources of average labor productivity growth 1948– 1999
1948– 1973
1973– 1990
1990– 1995
1995– 1999
Gross domestic product
3.46
3.99
2.86
2.36
4.08
Hours worked Average labor productivity Contribution of capital deepening Information technology Non-information technology Contribution of labor quality Total factor productivity
1.37 2.09 1.13 0.30 0.83 0.34 0.61
1.16 2.82 1.45 0.15 1.30 0.46 0.92
1.59 1.26 0.79 0.35 0.44 0.22 0.25
1.17 1.19 0.64 0.43 0.21 0.32 0.24
1.98 2.11 1.24 0.89 0.35 0.12 0.75
Information technology Non-Information technology
0.16 0.45
0.06 0.86
0.25 -0.01
0.50 0.25
Labor input Labor quality Capital input Capital stock Capital quality
1.95 0.58 4.12 3.37 0.75
1.95 0.79 4.64 4.21 0.43
0.19 0.06 Addendum 1.97 0.38 3.57 2.74 0.83
1.70 0.53 2.75 1.82 0.93
2.18 0.20 4.96 2.73 2.23
Notes: Average annual percentage rates of growth. Contributions are defined in equation (1.3) of the text.
Figure 1.12 Sources of average labor productivity growth. Note: Contributions are from table 1.8.
38
Dale W. Jorgenson
quality growth and an uptick in TFP growth. A slowdown in hours combined with slowing ALP growth during 1990–1995 to produce a further slide in the growth of output. In previous cyclical recoveries during the postwar period, output growth accelerated during the recovery, powered by more rapid growth of hours and ALP. Accelerating output growth during 1995–1999 reflects growth in labor hours and ALP almost equally.38 Comparing 1990–1995 to 1995–1999, the rate of output growth jumped by 1.72 percent—due to an increase in hours worked of 0.81 percent and another increase in ALP growth of 0.92 percent. Figure 1.12 shows the acceleration in ALP growth is due to capital deepening as well as faster TFP growth. Capital deepening contributed 0.60 percentage points, offsetting a negative contribution of labor quality of 0.20 percent. The acceleration in TFP added 0.51 percentage points. 1.3.8
Research Opportunities
The use of computers, software, and communications equipment must be carefully distinguished from the production of IT.39 Massive increases in computing power, like those experienced by the U.S. economy, have two effects on growth. First, as IT producers become more efficient, more IT equipment and software is produced from the same inputs. This raises productivity in IT-producing industries and contributes to TFP growth for the economy as a whole. Labor productivity also grows at both industry and aggregate levels. Second, investment in information technology leads to growth of productive capacity in IT-using industries. Since labor is working with more and better equipment, this increases ALP through capital deepening. If the contributions to aggregate output are captured by capital deepening, aggregate TFP growth is unaffected.40 Increasing deployment of IT affects TFP growth only if there are spillovers from IT-producing industries to IT-using industries. Top priority must be given to identifying the impact of investment in IT at the industry level. Stiroh (1998a) has shown that this is concentrated in a small number of IT-using industries, while Stiroh (2000) shows that aggregate ALP growth can be attributed to productivity growth in IT-producing and IT-using industries. The next priority is to trace the increase in aggregate TFP growth to its sources in individual industries. Jorgenson and Stiroh (2000a, 2000b) present the appropriate methodology and preliminary results.
Information Technology and the U.S. Economy
1.4
39
Economics on Internet Time
The steadily rising importance of information technology has created new research opportunities in all areas of economics. Economic historians, led by Alfred D. Chandler (2000) and Paul A. David (2000),41 have placed the information age in historical context. The Solow (1987) Paradox, that we see computers everywhere but in the productivity statistics,42 has provided a point of departure. Since computers have now left an indelible imprint on the productivity statistics, the remaining issue is whether the breathtaking speed of technological change in semiconductors differentiates this resurgence from previous periods of rapid growth? Capital and labor markets have been severely impacted by information technology. Enormous uncertainty surrounds the relationship between equity valuations and future growth prospects of the American economy.43 One theory attributes rising valuations of equities since the growth acceleration began in 1995 to the accumulation of intangible assets, such as intellectual property and organizational capital. An alternative theory treats the high valuations of technology stocks as a bubble that burst during the year 2000. The behavior of labor markets also poses important puzzles. Widening wage differentials between workers with more and less education has been attributed to computerization of the workplace. A possible explanation could be that high-skilled workers are complementary to IT, while low-skilled workers are substitutable. An alternative explanation is that technical change associated with IT is skill-biased and increases the wages of high-skilled workers relative to low-skilled workers.44 Finally, information technology is altering product markets and business organizations, as attested by the large and growing business literature,45 but a fully satisfactory model of the semiconductor industry remains to be developed.46 Such a model would derive the demand for semiconductors from investment in information technology in response to rapidly falling IT prices. An important objective is to determine the product cycle for successive generations of new semiconductors endogenously. The semiconductor industry and the information technology industries are global in their scope with an elaborate international division of labor.47 This poses important questions about the American growth resurgence. Where is the evidence of a new economy in other leading industrialized countries? An important explanation is the absence
40
Dale W. Jorgenson
of constant quality price indexes for semiconductors and information technology in national accounting systems outside the United States.48 Another conundrum is that several important participants—Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, and Taiwan—are "newly industrializing" economies. What does this portend for developing countries like China and India? As policy-makers attempt to fill the widening gaps between the information required for sound policy and the available data, the traditional division of labor between statistical agencies and policy-making bodies is breaking down. In the mean time monetary policy-makers must set policies without accurate measures of price change. Similarly, fiscal policy-makers confront ongoing revisions of growth projections that drastically affect the outlook for future tax revenues and government spending. The stagflation of the 1970s greatly undermined the Keynesian Revolution, leading to a New Classical Counter-revolution led by Lucas (1981) that has transformed macroeconomics. The unanticipated American growth revival of the 1990s has similar potential for altering economic perspectives. In fact, this is already foreshadowed in a steady stream of excellent books on the economics of information technology.49 We are the fortunate beneficiaries of a new agenda for economic research that could refresh our thinking and revitalize our discipline. Notes This chapter is derived from the presidential address to the American Economic Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, January 6, 2001. I am indebted to the Program on Technology and Economic Policy at Harvard University providing financial support. I am also indebted to Kevin J. Stiroh for our joint research and his helpful comments, Jon Samuels for excellent research assistance, Mun S. Ho for the labor data, as well as useful comments. J. Steven Landefeld, Clinton McCully, and David Wasshausen of the Bureau of Economic Analysis provided valuable data on information technology. Colleagues far too numerous to mention have contributed useful suggestions and advice. I am grateful to all of them but retain sole responsibility for any remaining deficiencies. 1. See Congressional Budget Office (2000) on official forecasts and Economics and Statistics Administration (2000), p. 60, on private forecasts. 2. Gordon (1998, 2000); Bosworth and Triplett (2000). 3. Greenspan (2000). 4. On Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley, see: http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates /1956/. 5. Petzold (1999) provides a general reference on computers and software.
Information Technology and the U.S. Economy
41
6. On Kilby, see: http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/2000/. On Noyce, see: Wolfe (2000), pp. 17–65. 7. Moore (1965). Ruttan (2001), pp. 316–367, provides a general reference on the economics of semiconductors and computers. On semiconductor technology, see: http://euler .berkeley.edu/-esrc/csm 8. Moore (1997). 9. Moore (1996). 10. On International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (2000), see: http://public .itrs.net/ 11. See Landefeld and Parker (1997). 12. See Moore (1996). 13. Further details are given by Berndt (1991), pp. 102–149. 14. Denison cited his 1957 paper, "Theoretical Aspects of Quality Change, Capital Consumption, and Net Capital Formation," as the definitive statement of the traditional BEA position. 15. A general reference on the Internet is Choi and Whinston (2000). On Internet indicators see: http://www.internetindicators.com/. 16. Rashad (2000) characterizes this as the "demise" of Moore’s Law. Hecht (1999) describes DWDM technology and provides a general reference on fiber optics. 17. Moulton (2000) describes the 11-th comprehensive revision of NIPA and the 1999 update. 18. See Chandler (2000), table 1.1, p. 26. 19. See Jorgenson and Stiroh (2000b), Appendix A, for details on the estimates of output. 20. See Jorgenson and Stiroh (2000b), Appendix B, for details on the estimates of capital input. 21. Jorgenson (2000) presents a model of capital as a factor of production. BLS (1983) describes the version of this model employed in the official productivity statistics. For a recent update, see: http://www.bls.gov/ news.release/prd3.nr0.htm. Hulten (2001) surveys the literature. 22. Jorgenson and Yun (1991a), p. 7. 23. Jorgenson and Stiroh (1995), pp. 300–303. 24. Lau (2000) surveys applications of the cost of capital. 25. See, for example, Jorgenson, Gollop, and Fraumeni (1987), pp. 40–49, and Jorgenson and Griliches (1996). 26. Jorgenson and Stiroh (2000b), table B4, pp. 196–197 give the depreciation rates employed in this study. Fraumeni (1997) describes depreciation rates used in the NIPA. Jorgenson (2000) surveys empirical studies of depreciation. 27. See Jorgenson and Yun (2000). Diewert and Lawrence (2000) survey measures of the price and quantity of capital input.
42
Dale W. Jorgenson
28. See Jorgenson and Stiroh (2000b), Appendix C, for details on the estimates of labor input. Gollop (2000) discusses the measurement of labor quality. 29. The production possibility frontier was introduced into productivity measurement by Jorgenson (1996c), pp. 27–28. 30. Services of durable goods to governments and households are included in both inputs and outputs. 31. Whelan (1999) also employs Solow’s concept of embodiment. 32. See, for example, Campbell and Shiller (1998). 33. Bosworth and Triplett (2000) compare the results of Jorgenson and Stiroh (2000b) with those of Oliner and Sichel (2000). 34. The dual approach is presented by Jorgenson, Gollop, and Fraumeni (1987), pp. 53–63. 35. Dulberger (1993), Triplett (1996a), and Oliner and Sichel (2000) present models of the relationships between computer and semiconductor industries. These are special cases of the Domar (1961) aggregation scheme. 36. See Jorgenson, Gollop, and Fraumeni (1987), pp. 63–66, 301–322. 37. Katz and Krueger (1999) analyze the recent performance of the U.S. labor market. 38. Stiroh (2000) shows that ALP growth is concentrated in IT-producing and IT-using industries. 39. Economics and Statistics Administration (2000), table 3.1, p. 23, lists IT-producing industries. 40. Baily and Gordon (1988). 41. See also: David (1990) and Gordon (2000). 42. Griliches (1994), Brynjolfsson and Yang (1996), and Triplett (1999) discuss the Solow Paradox. 43. Campbell and Shiller (1998) and Shiller (2000) discuss equity valuations and growth prospects. Kiley (1999), Brynjolfsson and Hitt (2000), and Hall (2000), present models of investment with internal costs of adjustment. 44. Acemoglu (2000) and Katz (2000) survey the literature on labor markets and technological change. 45. See, for example, Grove (1996) on the market for computers and semiconductors and Christensen (1997) on the market for storage devices. 46. Irwin and Klenow (1994), Flamm (1996), pp. 305–424, and Helpman and Trajtenberg (1998), pp. 111–119, present models of the semiconductor industry. 47. The role of information technology in U.S. economic growth is discussed by the Economics and Statistics Administration (2000); comparisons among OECD countries are given by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2000). 48. The measurement gap between the U.S. and other OECD countries was first identified by Wykoff (1995). Schreyer (2000) has taken the initial steps to fill this gap. 49. See, for example, Shapiro and Varian (1999), Brynjolfsson and Kahin (2000), and Choi and Whinston (2000).
2
Computers and Growth Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
The purpose of this chapter is to describe and measure the impact of computer investment on U.S. economic growth. Using a model of capital that is specific to computers, we estimate computer stocks and services flows for each type of computer equipment found in the NIPA. These estimates are then incorporated into a system of national accounts to determine the impact of computers as both an output and an input. The results show that computer inputs are steadily increasing as a source of growth and that the large price declines in computer investment have led to large pecuniary externalities. 2.1
Introduction
This chapter describes the impact of investment in computers on the growth of the U.S. economy. The economic literature on computers is relatively rich in information on the decline in computer prices and the growth of computer investment. Constant quality price indices for computers have been included in the U.S. National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) since 1986. These indices employ stateof-the-art methodology to capture the rapid evolution of computer technology. While the annual inflation rate for overall investment has been 3.66 percent for the period 1958 to 1992, computer prices have declined by 19.13 percent per year! Similarly, overall investment grew at 3.82 percent, while investment in computers increased at an astounding 44.34 percent! These familiar facts describe growth in the output of computers. The objective of this chapter is to complete the picture by analyzing the growth of computer services as inputs. In a pioneering paper Bresnahan (1986) has focused on pecuniary externalities arising from the rapid decline in computer prices. Griliches
44
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
(1992, 1994) has emphasized the distinction between pecuniary and nonpecuniary externalities in the impact of computer investment on growth. This chapter is limited to pecuniary externalities or the impact of reductions in computer prices on the substitution of computer services for other inputs. As Griliches (1992) points out, this is an essential first step in identifying nonpecuniary externalities or “spill-overs” through the impact of a decline in computer prices on productivity growth.1 In two important papers Stephen D. Oliner (1993, 1994a) has introduced a model of computer technology that greatly facilitates the measurement of computer services as inputs. In this chapter we estimate computer stocks and flows of computer services for all forms of computer investment included in NIPA. We construct estimates of computer services parallel to NIPA data on computer investment by combining these data with information on computer inventories For example, the International Data Corporation (IDC) Census of Computer Processors includes an annual inventory of processors in the United States. In section 2.2 we present data on investment in computers and constant quality price indices from NIPA. These data incorporate important innovations in modeling computer technology stemming from a joint study by IBM and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) completed in 1985. This study utilized a “hedonic” methodology for constructing an econometric model of computer prices that accurately reflects rapid changes in computer technology. This methodology generates an index of computer prices that holds the quality of computers constant. In section 2.3 we present the model of computer services originated by Oliner (1993, 1994a). This differs in important respects from the model of capital services used in the previous studies of U.S. economic growth surveyed by Jorgenson (1989, 1990b). The model employed in previous studies is based on the decline in productive capacity with the chronological age of a capital good. Oliner assumes that computers maintain their productive capacity until they are retired. Decline in productive capacity occurs only through removal of used computers from the inventory through retirement. In section 2.4 we construct estimates of stocks of computers that incorporate IDC data on computer inventories and derive the implied flow of computer services. While output of computer investments has grown very rapidly, the input of computer services has grown even faster. The price of these services has declined at 23.22 percent per year over the period 1958 to 1992, while the input of these services has grown at 52.82
Computers and Growth
45
percent! This is prima facie evidence of an important role for computer price declines as a source of pecuniary externalities. In section 2.5 we combine computer services with the services of other types of capital to produce a measure of capital input into the U.S. economy. We link this with labor input to obtain the contributions of both inputs to U.S. economic growth, arriving at the growth of productivity as a residual. We find that the contribution of computer services to input into the U.S. economy is roughly equal to the contribution of computer investments to output. This is a significant step toward resolution of the Solow paradox: “We see computers everywhere except in the productivity statistics.”2 Declines in computer prices generate very sizable pecuniary externalities through the substitution of computer services for other inputs. By contrast Solow focuses on nonpecuniary externalities that would appear as productivity growth. In section 2.6 we conclude that information on investment of computers is critical in quantifying the role of computer services as inputs. The constant quality price indices for computers incorporated into NIPA are also essential. A price index for computers that reflects only general trends in inflation would result in a highly distorted perspective on the growth of GDP and capital services, especially during the past decade. To capture the contribution of all forms of investment to U.S. economic growth, similar price indices should be included in NIPA for capital goods with rapidly evolving technologies, as proposed by Gordon (1990). The long-term goal should be a unified system of income, product, and wealth accounts, like that proposed by Laurits Christensen and Jorgenson (1973) and Jorgenson (1980a). This incorporates capital stocks, capital services, and their prices. Achieving this goal will necessitate substantial greater elaboration of the accounting system described in section 2.4. These accounts would incorporate data on prices and quantities of investment, stocks of assets, and capital services for all forms of capital employed in the U.S. economy. 2.2
Computer Investment
The growth of investment in computers has been driven by a dramatic and continuing price decline. We have summarized information about investment in computers from NIPA in a series of tables and figures. In table 2.1 we present data on the prices of investment and quantities
46
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
Table 2.1 Investment quantity in 1987 dollars Total Investment
Non-Res. PDE
OCAM
Computers
Year
Quantity
Price
Quantity
Price
Quantity
Price
Quantity
Price
1958
319.9
0.318
69.7
0.367
0.078
18.730
0.000
374.070
1959 1960 1961 1962 1963
379.3 376.5 368.4 408.9 438.3
0.320 0.325 0.325 0.330 0.331
80.1 82.5 80.4 88.9 94.4
0.363 0.368 0.367 0.368 0.372
0.074 0.083 0.083 0.088 0.135
19.090 18.815 17.330 15.926 14.080
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.011
291.070 215.110 148.200 100.910 72.130
1964 1965 1966
474.9 532.9 574.1
0.334 0.341 0.346
105.0 122.4 138.4
0.376 0.381 0.389
0.158 0.197 0.331
13.038 11.832 9.825
0.016 0.024 0.051
60.869 50.192 35.350
1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
559.6 595.4 621.9 585.3 649.3 717.0 800.1
0.355 0.371 0.388 0.403 0.420 0.441 0.459
134.6 140.3 152.1 149.5 151.7 169.5 203.3
0.405 0.424 0.436 0.453 0.465 0.47s 0.477
0.382 0.415 0.545 0.596 0.707 0.990 1.149
8.824 8.007 7.524 7.118 5.926 5.163 5.056
0.068 0.082 0.114 0.143 0.192 0.295 0.316
28.676 24.499 22.181 19.910 15.188 12.227 11.597
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
740.0 646.0 754.9 852.3 932.4 934.5 844.6
0.498 0.558 0.591 0.635 0.682 0.743 0.805
204.8 184.5 194.4 220.9 251.9 269.1 257.4
0.519 0.593 0.635 0.684 0.729 0.786 0.854
1.475 1.419 1.906 2.402 4.344 6.359 8.881
4.568 4.453 3.992 3.719 2.866 2.523 2.153
0.414 0.423 0.622 0.905 1.800 2.911 4.623
9.497 8.790 7.343 6.393 4.322 3.581 2.796
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987
884.8 789.7 886.2 1,083.3 1,110.6 1,135.t 1,153.0
0.889 0.937 0.927 0.957 0.961 0.975 1.000
261.8 239.5 254.3 299.5 324.1 328.9 332.3
0.934 0.996 0.989 0.995 0.974 0.985 1.000
12.312 12.813 19.217 28.829 34.301 38.681 42.800
1.975 1.954 1.693 1.434 1.252 1.117 1.000
7.202 8.163 12.157 19.933 24.955 28.615 35.805
2.456 2.415 1.999 1.606 1.357 1.163 1.000
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
1,206.7 1,224.0 1,188.2 1,093.3 1,173.2
1.020 1.055 1.075 1.093 1.103
366.4 368.7 374.0 356.5 374.7
1.009 1.034 1.048 1.067 1.068
48.049 51.465 57.205 63.628 75.989
0.953 0.890 0.792 0.701 0.606
41.355 46.018 51.089 58.516 71.223
0.941 0.869 0.775 0.663 0.561
3.14
20.24
Annual Growth
3.82
3.66
4.95
(10.09)
44.34
(19.13)
Computers and Growth
47
of investment in constant prices. This table includes data on overall investment in the private sector, nonresidential producers’ durable equipment (PDE), office, computing, and accounting machinery (OCAM), and computers. The annual inflation rate for investment is 3.66 percent for the period 1958 to 1992, while investment in constant prices grows at 3.82 percent per year. Inflation for PDE is only 3.14 percent, while investment grows at 4.95 percent. For the period as a whole the prices of OCAM decline at 10.09 percent per year, while investment grows at 20.24 percent; by the end of the period investment in OCAM is primarily computer investment. Finally, computer prices decline at 19.13 percent and investment grows at 44.34 percent! We employ translog or Tornqvist price indices discussed, for example, by Jorgenson (1990b). The growth rate of a translog price index is a weighted average of the growth rates of its components. The weights are shares of the components in the value of the aggregate.3 We present information on investment prices in graphical form in figure 2.1. The prices of PDE, relative to prices of overall investment, are fairly stable. Movements in both prices are dominated by trends in inflation. The price of OCAM relative to PDE falls steadily throughout the period, reflecting the rising proportion of computers in OCAM investment. The price of computers relative to OCAM declines precipitously
Figure 2.1 Relative price of investment, 1958–1992.
48
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
Figure 2.2 Share of investment quantity, 1958–1992.
at the beginning of the period, but falls at more moderate rates as computers come to dominate OCAM. Finally, we provide information on constant dollar investment in graphical form in figure 2.2. The first panel shows that PDE rises relative to overall investment, especially during the 1980s and 1990s. The proportion of OCAM in PDE grows steadily throughout the period 1958 to 1992, while computer investment rises very substantially relative to the rest of OCAM. The computer proportion rises steadily, but not without interruptions, toward the theoretical upper limit of one hundred percent. The NIPA price indices for computers utilize a “hedonic” methodology that holds the quality of computers constant, while the technical characteristics of computers change. This methodology was originated by Frederick Waugh (1929) to deal with the heterogeneity of agricultural commodities. It was successfully applied to automobile prices in an important study by Andrew Court (1939) for the General Motors Corporation. In a seminal article Zvi Griliches (1961) revived this methodology and applied it to postwar automobile prices.4 Gregory Chow (1967) first applied the hedonic methodology to computer prices in research conducted at IBM. Although Chow documented the rapid decline in computer prices in the 1950s and 1960s described in table 2.1, NIPA did not include specific price indices for computers until almost two decades later. Not surprisingly, this had become a highly
Computers and Growth
49
controversial issue and was the subject of a heated exchange between BEA and Edward Denison (1989), one of the founders of NIPA methodology in the 1950s and head of national accounts at BEA from 1979 to 1982. The exchange between the BEA and Denison was initiated by a detailed report by Rosanne Cole, Y.C. Chen, Joan Barquin-Stolleman, Ellen Dulberger, Nurthan Helvacian, and James Hodge (1986) of IBM on the results of a joint project conducted by BEA and IBM to construct a hedonic price index for computers for NIPA. Jack Triplett (1986), Chief Economist of BEA, discussed the economic interpretation of constant quality price indices in an accompanying article. Subsequently, BEA (1986a) described the introduction of hedonic price indices for computers into NIPA.5 A more detailed report on the research on computer processors resulting from the BEA-IBM project is presented by Dulberger (1989). The technical characteristics of processors that play a central role in Dulberger’s econometric modeling are speed of processing, described in millions of instruction executions per second (MIPS), and main memory, described in units of 1,024 times eight binary digits (Megabytes).6 An extensive survey of research on hedonic price indices for computers is given by Triplett (1989). Denison (1989) attacked the BEA-IBM methodology and argued vigorously against the introduction of constant quality price indices into NIPA. He cited his 1957 paper, “Theoretical Aspects of Quality Change, Capital Consumption, and Net Capital Formation," as the definitive statement of the traditional BEA position against the introduction of constant quality price indices into NIPA. Denison argued specifically against constant quality price indices for investment, capital consumption, and capital stock. Allan Young (1989), then the Director of BEA, answered Denison’s objections and reiterated the BEA rationale for introducing constant quality price indices for computers. The price indices given in table 2.1 and represented in figure 2. 2 are based on hedonics, as described by BEA (1986). These indices are also employed in measuring capital consumption in NIPA and capital stock in the BEA (1987) study, Fixed Reproducible Tangible Wealth in the United States, 1925–1985. 2.3
A Model of Computer Services
Computer investment represents the acquisition of machines, for example, a certain number of processors with a given performance. The price
50
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
of acquisition of a processor is the unit cost of purchasing a machine. An assumption implicit in this definition is that quantities and prices are measured in “efficiency units” of constant quality. This assumption is consistent with the econometric modeling reported by Dulberger (1989), where computer performance is represented as a function of MIPS and Megabytes. Computers can be leased for days, months, or years. The rental price of computer services is the unit cost of renting a machine, rather than purchasing it. While computer investments are available in the commodity flows that underly NIPA, no comparable source of data on computer services is available. However, flows of computer services and their rental prices can be inferred from inventories of machines and constant quality price indices. The price indices for computers from NIPA hold quality constant as computer technology changes. For example, price indices for processors reflect unchanging productive capacity from period to period, so that the drastic decline in processor prices reflects the reduced cost of acquiring this capacity. We take the constant quality price indices from NIPA as the prices of new assets for a perpetual inventory of asset prices. Oliner (1993) has incorporated data on second hand acquisition prices for processors in modeling constant quality price indices. However, these prices are independent of the time at which the machine was originally sold by the manufacturer, so that the second hand price is independent of the chronological age of the machine. Oliner compares his constant quality price indices for processors with the BEA-IBM price indices included in NIPA and finds that the two are very similar. We begin our description of the measurement of computer services with quantities of computer investment. We refer to computers acquired at different points of time as different vintages. To describe computer services in more detail we require the following notation: At quantity of computers acquired at time t. dt proportion of computers installed prior to time t surviving at that time. Qt quantity of computer assets at time t. Kt,v quantity of computer services of vintage v at time t. Kt quantity of computer services of all vintages at time t. We also require notation for acquisition prices for computers and rental prices for computer services:
Computers and Growth
51
pA,t constant quality price of acquisition of computers at time t. pK,t constant quality rental price of computer services at time t. Finally, we require notation for the value of computers as assets: Wt value of computer assets at time t. The standard perpetual inventory method includes a system of vintage accounts for investment and the corresponding acquisition prices. This method is based on the assumption that the quantity of capital services is proportional to the initial level of investment. The constants of proportionality are given by the relative efficiencies of different vintages of investment. These efficiencies correspond to productive capacities and also determine the relative rental prices of different vintages. If we assume that the flow of capital services, say Kt , is characterized by perfect substitutability among capital goods of different vintages, we can express this flow as a weighted sum: Kt =
t
kt,v ,
v=0
=
t
dv,t At−v ,
v=0
where dv,t is the relative efficiency of capital goods of vintage v at time t. This definition embodies the assumption that a capital good loses productivity capacity as it ages, so that relative efficiencies of different vintages of capital goods decline with chronological age.7 Oliner (1993, 1994a) has proposed a model of computer services with unchanging productive efficiency over the lifetime of a computer. At any point in time all units of a given technology family will provide the same flow of capital services. This flow is independent of the chronological age of the machine. Capital services from an entire vintage of investment goods decline only as individual units from that vintage are retired. Retirement begins only after a technology family is discontinued by the manufacturer, since arbitrage prevents new investment and retirement of a given type of assets at the same point of time. More specifically, Oliner identifies technology families for processors corresponding to the IBM 360, 370, 30XX, and 4300 series. He obtains retirement distributions for all models within each family from the IDC censuses of equipment. He assumes that all investment in processors in
52
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
any given year occurs in the model of the latest available technology family. Machines from the family that has been discontinued begin to be retired after a new family is introduced. Although the productive capacity of a computer does not decline as it ages, the cost of maintaining equipment rises relative to the cost of new equipment as technology improves. Since these costs vary across users, retirement of old equipment will be distributed over all units still in the stock. Oliner assumes that retirements are distributed proportionately across all vintages of a given technology family and do not depend on chronological age.8 For the three types of peripherals considered by Oliner (1994a)— direct access storage drives (DASD), displays, and printers—we employ the same approach as for processors. Oliner has presented retirement distributions at five-year intervals, again based on inventories of peripherals from IDC censuses. We treat each five-year interval as a technology family, so that machines acquired before 1970 begin to be retired in 1970, machines acquired between1970 and 1974 begin to be retired in 1975, and so on. For the remaining peripherals and PCs we employ the perpetual inventory method from the simplified vintage accounting system introduced by Christensen and Jorgenson (1973) and Jorgenson (1980a) and outlined below. Since units from all previous vintages of a given technology family are perfect substitutes and are retired in the same proportions, the stock of computers can be calculated from past investments and the retirement distribution: Qt = dt
t
At−v .
v=0
Vintages of investment within the technology family in current production are not retired until the family is discontinued, so that the surviving proportion of these assets dt is equal to unity. We turn next to a description of the price data required for the measurement of the rental price of computer services. The model of computer services requires a system of vintage accounts containing data on the acquisition prices for computers of each vintage at each point of time. There is a one-to-one correspondence between this system of vintage accounts for asset prices and the vintage accounts for the inventories of assets. The system of vintage accounts comprises the perpetual inventory of assets and asset prices employed in accounting for wealth.
Computers and Growth
53
Under the assumptions of perfect substitutability and unchanging productive efficiency the rental prices for all vintages of computers are proportional to a single constant quality rental price. The price of acquisition of a computer is the sum of present values of future rental prices of the computer services, weighted by the conditional probability that the unit has not been retired: pA,t =
∞ τ +1 τ =0 s=1
d 1 pK,t+τ +1 t+τ +1 . 1 + rt+s dt
In this expression the ratio of dt+τ +1 to dt is the probability that a computer will survive to time t + τ + 1 given that it has survived until time t. The present values of future rental prices are obtained by applying a discount factor that depends on the sequence of discount rates rt+s . Weighting the acquisition price pA,t in period t by the discount factor in period t − 1 and dividing by the proportion of computers at time t − 1 that are still surviving at time t, we obtain the constant quality rental price: pK,t = [pA,t−1r1 + δt pA,t − (pA,t − pA,t − pA,t−1)]
dt−1 , dt
where rt , is the rate of return and is equal to the discount rate, δt is the rate of retirement, where: δt =
dt−1 − dt , dt−1
and the ratio of the first difference pA,t − pA,t−1 to the acquisition price pA,t is the rate of revaluation of computers. Note that the ratio of dt−1 to dt , is equal to unity for a technology family that has not been discontinued. Estimation of the capital service price requires data on current and lagged acquisition prices and the retirement distribution for each technology family. Since acquisition price data are available from BEA only for the current technology family, the capital service price can be estimated only for this family. Since computers do not lose productive capacity with age and the price index holds quality constant, arbitrage assures that all machines have the same service price. Oliner provides retirement distributions for all technology families, so that service prices can be determined at every point of time. Acquisition prices for assets from discontinued technology families can be estimated from these service prices.
54
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
The rental price formula for computers differs from the standard rental price formula in the interpretation of the retirement rate δt , and the presence of the ratio of the survival probability dt−1 to the probability dt . The standard formula includes a term that represents economic depreciation, defined as the loss in the value of an asset with age. Depreciation for computers, defined in this way, is equal to zero, since acquisition prices are independent of age. A computer will lose value over time as the technology ages and retirement draws closer in time. Ignoring the effect of future retirement would lead to a censoring bias in estimating prices of acquisition for computers from discontinued families. We combine the constant quality rental price for computers with an appropriate tax factor to obtain the pre-tax rental price: pK,1 =
1 − kt−1 − ut−1zt−1 d [pA,t−1rt + δt pA,t − (pA,t − pA,t−1)] t−1 , 1 − ut−1 dt
where ut is the tax rate, zt is the present value of capital consumption allowances on a new computer, and kt , is the rate of the investment tax credit on computers. Tax factors for OCAM are presented by Jorgenson and Yun (1991b). To construct a constant quality rental price index pK,t a system of vintage accounts containing data on constant quality acquisition prices of computers pA,t in every period is required. In addition, information on stocks of assets and rates of retirement of these assets is necessary. Finally, a constant quality rental price index requires data on tax rates, tax depreciation rules, and the availability of tax credits for investment in computers. Oliner’s framework of unchanging efficiency and retirement that is independent of age implies that all installed units of a given technology family must have the same price of acquisition. The value of all machines of a given family is defined as the sum of all vintages that remain at a given point of time, evaluated at the current acquisition price: Wt = pA,t dt
t
At−v ,
v=0
where pA,t is the BEA price for the current technology family and is estimated for discontinued technology families. An index number approach is employed for aggregating over technology families to obtain the price and quantity indices presented below.
Computers and Growth
2.4
55
Computer Stocks and Services
In this section we present stocks and services of computers, together with the stocks and services of all office and accounting machinery (OCAM), in constant prices. We also give the stocks and services of nonresidential PDE and private tangible assets in the United States. The stocks are constant dollar magnitudes appropriate for the entries corresponding to these assets in the U.S. national wealth accounts. Stocks and services of tangible assets include structures, inventories, and land, as well as equipment including computers. In table 2.2 we present constant quality price indices for stocks of tangible assets, PDE, OCAM, and computers. These price indices reflect the rapid decline in prices for new computers in table 2.1. Computer asset prices decline by 17.73 percent per year during the period 1958 to 1992, mirroring the corresponding fall in the prices of computer investment. Asset prices of OCAM decline at an annual rate of 8.99 percent, reflecting the increasing role of computers in the stock. Price indices of stocks of PDE and all tangible assets rise by 3.77 and 4.88 percent annually during this period. For each individual asset the acquisition prices come from two sources. For assets embodying current technology, the acquisition price given by BEA is presented in table 2.1. Acquisition prices for machines from discontinued technology families must be estimated from the model of capital as a factor of production outlined above. The price indices for groups of assets are obtained by applying an index number formula. The growth rate of the price is equal to a weighted average of the growth rates of its components. The weights are the shares of these components in the asset values. We represent information on relative prices of computer stocks and stocks of OCAM, PDE, and tangible assets graphically in figure 2.3. As indicated in table 2.2, computer prices decline relative to OCAM, but at a diminishing rate as computer stocks come to dominate OCAM. The prices of OCAM fall steadily relative to those of PDE, reflecting the increasing importance of computers. Prices of PDE stocks decline slightly relative to those of tangible assets. In figure 2.4 we graphically present stocks of computers in constant prices. Computer stocks rise rapidly in relation to OCAM stocks throughout the period, while OCAM stocks rise in relation to stocks of
56
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
Table 2.2 Capital stock quantity in 1987 dollars Total Investment
Non-Res. PDE
OCAM
Year
Quantity
Price
Quantity
Price
1958
8,654.0
0.204
613.1
0.312
0.359
12.343
0.000
219.560
1959 1960 1961 1962 1963
8,869.9 9,058.3 9,250.8 9,492.7 9,761.4
0.207 0.210 0.212 0.216 0.219
631.1 649.2 662.2 683.7 708.3
0.309 0.316 0.314 0.314 0.316
0.374 0.398 0.416 0.434 0.508
12.603 12.633 12.071 11.652 10.822
0.000 0.002 0.005 0.010 0.026
172.780 130.320 94.250 66.790 47.585
1964 1965 1966
10,071.0 10,437.0 10,814.0
0.223 0.229 0.236
741.9 791.2 851.9
0.319 0.323 0.330
0.594 0.606 0.825
10.273 11.145 9.681
0.049 0.052 0.099
39.712 50.428 35.583
1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
11,165.0 11,515.0 11,851.0 12,155.0 12,330.0 12,962.0 13,400.0
0.244 0.258 0.276 0.288 0.305 0.331 0.362
899.5 947.8 1,003.1 1,047.2 1,088.7 1,145.1 1,230.8
0.343 0.358 0.369 0.385 0.397 0.409 0.416
1.046 1.265 1.590 1.780 1.838 2.353 2.951
8.981 8.277 7.836 7.941 7.463 6.511 6.430
0.158 0.226 0.322 0.388 0.415 0.607 0.811
29.416 25.367 23.119 23.053 20.835 16.402 15.736
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
13,748.0 13,985.0 14,327.0 14,746.0 15,193.0 15,556.0 15,904.0
0.405 0.450 0.487 0.531 0.593 0.668 0.743
1,304.2 1,343.6 1,388.8 1,456.0 1,546.0 1,639.6 1,704.6
0.453 0.529 0.570 0.614 0.655 0.708 0.777
3.749 4.152 5.148 6.424 9.152 13.132 15.841
5.849 5.736 5.045 4.627 3.555 3.137 2.689
1.080 1.228 1.630 2.217 3.450 5.421 6.666
13.301 12.581 10.355 8.880 6.029 5.030 3.911
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987
16,209.0 16,382.0 16,697.0 17,177.0 17,632.0 18,030.0 18,436.0
0.810 0.857 0.880 0.911 0.937 0.962 1.000
1,764.8 1,791.9 1,831.1 1,906.4 1,989.1 2,056.8 2,113.2
0.857 0.920 0.935 0.950 0.954 0.978 1.000
23.650 31.121 43.872 63.241 85.959 113.740 143.480
2.420 2.304 2.038 1.719 1.278 1.132 1.000
11.673 17.194 25.935 40.185 58.556 82.634 113.240
3.290 3.068 2.594 2.073 1.412 1.190 1.000
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
18,835.0 19,207.0 19,496.0 19,736.0 19,540.0
1.047 1.096 1.087 1.088 1.074
2,191.8 2,257.1 2,316.9 2,349.5 2,393.8
1.023 1.054 1.081 1.110 1.124
176.310 210.730 246.860 282.350 330.740
0.953 0.854 0.779 0.669 0.580
147.930 185.820 224.280 263.260 316.640
0.939 0.822 0.754 0.625 0.530
3.77
20.07
(8.99)
47.16
Annual Growth
2.40
4.88
4.01
Quantity
Computers
Price
Quantity
Price
(17.73)
Computers and Growth
57
Figure 2.3 Relative price of capital stock, 1958–1992.
Figure 2.4 Share capital stock quantity, 1958–1992.
PDE toward the end of period. Finally, the ratio of PDE stocks to tangible assets increases only gradually. In table 2.3 we present constant quality price indices for services of tangible assets, PDE, OCAM, and computers.
58
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
Table 2.3 Capital services quantity in 1987 dollars Total Investment
Non-Res. PDE
OCAM
Computers
Year
Quantity
Price
Quantity
Price
Quantity
1958
731.6
0.230
85.4
0.462
NA
1959 1960 1961 1962 1963
740.9 760.0 776.0 793.9 818.5
0.272 0.265 0.268 0.293 0.312
84.1 86.7 89.5 91.6 95.4
0.490 0.484 0.484 0.500 0.476
0.039 0.066 0.090 0.109 0.126
14.126 14.660 15.377 14.255 12.827
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002
857.520 516.130 286.020 198.540 128.140
1964 1965 1966
846.0 880.7 922.4
0.335 0.366 0.375
99.7 105.4 114.0
0.490 0.516 0.522
0.158 0.191 0.239
11.148 11.736 11.640
0.006 0.011 0.018
69.347 72.845 70.027
1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
966.6 1008.3 1,050.5 1,091.4 1,129.8 1,178.0 1,232.8
0.361 0.359 0.352 0.337 0.363 0.387 0.398
124.8 132.7 141.3 151.1 158.4 167.1 178.7
0.525 0.540 0.528 0.538 0.570 0.554 0.540
0.341 0.430 0.504 0.611 0.726 0.885 1.085
8.699 8.616 7.367 6.723 9.298 6.700 4.439
0.035 0.055 0.077 0.106 0.144 0.198 0.274
37.546 30.134 22.075 20.651 30.671 19.257 9.435
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1,287.l 1,333.4 1,366.6 1,413.4 1,469.6 1,532.2 1,582.1
0.382 0.422 0.476 0.531 0.571 0.577 0.595
195.0 208.8 215.7 225.7 241.0 263.0 284.9
0.541 0.608 0.656 0.705 0.737 0.761 0.797
1.296 1.604 1.853 2.267 2.777 3.948 5.669
5.749 5.161 4.785 4.063 5.282 3.327 4.285
0.351 0.449 0.549 0.724 0.960 1.474 2.290
13.671 11.367 9.736 7.798 10.479 5.259 8.093
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987
1,630.4 1,672.8 1,703.1 1,756.4 1,832.8 1,911.5 1,975.4
0.691 0.744 0.855 0.941 0.956 0.939 1.000
301.7 316.5 325.7 342.9 372.1 403.4 427.8
0.871 0.849 0.890 0.939 0.912 0.881 1.000
7.986 10.832 13.863 19.271 26.745 35.314 44.285
1.969 1.447 1.412 1.550 1.907 0.935 1.000
3.547 5.529 8.239 12.409 18.351 25.340 33.443
2.564 1.630 1.630 1.775 2.275 0.958 1.000
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
2,040.6 2,106.6 2,163.6 2,204.l 2,226.9
1.039 1.059 1.134 1.158 1.234
449.3 475.3 496.8 516.4 528.9
1.020 1.027 1.026 1.019 1.060
53.741 62.624 72.333 83.864 95.996
0.740 0.891 0.598 0.585 0.493
44.336 55.458 68.510 82.432 97.124
0.629 0.793 0.461 0.524 0.403
2.44
23.65
Annual Growth
3.27
4.93
5.36
Price NA
(10.17)
Quantity NA
52.82
Price NA
(23.22)
Computers and Growth
59
Figure 2.5 Relative price of capital services, 1959–1992.
The price indices for these services are obtained by applying the translog index number formula we have already described with weights given by the shares of the components in the value of capital services. We give this information in graphic form in figure 2.5. The wide range of annual fluctuations in the values of capital services and the corresponding price indices is a reflection of changes in the acquisition prices of computers over time. The model of capital as a factor of production includes an asset pricing equation based on perfect foresight. Large capital losses associated with rapidIy declining asset prices imply high rental prices. Since the computer services provided by a given investment are proportional to the number of machines initially acquired, the services provided by different vintages at the same point of time are perfect substitutes in production. Under perfect substitutability the flow of computer services is proportional to the stock of computers and is a weighted sum of past investments. The weights correspond to the surviving proportions of past vintages of computers. In order to construct estimates of the quantities of computer services, a perpetual inventory containing data on computer investments of every age in every time period is essential. The inventory of processors at each point of time consists of the unretired quantities of all prior vintages of investment. To generate the entries in a perpetual inventory in each time period we add new investment in processors and reduce the previous period’s inventory
60
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
by retirements. Technology families that have not been discontinued do not undergo retirement, so that the inventory of a given vintage is equal to the initial investment until the family is discontinued. After the family is no longer available from the manufacturer, all vintages are retired in the proportions implied by data on inventories of processors from the IDC censuses. For assets included in the IDC censuses, the number of computers could be obtained, at least in principle, directly from the corresponding census. For other assets, the number of computers can be estimated from past investments. The estimates of computer stocks presented in table 2.2 are obtained from past investments by applying the perpetual inventory method we have described above to computer investment as they occur. Sums of these investments over all vintages of computers are reduced in accord with the distributions of retirements estimated from IDC inventory data by Oliner. Since all vintages of computers receive the same price for capital services, the quantity of capital services is simply the sum over the unretired units from all technology families. An index number approach is used to generate the totals for computers and OCAM. In table 2.3 we present computer services in constant prices. The constant quality service price indices are calculated separately for each aggregate; for example, the quantity of computers is the ratio of the value of the computer service to the computer price index. In figure 2.6 we graphically present information on services in constant prices. For computers with a full set of data for every time period, price and quantity indices for computer services can be constructed at each point of time. For computers with a less complete set of data a simplified set of price and quantity indices can be constructed on the basis of empirical evidence on the relative efficiencies of investment goods of different ages presented by Charles Hulten and Frank Wykoff (1981a, 1981b). The “hedonic” methodology employed for constructing constant quality price indices for investment goods was extended to capital goods of different ages or vintages by Robert Hall (1971). Hulten and Wykoff have estimated relative efficiences by age for all types of tangible assets included in NIPA from vintage price data for these assets.9 Hulten and Wykoff (1981a, 1981b) show that relative efficiencies for a wide range of assets decline geometrically at a constant rate. This is equal to the rate of depreciation and the rate of replacement. This finding has been corroborated by Hulten, Robertson, and Wykoff (1989). Jorgenson and Yun (1991b) have derived a depreciation rate equal to
Computers and Growth
61
Figure 2.6 Share of capital services quantity, 1959–1992.
0.2729 for OCAM from the results of Hulten and Wykoff. Jorgenson and Christensen (1973) and Jorgenson (1980a) have introduced a simplified system of vintage accounts based on the assumption that the decline in relative efficiencies is geometric. 2.5
Computers and Growth
Jorgenson (1966) introduced a model of production based on an aggregate production possibility frontier as a generalization of Solow’s (1960) concept of embodied technical change. This model also generalizes the aggregate production function by distinguishing between outputs of investment and consumption goods as well as inputs of capital and labor services. In the absence of constant quality price indices for investment goods, Jorgenson showed that economic growth could be interpreted, equivalently, as “embodied” in capital input or “disembodied” in the Solow (1957) residual. Jorgenson and Griliches (1967) employed the production possibility frontier to link investment goods output and capital services input. For example, a constant quality price index for computers affects both the output of investment goods and the input of capital services. Jorgenson and Griliches identified embodiment with substitution between the output of investment goods and other outputs as well as substitution
62
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
between capital input and other inputs. This required the introduction of constant quality price indices for investment goods, thereby removing the indeterminacy resulting from modeling embodiment by means of a time trend, as in Solow’s model.10 To assess the impact of investment in computers on U.S. economic growth we employ an aggregate production possibility frontier with outputs of investment and consumption goods and inputs of capital and labor services. Computer investment from table 2.1 is a component of the output of investment goods and computer services from table 2.3 are a component of the input of capital services. Constant quality price indices for computers affect both the output of computer investment and the input of computer services. IDC inventory data for computers are incorporated into the measurement of stocks of computers in table 2.2 and flows of computer services in table 2.3. At the aggregate level the output of the U.S. economy is represented by value added in constant dollars. Current dollar value added is the sum of the values of investment and consumption goods outputs. The price index for value added is constructed from price indices for outputs of investment and consumption goods. Constant dollar value added is the ratio of current dollar value added to this price index. The price index for investment goods includes the constant quality price index for computers presented in table 2.1. Growth rates of constant dollar value added is given for the period 1947–1992 in table 2.4. The average annual growth rate of value added is 3.42 percent per year for this period. Table 2.4 also provides growth rates for nine subperiods: 1947–1953, 1953–1957, 1957–1960, 1960–1966, 1966–1969, 1969–1973, 1973–1979, 1979–1985, and 1985–1992. The endpoints of these subperiods, except for the last two, are years in which a cyclical peak occurred. The nine subperiods include two periods of relatively rapid growth, 1947–1953 and 1960–1966, and seven periods of relatively slow growth: 1953–1957, 1957–1960, 1966–1969, 1969–1973, 1973–1979, and 1979–1985, 1985–1992. Finally, table 2.4 gives growth rates of capital and labor inputs and productivity growth for the period 1947–1992 and the nine subperiods. Capital grows at an average annual rate of 3.41 percent per year, labor at 1.64 percent, and productivity at 1.03 percent for the period as a whole. The contributions of capital and labor inputs to U.S. economic growth are obtained by weighting the corresponding growth rates by the shares of these inputs in value added. This produces the familiar allocation of growth to its sources. Capital input is by far the most important source of
Variable
1947–1992 1947–1953 1953–1957 1957–1960 1960–1966 1966–1969 1969–1973 1973–1979 1979–1985 1985-1992
Value-Added Non-computer Share
0.0342 0.0333
0.0546 0.0546
0.0214 0.0214
0.0239 0.0237
0.0538 0.0530
0.0261 0.0254
0.0367 0.0360
0.0263 0.0250
0.0289 0.0265
0.0249 0.0238
Computer Share Capital Input Labor Input Contribution of Capital Non-computer Share
0.0009 0.0341 0.0164 0.0147 0.0138
0.0000 0.0443 0.0224 0.0192 0.0192
0.0000 0.0331 0.0036 0.0142 0.0142
0.0002 0.0200 (0.0001) 0.0083 0.0083
0.0008 0.0323 0.0263 0.0146 0.0141
0.0007 0.0434 0.0209 0.0193 0.0185
0.0008 0.0400 0.0126 0.0164 0.0154
0.0012 0.0362 0.0217 0.0145 0.0135
0.0024 0.0299 0.0154 0.0128 0.0106
0.0012 0.0278 0.0138 0.0126 0.0109
Computer Share Contribution of Labor Productivity Contribution of K Quality Contribution of K Stock Contribution of L Quality Contribution of L Hours
0.0009 0.0092 0.0103 0.0038 0.0109 0.0030 0.0062
0.0000 0.0126 0.0227 0.0051 0.0142 0.0070 0.0056
0.0000 0.0019 0.0053 0.0025 0.0117 0.0033 (0.0014)
0.0000 (0.0001) 0.0157 (0.0004) 0.0088 0.0007 (0.0008)
0.0005 0.0144 0.0248 0.0013 0.0133 0.0062 0.0082
0.0009 0.0116 (0.0049) 0.0057 0.0136 0.0031 0.0086
0.0010 0.0074 0.0129 0.0038 0.0126 (0.0002) 0.0076
0.0010 0.0128 (0.0010) 0.0045 0.0100 0.0017 0.0111
0.0022 0.0083 0.0078 0.0038 0.0090 0.0025 0.0058
0.0017 0.0076 0.0047 0.0060 0.0066 0.0012 0.0064
Computers and Growth
Table 2.4 Growth rates of aggregate output, inputs, and productivity, 1947–1992
63
64
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
growth in output, accounting for 43.0 percent of U.S. economic growth during the period 1947–1992, while labor input accounts for 26.9 percent of growth. Capital and labor inputs together account for 70.0 percent of growth and productivity growth accounts for 30.0 percent. An important feature of the findings presented in table 2.4 is that the measure of capital input is based on the model of capital as a factor of production presented by Jorgenson (1989, 1990b) and summarized in section 2.2. The quantity of capital services is a weighted sum of past investments with relative efficiencies as weights The price of assets is the present value of future capital incomes, reflecting these same relative efficiencies. This model makes it possible to assimilate information on relative efficiencies from the empirical research of Hulten and Wykoff (1981a, 1981b) and Oliner (1993, 1994a). The model of capital as a factor of production treats the flow of capital services for each type of asset as proportional to the stock of that asset. However, the price of capital input is a rental price rather than an asset price. This makes it possible to incorporate substitution among different types of capital inputs in response to changes in relative rental prices. These changes can be very dramatic, as we have shown by comparing constant quality rental prices of computers with those for other assets in table 2.3. However, changes in rental prices can also result from changes in tax policy, which affect the tax factors entering the pre-tax rental prices of capital inputs. The growth rate of value added can be represented as the sum of contributions of computer and non-computer components. These contributions are obtained by weighting the corresponding growth rates by the shares of these components in value added. Although the growth rate of computer investment presented in table 2.1 is very large, the shares of computers in value added are very small, rising from zero in 1958 to a modest positive number at the end of the period in 1992.The contribution of computers to value added growth is only 0.09 percent per year or 2.63 percent of growth. Alternatively, the growth rate of value added can be expressed as the sum of the contributions of capital and labor inputs and productivity growth. The contribution of capital input can be divided between computer and non-computer components. The contribution of computer services as an input is 0.09 percent per year or 2.63 percent of growth in value added. The contribution of computer services as an input is equal to the contribution of investment in computers as an output! The con-
Computers and Growth
65
tribution of computer services as a proportion of the contribution of all capital input rises from zero in 1958 to more than twelve percent in 1992. We can compare the constant quality measure of capital input employed in table 2.4 with an alternative measure based on capital stock. The contribution of capital input grows at an annual average rate of 1.47 percent, while the contribution of capital stock grows at only 1.09 percent per year. By omitting substitution among different types of capital services in response to changes in relative rental prices, the growth of capital stock underestimates the growth of capital input by 25.9 percent! We refer to the difference between the contributions of capital input and capital stock as the contribution of capital quality. This difference reflects changes in the quality of an average unit of capital stock, viewed as an input into the U.S. economy. Just as we can hold the quality of the flow of computer investment output constant by introducing constant quality price indices for computers, we can hold the quality of the flow of computer services input constant by incorporating substitution in response to changes in constant quality rental prices. The growth of capital quality is a very significant component of the growth of a constant quality measure of capital services. The measure of labor input presented in table 2.4 incorporates substitutions among different types of hours worked in response to changes in relative wages. These reflect differences in hourly wages for workers who differ in age, sex, and educational attainment. We refer to the difference between the contributions of labor input and hours worked as the contribution of labor quality. The contribution of labor input grows at an annual average rate of 0.92 percent, while the contribution of hours worked grows at only 0.62 percent. Omitting substitution among different types of labor services in response to changes in relative wages leads to underestimation of the growth of labor input by 32.6 percent! Since productivity growth is calculated as a residual between the growth of output and the contributions of capital and labor inputs. it should include all alterations in production techniques that do not result from the growth of these inputs. If we were to employ a measure of computer output that fails to incorporate constant quality price indices for computers, this would lead to an underestimation of the growth of output and reduce residual productivity growth. However, it would also lead to underestimation of the growth of the input of computer services, increasing the growth of the residual.
66
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
Using the results presented in table 2.4, we can derive the implications of our constant quality measures of capital and labor inputs. The contribution of capital quality is 0.38 percent per year and the contribution of labor quality is 0.30 percent. If we were to add these changes to the residual, we would obtain a productivity growth rate of 1.71 percent per year. By failing to take account of substitutions among different components of capital stock we would reduce the contribution of capital input to 1.09 percent, while omitting substitutions among hours worked would reduce the contribution of labor input to 0.62 percent. The Solow (1957) residual would emerge as the most important source of U.S. economic growth. Unfortunately, the Solow residual does not reflect the distinction between growth of inputs and productivity growth. By resorting to capital stock and hours worked in place of constant quality measures of capital and labor inputs we would transfer the substantial changes in the quality of capital stock and hours worked given in table 2.4 to the residual, leading to substantial underestimation of the growth of capital and labor inputs and overestimation of productivity growth. Substitution between capital and labor services can obviously take place, but it can equally well take place between computers and other forms of capital inputs, as we have shown in tables 2.3 and 2.4, above, or among different types of labor, as indicated in table 2.4. In the model of production that underlies table 2.4 we have allowed for substitution between investment and consumption outputs and between capital and labor service inputs. We have also incorporated substitution among different types of investment goods including computer investment, as indicated in table 2.1, as well as substitution among different types of consumption goods. Finally, we have also incorporated substitution among capital inputs, including computer services, as indicated in table 2.3, as well as substitution among different types of labor inputs. By providing additional scope for modeling these substitutions we have arrived at the measure of productivity growth presented in table 2.4. This differs from the Solow residual by 62.4 percent! An important limitation of the analysis of U.S. economic growth presented in table 2.4 is that Oliner (1993, 1994a) has provided retirement information from the IDC censuses of computer inventories only for processors and three types of peripherals—direct access storage drives (DASD), displays, and printers. For other types of peripherals and PCs we have employed the perpetual inventory method from the simplified accounting system based on geometric decline in efficiency. This
Computers and Growth
67
system uses a single retirement rate of 0.2729 for all components of OCAM not modeled by Oliner. As Oliner (1993) points out, this is based on an econometric model of vintage prices for electric typewriters developed by Hulten and Wykoff (1981a, 1981b). 2.6
Conclusion
We conclude that the measures of computer investment included in NIPA and presented in table 2.1 can be incorporated into gross product of the U.S. economy. Using the model of computer technology introduced by Oliner (1993, 1994a), we have constructed measures of computer services as inputs into the U.S. economy. Unlike the capital stocks employed, for example, by Baily and Gordon (1988) Gordon (1990) and Baily and Schultze (1990) our capital input measures reflect substitution among capital inputs in response to changes in rental prices. We have generated evidence of a massive substitution of computer services for other inputs in response to declines in computer prices. These pecuniary externalities, first identified by Bresnahan (1986) indicate that computer investment has had a very significant impact on U.S. economic growth. The apparent paradox that this impact does not appear in the form of nonpecuniary externalities can be resolved by focusing on the growth in inputs of computer services rather than “spillovers” that would appear as productivity growth. While the introduction of constant quality price indices for computers into NIPA is a major achievement in economic measurement, a great deal remains to be done to capture fully the contribution of all forms of investment to U.S. economic growth. Gordon (1990) has demonstrated that price indices for noncomputer components of PDE in NIPA are subject to very substantial changes in quality over the period 1947– 1983. For this period Gordon estimates the rate of quality change for all components of PDE, including computers, to be 2.96 percent per year.11 The largest quality changes estimated by Gordon are for OCAM at 9.32 percent per year, communications equipment, the category of PDE most closely related to OCAM, at 5.84 percent, and aircraft at 8.29 percent. By introducing constant quality price indices for all twenty-two components of PDE Gordon shows that the growth rate of private GNP rises from 3.17 percent per year for the period 1947–1983 to 3.40 percent. Capital stock growth rises from 3.51 percent per year for this period to 5.11 percent.
68
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
While Denison (1989, 1993) has recommended eliminating the constant quality price index for computers from NIPA in the interest of consistency, Gordon’s results provide support for the conclusion reached by Baily and Gordon (1988) that Denison’s recommendation should be reversed. Constant quality price indices should be introduced for all components of the national product, beginning with the remaining components of PDE.12 The next objective should be to revise the treatment of depreciation in NIPA to reflect information on inventories of assets prices like that compiled by Hulten and Wykoff (1981a, 1981b) and Oliner (1993, 1994a). This information is required for the valuation of stocks of capital, as in the BEA (1987) study, Fixed Reproducible Tangible Wealth in the United States, 1925-1985, and its successors. The information also provides the basis for estimates of the flows of capital services required for the analysis of sources of economic growth. Both constant quality price indices for investment goods and asset inventories will be needed for this purpose. The ultimate objective of research on investment, capital stock, and capital services should be a unified system of income, production, and wealth accounts, like that originated by Christensen and Jorgenson (1973) and Jorgenson (1980a). The production account of such a system could provide the information required to implement the production approach to U.S. economic growth by decomposing growth in output among its sources, as in table 2.4 of the preceding section. The income account could generate the data on income, consumption, and saving needed to implement the welfare approach advocated by Denison (1989). A unified system would include information for all assets in the U.S. economy like that we have presented for computers. Notes 1. Brynjolfsson (1993) has provided a detailed survey of studies of nonpecuniary externalities or “spill-overs.” Recent studies include those of Brynjolfsson and Hitt (1994a. 1994b) and Lichtenberg (1993). 2. Robert M. Solow, quoted by Brynjolfsson (1993). 3. Erwin Diewert (1976) has shown that the indices utilized by Christensen and Jorgenson (1973) can be generated from the translog price functions introduced by Chrisstensen, Jorgenson and Lawrence Lau (1973). 4. The history of hedonic price indices is recounted by Ernst Berndt (1991). 5. Earlier, Richard Stone (1956), Griliches (1964), and Triplett (1983) had provided the rationale for introducing hedonic price indices into systems of national accounts.
Computers and Growth
69
6. Robert Gordon (1989, 1990b) has presented an alternative hedonic price index for computers. 7. For more details, see Jorgenson (1989, 1990b). 8. This is the “proportional retirement” assumption discussed by OIiner (1993); he also discusses an alternative “FIFO (first-in, first-out) retirement” assumption. However, only proportional retirement is consistent with Oliner’s assumption that second hand prices are independent of chronological age. 9. Jorgenson (1994) surveys research on estimates of relative efficiencies from vintage price data. Recent research on this topic includes the papers by Hulten, James Robertson, and Wykoff (1989), and Wykoff (1989). 10. Hulten (1992) has estimated the proportion of U.S. economic growth accounted for within this framework, incorporating constant quality prices of all components of PDE in NIPA, including computers, from Gordon’s (1990) magisterial study, The Measurement of Durable Goods Prices. Gordon (1990), Table 12.14, p. 557, presents a similar calculation. 11. A summary of Gordon’s results is given in table 12.2, p. 536. The rate of quality change for all components of PDE is given in the line labeled, “Tornqvist.” ¨ 12. Paul Pieper (1989, 1990) has provided constant quality price indices for the components of structures in NIPA.
This page intentionally left blank
3
Raising the Speed Limit: U.S. Economic Growth in the Information Age Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
This chapter examines the underpinnings of the successful performance of the U.S. economy in the late 1990s. Relative to the early 1990s, output growth has accelerated by nearly two percentage points. We attribute this to rapid capital accumulation, a surge in hours worked, and faster growth of total factor productivity. The acceleration of productivity growth, driven by information technology, is the most remarkable feature of the U.S. growth resurgence. We consider the implications of these developments for the future growth of the U.S. economy. (JEL Codes: O3, O4) 3.1
Introduction
The continued strength and vitality of the U.S. economy continues to astonish economic forecasters.1 A consensus is now emerging that something fundamental has changed with “new economy” proponents pointing to information technology as the causal factor behind the strong performance of the U.S. economy. In this view, technology is profoundly altering the nature of business, leading to permanently higher productivity growth throughout the economy. Skeptics argue that the recent success reflects a series of favorable, but temporary, shocks. This argument is buttressed by the view that the U.S. economy behaves rather differently than envisioned by new economy advocates.2 While productivity growth, capital accumulation, and the impact of technology were topics once reserved for academic debates, the recent success of the U.S. economy has moved them into popular discussion. The purpose of this chapter is to employ well-tested and familiar methods to analyze important new information made available by the recent benchmark revision of the U.S. National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA). We document the case for raising the speed limit—for upward
72
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
revision of intermediate-term projections of future growth to reflect the latest data and trends. The late 1990s have been exceptional in comparison with the growth experience of the U.S. economy over the past quarter century. While growth rates in the 1990s have not yet returned to those of the Golden Age of the U.S. economy in the 1960s, the data nonetheless clearly reveal a remarkable transformation of economic activity. Rapid declines in the prices of computers and semiconductors are well known and carefully documented, and evidence is accumulating that similar declines are taking place in the prices of software and communications equipment. Unfortunately, the empirical record is seriously incomplete, so much remains to be done before definitive quantitative assessments can be made about the complete role of these high-tech assets. Despite the limitations of the available data, the mechanisms underlying the structural transformation of the U.S. economy are readily apparent. As an illustration, consider the increasing role that computer hardware plays as a source of economic growth.3 For the period 1959 to 1973, computer inputs contributed less than one-tenth of one percent to U.S. economic growth. Since 1973, however, the price of computers has fallen at historically unprecedented rates and firms and households have followed a basic principle of economics—they have substituted towards relatively cheaper inputs. Since 1995 the price decline for computers has accelerated, reaching nearly 28 percent per year from 1995 to 1998. In response, investment in computers has exploded and the growth contribution of computers increased more than five-fold to 0.46 percentage points per year in the late 1990s.4 Software and communications equipment, two other information technology assets, contributed an additional 0.30 percentage points per year for 1995–1998. Preliminary estimates through 1999 reveal further increases in these contributions for all three high-tech assets. Next, consider the acceleration of average labor productivity (ALP) growth in the 1990s. After a 20-year slowdown dating from the early 1970s, ALP grew 2.4 per year for 1995–1998, more than a percentage point faster than during 1990–1995.5 A detailed decomposition shows that capital deepening, the direct consequence of price-induced substitution and rapid investment, added 0.49 percentage points to ALP growth. Faster total factor productivity (TFP) growth contributed an additional 0.63 percentage points, largely reflecting technical change in the production of computers and the resulting acceleration in the price decline of computers. Slowing labor quality growth retarded ALP growth
Raising the Speed Limit
73
by 0.12 percentage points relative to the early 1990s, a result of exhaustion of the pool of available workers. Focusing more specifically on TFP growth, this was an anemic 0.34 percent per year for 1973–1995, but accelerated to 0.99 percent for 1995– 1998. After more than twenty years of sluggish TFP growth, four of the last five years have seen growth rates near 1 percent. It could be argued this represents a new paradigm. According to this view, the diffusion of information technology improves business practices, generates spillovers, and raises productivity throughout the economy. If this trend is sustainable, it could revive the optimistic expectations of the 1960s and overcome the pessimism of The Age of Diminished Expectations, the title of Krugman’s (1990) influential book. A closer look at the data, however, shows that gains in TFP growth can be traced in substantial part to information technology industries, which produce computers, semiconductors, and other high-tech gear. The evidence is equally clear that computer-using industries like finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE) and services have continued to lag in productivity growth. Reconciliation of massive high-tech investment and relatively slow productivity growth in service industries remains an important task for proponents of the new economy position.6 What does this imply for the future? The sustainability of growth in labor productivity is the key issue for future growth projections. For some purposes, the distinctions among capital accumulation and growth in labor quality and TFP may not matter, so long as ALP growth can be expected to continue. It is sustainable labor productivity gains, after all, that ultimately drive long-run growth and raise living standards. In this respect, the recent experience provides grounds for caution, since much depends on productivity gains in high-tech industries. Ongoing technological gains in these industries have been a direct source of improvement in TFP growth, as well as an indirect source of more rapid capital deepening. Sustainability of growth, therefore, hinges critically on the pace of technological progress in these industries. As measured by relative price changes, progress has accelerated recently, as computer prices fell 28 percent per year for 1995–1998 compared to 15 percent in 1990–1995. There is no guarantee, of course, of continued productivity gains and price declines of this magnitude. Nonetheless, as long as high-tech industries maintain the ability to innovate and improve their productivity at rates comparable even to their long-term averages, relative prices will fall and the virtuous circle of an investment-led expansion will continue.7
74
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
Finally, we argue that rewards from new technology accrue to the direct participants; first, to the innovating industries producing hightech assets and, second, to the industries that restructure to implement the latest information technology. There is no evidence of spillovers from production of information technology to the industries that use this technology. Indeed, many of the industries that use information technology most intensively, like FIRE and services, show high rates of substitution of information technology for other inputs and relatively low rates of productivity growth. In part, this may reflect problems in measuring the output from these industries, but the empirical record provides little support for the ”new economy” picture of spillovers cascading from information technology producers onto users of this technology.8 The paper is organized as follows. Section 3.2 describes our methodology for quantifying the sources of U.S. economic growth. We present results for the period 1959–1998, and focus on the ”new economy” era of the late 1990s. Section 3.3 explores the implications of the recent experience for future growth, comparing our results to recent estimates produced by the Congressional Budget Office, the Council of Economic Advisors, and the Office of Management and Budget. Section 3.4 moves beyond the aggregate data and quantifies the productivity growth at the industry level. Using methodology introduced by Domar (1961), we consider the impact of information technology on aggregate productivity. Section 3.5 concludes. 3.2
The Recent U.S. Growth Experience
The U.S. economy has undergone a remarkable transformation in recent years with growth in output, labor productivity, and total factor productivity all accelerating since the mid-1990s. This growth resurgence has led to a widening debate about sources of economic growth and changes in the structure of the economy. “New economy” proponents trace the changes to developments in information technology, especially the rapid commercialization of the Internet, that are fundamentally changing economic activity. “Old economy” advocates focus on lackluster performance during the first half of the 1990s, the increase in labor force participation and rapid decline in unemployment since 1993, and the recent investment boom. Our objective is to quantify the sources of the recent surge in U.S. economic growth, using new information made available by the benchmark
Raising the Speed Limit
75
revision of the U.S. National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) released in October 1999, BEA (1999). We then consider the implications of our results for intermediate-term projections of U.S. economic growth. We give special attention to the rapid escalation in growth rates in the official projections, such as those by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA). The CBO projections are particularly suitable for our purposes, since they are widely disseminated, well documented, and represent “best practice.” We do not focus on the issue of inflation and do not comment on potential implications for monetary policy. 3.2.1
Sources of Economic Growth
Our methodology is based on the production possibility frontier introduced by Jorgenson (1966) and employed by Jorgenson and Griliches (1967). This captures substitutions among outputs of investment and consumption goods, as well inputs of capital and labor. We identify information technology (IT) with investments in computers, software, and communications equipment, as well as consumption of computer and software as outputs. The service flows from these assets are also inputs. The aggregate production function employed by Solow (1957, 1960) and, more recently by Greenwood, Hercowitz, and Krusell (1997), is an alternative to our model. In this approach a single output is expressed as a function of capital and labor inputs. This implicitly assumes, however, that investments in information technology are perfect substitutes for other outputs, so that relative prices do not change. Our methodology is essential in order to capture two important facts about which there is general agreement. The first is that prices of computers have declined drastically relative to the prices of other investment goods. The second is that this rate of decline has recently accelerated. In addition, estimates of investment in software, now available in the NIPA, are comparable to investment in hardware. The new data show that the price of software has fallen relative to the prices of other investment goods, but more slowly than price of hardware. We examine the estimates of software investment in some detail in order to assess the role of software in recent economic growth. Finally, we consider investment in communications equipment, which shares many of the technological features of computer hardware.
76
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
3.2.1.1 Production Possibility Frontier Aggregate output Yt consists of investment goods It and consumption goods Ct . These outputs are produced from aggregate input Xt , consisting of capital services Kt and labor services Lt . We represent productivity as a ”Hicks-neutral” augmentation At of aggregate input:9 Y (It , Ct ) = At · X(Kt , Lt ).
(3.1)
The outputs of investment and consumption goods and the inputs of capital and labor services are themselves aggregates, each with many subcomponents. Under the assumptions of competitive product and factor markets, and constant returns to scale, growth accounting gives the shareweighted growth of outputs as the sum of the share-weighted growth of inputs and growth in total factor productivity (TFP): w I ,t ln It + w C,t ln Ct = v K,t ln Kt + v L,t ln Lt + ln At ,
(3.2)
where w I ,t is investment’s average share of nominal output, w C,t is consumption’s average share of nominal input, v K,t is capital’s average share of nominal income, v K,t is labor’s average share of nominal income, w I ,t + w C,t = v K,t + v L,t = 1 and refers to a first difference. Note that we reserve the term total factor productivity for the augmentation factor in equation (3.1). Equation (3.2) enables us to identify the contributions of outputs as well as inputs to economic growth. For example, we can quantify the contributions of different investments, such as computers, software, and communications equipment, to the growth of output by decomposing the growth of investment among its subcomponents. Similarly, we can quantify the contributions of different types of consumption, such as services from computers and software, by decomposing the growth of consumption. As shown in Jorgenson and Stiroh (1999), both computer investment and consumption of IT have made important contributions to U.S. economic growth in the 1990s. We also consider the output contributions of software and communications equipment as distinct high-tech assets. Similarly, we decompose the contribution of capital income to isolate the impact of computers, software, and communications equipment on input growth. Rearranging equation (3.2) enables us to present results in terms of growth in average labor productivity (ALP), defined as yt = Yt /Ht , where Yt is output, defined as an aggregate of consumption and investment
Raising the Speed Limit
77
goods, and kt = Kt /Ht is the ratio of capital services to hours worked Ht : ln yt = v K,t ln kt + v L,t ( ln Lt − ln Ht ) + ln At .
(3.3)
This gives the familiar allocation of ALP growth among three factors. The first is capital deepening, the growth in capital services per hour. Capital deepening makes workers more productive by providing more capital for each hour of work and raises the growth of ALP in proportion to the share of capital. The second term is the improvement in labor quality, defined as the difference between growth rates of labor input and hours worked. Reflecting the rising proportion of hours supplied by workers with higher marginal products, labor quality improvement raises ALP growth in proportion to labor’s share. The third factor is total factor productivity (TFP) growth, which increases ALP growth on a point-for-point basis. 3.2.1.2 Computers, Software, and Communications Equipment We now consider the impact of investment in computers, software, and communications equipment on economic growth. For this purpose we must carefully distinguish the use of information technology and the production of information technology.10 For example, computers themselves are an output from one industry (the computer-producing industry, Commercial and Industrial Machinery), and computing services are inputs into other industries (computer-using industries like Trade, FIRE, and Services). Massive increases in computing power, like those experienced by the U.S. economy, therefore reflect two effects on growth. First, as the production of computers improves and becomes more efficient, more computing power is being produced from the same inputs. This raises overall productivity in the computer-producing industry and contributes to TFP growth for the economy as a whole. Labor productivity also grows at both the industry and aggregate levels.11 Second, the rapid accumulation of computers leads to input growth of computing power in computer-using industries. Since labor is working with more and better computer equipment, this investment increases labor productivity. If the contributions to output are captured by the effect of capital deepening, aggregate TFP growth is unaffected. As Baily and Gordon (1988) remark, “there is no shift in the user firm’s production function (pg. 378),” and thus no gain in TFP. Increasing deployment of computers increases TFP only if there are spillovers
78
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
from the production of computers to production in the computer-using industries, or if there are measurement problems associated with the new inputs. We conclude that rapid growth in computing power affects aggregate output through both TFP growth and capital deepening. Progress in the technology of computer production contributes to growth in TFP and ALP at the aggregate level. The accumulation of computing power in computer-using industries reflects the substitution of computers for other inputs and leads to growth in ALP. In the absence of spillovers this growth does not contribute to growth in TFP. The remainder of this section provides empirical estimates of the variables in equations (3.1) through (3.3). We then employ equations (3.2) and (3.3) to quantify the sources of growth of output and ALP for 1959–1998 and various subperiods. 3.2.2
Output
Our output data are based on the most recent benchmark revision of the NIPA.12 Real output Yt is measured in chained 1996 dollars, and PY ,t is the corresponding implicit deflator. Our output concept is similar, but not identical, to one used in the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) productivity program. Like BLS, we exclude the government sector, but unlike BLS we include imputations for the service flow from consumers’ durables (CD) and owner-occupied housing. These imputations are necessary to preserve comparability between durables and housing and also enable us to capture the important impact of information technology on households. Our estimate of current dollar, private output in 1998 is $8,013B, including imputations of $740B that primarily reflect services of consumers’ durables.13 Real output growth was 3.63 percent for the full period, compared to 3.36 percent for the official GDP series. This difference reflects both our imputations and our exclusion of the government sectors in the NIPA data. Appendix table A.1 presents the current dollar value and corresponding price index of total output and the IT assets— investment in computers Ic , investment in software Is , investment in communications equipment Im, consumption of computers and software Cc , and the imputed service flow from consumers’ computers and software, Dc . The most striking feature of these data is the enormous price decline for computer investment, 18 percent per year from 1960 to 1995
Raising the Speed Limit
79
Note: All prices indexes are relative to the output price index.
Figure 3.1 Relative prices of information technology outputs, 1960–1998.
(figure 3.1). Since 1995 this decline has accelerated to 27.6 percent per year. By contrast the relative price of software has been flat for much of the period and only began to fall in the late 1980s. The price of communications equipment behaves similarly to the software price, while consumption of computers and software shows declines similar to computer investment. The top panel of table 3.1 summarizes the growth rates of prices and quantities for major output categories for 1990–1995 and for 1995–1998. In terms of current dollar output, investment in software is the largest IT asset, followed by investment in computers and communications equipment (figure 3.2). While business investments in computers, software, and communications equipment are by far the largest categories, households have spent more than $20B per year on computers and software since 1995, generating a service flow of comparable magnitude. 3.2.3
Capital Stock and Capital Services
This section describes our capital estimates for the U.S. economy from 1959 to 1998.14 We begin with investment data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, estimate capital stocks using the perpetual inventory method, and aggregate capital stocks using rental prices as weights.
80
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
Table 3.1 Average growth rates of selected outputs and inputs 1990–1995
1995–1998
Prices
Quantities
Prices
Quantities
Private Domestic Output (Y ) Other (Yn ) Computer and Software Consumption (Cc ) Computer Investment (Ic ) Software Investment (Is ) Communications Investment (Im )
1.70 2.01 −21.50 −14.59 −1.41 −1.50
2.74 2.25 38.67 24.89 11.59 6.17
1.37 2.02 −36.93 −27.58 −2.16 −1.73
4.73 3.82 49.26 38.08 15.18 12.79
Computer and Software CD Services (Dc )
−19.34
44.57 4.80 2.91 34.10 13.00
−7.09 −0.67 0.54 −28.62 2.80
7.80 5.39 3.73 44.57 2.81
Outputs
Total Capital Services (K) Other (Kn ) Computer Capital (Kc ) Software Capital (Ks )
0.60 1.00 −10.59 −2.07
−28.62 Inputs 2.83 2.54 1.78 4.20 18.16 −20.09 13.22 −0.87
Communications Capital (Km ) Total Consumption Services (D) Non-Computer and Software (Dn ) Computer and Software CD Services (Dc ) Labor (L)
3.10 1.98 2.55 −19.34 2.92
4.31 2.91 2.07 34.79 2.01
34.79
Notes: CD refers to consumers’ durable assets. All values are percentages.
This approach, originated by Jorgenson and Griliches (1967), is based on the identification of rental prices with marginal products of different types of capital. Our estimates of these prices incorporate differences in asset prices, service lives and depreciation rates, and the tax treatment of capital incomes.15 We refer to the difference between growth in capital services and capital stock as the growth in capital quality qK,t ; this represents substitution towards assets with higher marginal products.16 For example, the shift toward IT increases the quality of capital, since computers, software, and communications equipment are assets with relatively high marginal products. Capital stock estimates, like those originally employed by Solow (1957), fail to account for this increase in quality. We employ a broad definition of capital, including tangible assets such as equipment and structures, as well as consumers’ durables, land, and inventories. We estimate a service flow from the installed stock of consumers’ durables, which enters our measures of both output
Raising the Speed Limit
81
Figure 3.2 Output shares of information technology, 1960–1998.
and input. It is essential to include this service flow, since a steadily rising proportion is associated with investments in IT by the household sector. In order to capture the impact of information technology on U.S. economic growth, investments by business and household sectors as well as the services of the resulting capital stocks must be included. Our estimate of capital stock is $26T in 1997, substantially larger than the $17.3T in fixed private capital estimated by BEA (1998b). This difference reflects our inclusion of consumer’s durables, inventories, and land. Our estimates of capital stock for comparable categories of assets are quite similar to those of BEA. Our estimate of fixed private capital in 1997, for example, is $16.8T, almost the same as that of BEA. Similarly, our estimate of the stock of consumers’ durables is $2.9T, while BEA’s estimate is $2.5T. The remaining discrepancies reflect our inclusion of land and inventories. Appendix table B.1 list the component assets and 1998 investment and stock values; table B.2 presents the value of capital stock from 1959 to 1998, as well as asset price indices for total capital and IT assets. The stocks of IT business assets (computers, software, and communications equipment), as well as consumers’ purchases of computers
82
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
and software, have grown dramatically in recent years, but remain relatively small. In 1998, combined IT assets accounted for only 3.4 percent of tangible capital, and 4.6 percent of reproducible, private assets. We now move to estimates of capital services flows, where capital stocks of individual assets are aggregated using rental prices as weights. Appendix table B.3 presents the current dollar service flows and corresponding price indexes for 1959–1998, and the second panel of table 3.1 summarizes the growth rates for prices and quantities of inputs for 1990–1955 and 1995–1998. There is a clear acceleration of growth of aggregate capital services from 2.8 percent per year for 1990–1995 to 4.8 percent for 1995–1998. This is largely due to rapid growth in services from IT equipment and software, and reverses the trend toward slower capital growth through 1995. While information technology assets are only 11.2 percent of the total, the service shares of these assets are much greater than the corresponding asset shares. In 1998 capital services are only 12.4 percent of capital stocks for tangible assets as a whole, but services are 40.0 percent of stocks for information technology. This reflects the rapid price declines and high depreciation rates that enter into the rental prices for information technology.
Note: Share of current dollar capital and consumers’ durable services.
Figure 3.3 Input shares of information technology, 1960–1998.
Raising the Speed Limit
83
Figure 3.3 highlights the rapid increase in the importance of IT assets, reflecting the accelerating pace of relative price declines. In the 1990s, the service price for computer hardware fell 14.2 percent per year, compared to an increase of 2.2 percent for non-information technology capital. As a direct consequence of this relative price change, computer services grew 24.1 percent, compared to only 3.6 percent for the services of non-IT capital in the 1990s. The current dollar share of services from computer hardware increased steadily and reached nearly 3.5 percent of all capital services in 1998 (figure 3. 3).17 The rapid accumulation of software, however, appears to have different origins. The price of software investment has declined substantially slowly, −1.7 percent per year for software versus −19.5 percent for computer hardware for 1990 to 1998. These differences in investment prices lead to a decidedly slower decline in service prices for software and computers, −1.6 percent versus −14.2 percent. Nonetheless, firms have been accumulating software quite rapidly, with real capital services growing 13.3 percent per year in the 1990s. While lower than the 24.1 percent growth in computers, software growth is decidedly more rapid than growth in other forms of tangible capital. Complementarity between software and computers is one possible explanation. Firms respond to the decline in relative computer prices by accumulating computers and investing in complementary inputs like software to put the computers into operation.18 A competing explanation is that the official price indexes used to deflate software investment omit a large part of true quality improvements. This would lead to a substantial overstatement of price inflation and a corresponding understatement of real investment, capital services, and economic growth. According to Moulton, Parker, and Seskin (1999) and Parker and Grimm (2000a), only prices for prepackaged software are calculated from constant-quality price deflators based on hedonic methods. Prices for business own-account software are based on input-cost indexes, which implicitly assume no change in the productivity of computer programmers. Custom software prices are a weighted average of prepackaged software and own-account software, with an arbitrary 75 percent weight for business own-account software prices. Thus, the price deflators for nearly two-thirds of recent software investment are estimated under the maintained assumption of no gain in productivity.19 If the quality of own-account and custom software is improving at a pace even remotely close to packaged software, this implies a large understatement in investment in software.
84
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
Although the price decline for communications equipment during the 1990s is comparable to that of software, as officially measured in the NIPA, investment has grown at a rate that is more in line with prices. However, there are also possible measurement biases in the pricing of communications equipment. The technology of switching equipment, for example, is similar to that of computers; investment in this category is deflated by a constant-quality price index developed by BEA. Conventional price deflators are employed for transmission gear, such as fiber-optic cables, which also appear to be declining rapidly in price. This could lead to an underestimate of the rate of growth in communications equipment investment, capital stock, and capital services, as well as an overestimate of the rate of inflation.20 We return to this issue at the end of section 3.2. 3.2.4
Measuring Labor Services
This section describes our estimates of labor input for the U.S. economy from 1959 to 1998. We begin with individual data from the Census of Population for 1970, 1980, and 1990, as well as the annual Current Population Surveys. We estimate constant quality indexes for labor input and its price to account for heterogeneity of the work force across sex, employment class, age, and education levels. This follows the approach of Jorgenson, Gollop and Fraumeni (1987), whose estimates have been revised and updated by Ho and Jorgenson (1999). 21 The distinction between labor input and labor hours is analogous to the distinction between capital services and capital stock. Growth in labor input reflects the increase in labor hours, as well as changes in the composition of hours worked as firms substitute among heterogeneous types of labor. We define the growth in labor quality as the difference between the growth in labor input and hours worked. Labor quality reflects the substitution of workers with high marginal products for those with low marginal products, while the growth in hours employed by Solow (1957) and others does not capture this substitution. Appendix table C.1 presents our estimates of labor input, hours worked, and labor quality. Our estimates show a value of labor expenditures of $4,546B in 1998, roughly 57 percent of the value of output. This share accurately includes private output and our imputations for capital services. If we exclude these imputations, labor’s share rises to 62 percent, in line with conventional estimates. As shown in table 3.1, the growth of the index of labor
Raising the Speed Limit
85
input Lt appropriate for our model of production in equation (3.1) accelerated to 2.8 percent for 1995–1998, from 2.0 percent for 1990–1995. This is primarily due to the growth of hours worked, which rose from 1.4 percent for 1990–1995 to 2.4 percent for 1995–1998, as labor force participation increased and unemployment rates plummeted.22 The growth of labor quality decelerated in the late 1990s, from 0.65 percent for 1990–1995 to 0.43 percent for 1995–1998. This slowdown captures well-known underlying demographic trends in the composition of the work force, as well as exhaustion of the pool of available workers as unemployment rates have steadily declined. Projections of future economic growth that omit labor quality, like those of CBO discussed in section 3.3, implicitly incorporate changes in labor quality into measured TFP growth. This reduces the reliability of projections of future economic growth. Fortunately, this is easily remedied by extrapolating demographic changes in the work force in order to reflect foreseeable changes in composition by characteristics of workers such as age, sex, and educational attainment. 3.2.5
Quantifying the Sources of Growth
Table 3.2 presents results of our growth accounting decomposition based on an extension of equation (3.2) for the period 1959 to 1998 and various subperiods, as well as preliminary estimates through 1999. As in Jorgenson and Stiroh (1999), we decompose economic growth by both output and input categories in order to quantify the contribution of information technology (IT) to investment and consumption outputs, as well as capital and consumers’ durable inputs. We extend our previous treatment of the outputs and inputs of computers by identifying software and communications equipment as distinct IT assets. To quantify the sources of IT-related growth more explicitly, we employ an extended production possibility frontier: Y (Yn, Cc , Ic , Is , Im, Dc ) = A · X(Kn, Kc , Ks , Km, Dn, Dc , L),
(3.4)
where outputs include computer and software consumption Cc , computer investment Ic , software investment Is , telecommunications investment Im, the services of consumers’ computers and software Dc , and other outputs Yn. Inputs include the capital services of computers Kc , software Ks , telecommunications equipment Km, and other capital assets Kn, services of consumers’ computers and software Dc and other
86
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
Table 3.2 Growth in U.S. private domestic output and the sources of growth, 1959–1999
Growth in Private Domestic Output Growth (Y ) Contribution of Selected Output Components Other (Yn ) Computer and Software Consumption (Cc ) Computer Investment (Ic ) Software Investment (Is ) Communications Investment (Im ) Computer and Software CD Services (Dc ) Contribution of Capital Services (K) Other (Kn ) Computers (Kc ) Software (Ks ) Communications (Km ) Contribution of CD Services (D) Other (Dn )
1959– 1998
1959– 1973
1973– 1990
1990– 1995
1995– 1998
Prelim. 1995– 1999
3.630
4.325
3.126
2.740
4.729
4.763
3.275
4.184
2.782
2.178
3.659
3.657
0.035
0.000
0.023
0.092
0.167
0.175
0.150 0.074
0.067 0.025
0.162 0.075
0.200 0.128
0.385 0.208
0.388 0.212
0.060
0.048
0.061
0.053
0.122
0.128
0.036
0.000
0.023
0.089
0.187
0.204
1.260
1.436
1.157
0.908
1.611
1.727
0.936 0.177 0.075 0.073
1.261 0.086 0.026 0.062
0.807 0.199 0.071 0.080
0.509 0.187 0.154 0.058
0.857 0.458 0.193 0.104
0.923 0.490 0.205 0.109
0.510
0.632
0.465
0.292
0.558
0.608
0.474
0.632
0.442
0.202
0.370
0.403
Computers and Software (Dc ) Contribution of Labor (L) Aggregate Total Factor Productivity (T F P )
0.036
0.000
0.023
0.089
0.187
0.204
1.233 0.628
1.249 1.009
1.174 0.330
1.182 0.358
1.572 0.987
1.438 0.991
Growth of Capital and CD Services Growth of Labor Input
4.212
4.985
3.847
2.851
4.935
5.286
2.130
2.141
2.035
2.014
2.810
2.575
Raising the Speed Limit
87
Table 3.2 (continued)
Contribution of Capital and CD Quality Contribution of Capital and CD Stock Contribution of Labor Quality Contribution of Labor Hours Average Labor Productivity (ALP )
1959– 1998
1959– 1973
1973– 1990
1990– 1995
1995– 1998
Prelim. 1995– 1999
0.449
0.402
0.405
0.434
0.945
1.041
1.320
1.664
1.217
0.765
1.225
1.293
0.315 0.918
0.447 0.802
0.200 0.974
0.370 0.812
0.253 1.319
0.248 1.190
2.042
2.948
1.437
1.366
2.371
2.580
Notes: A contribution of an output and an input is defined as the share-weighted, real growth rate. CD refers to consumers’ durable assets. All values are percentages. 1995–1999 results include preliminary estimates for 1999; see the Appendix for details on estimation and data sources.
durables Dn, and labor input L.23 As in equation (3.1), total factor productivity is denoted by A and represents the ability to produce more output from the same inputs. Time subscripts have been dropped for convenience. The corresponding extended growth accounting equation is: w Yn ln Yn + w Cc ln Cc + w Ic ln Ic + w Is ln Ic + w Is ln Is + w Im ln Im + w Dc ln Dc = v Kn ln Kn + v Kc ln Kc + v Ks ln Ks + v Km ln Km + v Dn ln Dn + v Dc ln Dc + v L ln L + ln A
(3.5)
where w and v denote average shares in nominal income for the subscripted variable w Yn + w Cc + w Ic + w Is + w Im + w Dc = v Kn + v Kc + v Ks + v Km + v Dn + v Dc v L = 1, and we refer to a share-weighted growth rate as the contribution of an input or output.
88
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
Note: An input’s contribution is the average share-weighted, annual growth rate. TFP defined in equation (3.2) in text.
Figure 3.4 Sources of U.S. economic growth, 1959–1998.
3.2.5.1 Output Growth We first consider the sources of output growth for the entire period 1959 to 1998. Broadly defined capital services make the largest growth contribution of 1.8 percentage point (1.3 percentage points from business capital and 0.5 from consumers’ durable assets), labor services contribute 1.2 percentage points, and TFP growth is responsible for only 0.6 percentage points. Input growth is the source of nearly 80 percent of U.S. growth over the past 40 years, while TFP has accounted for approximately one-fifth. Figure 3.4 highlights this result by showing the relatively small growth contribution of the TFP residual in each subperiod. More than three-quarters of the contribution of broadly defined capital reflects the accumulation of capital stock, while increased labor hours account for slightly less than three-quarters of labor’s contribution. The quality of both capital and labor have made important contributions, 0.45 percentage points and 0.32 percentage points per year, respectively. Accounting for substitution among heterogeneous capital and labor inputs is therefore an important part of quantifying the sources of economic growth. A look at the U.S. economy before and after 1973 reveals some familiar features of the historical record. After strong output and TFP growth in the 1960s and early 1970s, the U.S. economy slowed markedly through
Raising the Speed Limit
89
1990, with output growth falling from 4.3 percent to 3.1 percent and TFP growth falling almost two-thirds of a percentage point from 1.0 percent to 0.3 percent. Growth in capital inputs also slowed, falling from 5.0 percent for 1959–1973 to 3.8 percent for 1973–1990, which contributed to sluggish ALP growth, 2.9 percent for 1959–1973 to 1.4 percent for 1973–1990. We now focus on the 1990s and highlight recent changes.24 Relative to the early 1990s, output growth has increased by nearly two percentage points for 1995–1998. The contribution of capital jumped by 1.0 percentage point, the contribution of labor rose by 0.4 percentage points, and TFP growth accelerated by 0.6 percentage point. ALP growth rose 1.0 percentage point. The rising contributions of capital and labor encompass several well-known trends in the late 1990s. Growth in hours worked accelerated as labor markets tightened, unemployment fell to a 30-year low, and labor force participation rates increased.25 The contribution of capital reflects the investment boom of the late 1990s as businesses poured resources into plant and equipment, especially computers, software, and communications equipment. The acceleration in TFP growth is perhaps the most remarkable feature of the data. After averaging only 0.34 percent per year from 1973 to 1995, the acceleration of TFP to 0.99 percent suggests massive improvements in technology and increases in the efficiency of production. While the resurgence in TFP growth in the 1990s has yet to surpass periods of the 1960s and early 1970s, more rapid TFP growth is critical for sustained growth at higher rates. Figures 3.5 and 3.6 highlight the rising contributions of information technology (IT) outputs to U.S. economic growth. Figure 3.5 shows the breakdown between IT and non-IT outputs for the subperiods from 1959 to 1998, while figure 3.6 decomposes the contribution of IT outputs into the five components we identified above. Although the role of IT has steadily increased, figure 3.5 shows that the recent investment and consumption surge nearly doubled the output contribution of IT for 1995–1998 relative to 1990–1995. Figure 3.5 shows that computer investment is the largest single IT contributor in the late 1990s, and that consumption of computers and software is becoming increasingly important as a source of output growth. Figures 3.7 and 3.8 present a similar decomposition of the role of IT as a production input, where the contribution is rising even more dramatically. Figure 3.7 shows that the capital and consumers’ durable contribution from IT increased rapidly in the late 1990s, and now accounts for more two-fifths of the total growth contribution from broadly
90
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
Note: An output’s contribution is the average share-weighted, annual growth rate.
Figure 3.5 Output contribution of information technology, 1959–1998.
Note: An output’s contribution is the average share-weighted, annual growth rate.
Figure 3.6 Output contribution of information technology assets, 1959–1998.
Raising the Speed Limit
Note: An input’s contribution is the average share-weighted, annual growth rate.
Figure 3.7 Input contribution of information technology, 1959–1998.
Note: An input’s contribution is the average share-weighted, annual growth rate.
Figure 3.8 Input contribution of information technology assets, 1959–1998.
91
92
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
defined capital. Figure 3.8 shows that computer hardware is also the single largest IT contributor on the input side, which reflects the growing share and rapid growth rates of the late 1990s. The contribution of computers, software, and communications equipment presents a different picture from Jorgenson and Stiroh (1999) for both data and methodological reasons. First, the BEA benchmark revision has classified software as an investment good. While software is growing more slowly than computers, the substantial nominal share of software services has raised the contribution of information technology. Second, we have added communications equipment, also a slower growing component of capital services, with similar effects. Third, we now incorporate asset-specific revaluation terms in all rental price estimates. Since the acquisition prices of computers are steadily falling, asset-specific revaluation terms have raised the estimated service price and increased the share of computer services. Finally, we have modified our timing convention and now assume that capital services from individual assets are proportional to the average of the current and lagged stock. For assets with relatively short service lives like IT, this is a more reasonable assumption than in our earlier work, which assumed that it took a full year for new investment to become productive.26 This large increase in the growth contribution of computers and software is consistent with recent estimates by Oliner and Sichel (2000), although their estimate of contribution is somewhat larger. They report that computer hardware and software contributed 0.93 percentage points to growth for 1996–1999, while communications contributed another 0.15. The discrepancy primarily reflects our broader output concept, which lowers the input share of these high-tech assets, and also minor differences in tax parameters and stock estimates. Whelan (1999) also reports a larger growth contribution of 0.82 percentage points from computer hardware for 1996–1998. The discrepancy also reflects our broader output concept. In addition, Whelan (1999) introduces a new methodology to account for retirement and support costs that generates a considerably larger capital stock and raises the input share and the growth contribution from computer capital. Despite differences in methodology and data sources among studies, a consensus is building that computers are having a substantial impact on economic growth.27 What is driving the increase in the contributions of computers, software, and communications equipment? As we argued in Jorgenson and Stiroh (1999), price changes lead to substitution toward
Raising the Speed Limit
93
Table 3.3 The sources of ALP growth, 1959–1998 Variable
1959– 1998
1959– 1973
1973– 1990
1990– 1995
1995– 1998
Growth of Private Domestic Output (Y )
3.630
4.325
3.126
2.740
4.729
1.588 2.042 1.100 0.315 0.628
1.377 2.948 1.492 0.447 1.009
1.689 1.437 0.908 0.200 0.330
1.374 1.366 0.637 0.370 0.358
2.358 2.371 1.131 0.253 0.987
Growth in Hours (H ) Growth in ALP (Y /H ) ALP Contribution of Capital Deepening ALP Contribution of Labor Quality ALP Contribution of TFP
Notes: ALP contributions are defined in equation (3.3). All values are percentages.
capital services with lower relative prices. Firms and consumers are responding to relative price changes. Table 3.1 shows the acquisition price of computer investment fell nearly 28 percent per year, the price of software fell 2.2 percent, and the price of communications equipment fell 1.7 percent during the period 1995–1998, while other output prices rose 2.0 percent. In response to these price changes, firms accumulated computers, software, and communications equipment more rapidly than other forms of capital. Investment other than information technology actually declined as a proportion of private domestic product. The story of household substitution toward computers and software is similar. These substitutions suggest that gains of the computer revolution accrue to firms and households that are adept at restructuring activities to respond to these relative price changes. 3.2.5.2 Average Labor Productivity Growth To provide a different perspective on the sources of economic growth we can focus on ALP growth. By simple arithmetic, output growth equals the sum of hours growth and growth in labor productivity.28 Table 3.3 shows the output breakdown between growth in hours and ALP for the same periods as in table 3.2. For the entire period 1959–1998, ALP growth was the predominant determinant of output growth, increasing just over 2 percent per year for 1959–1998, while hours increased about 1.6 percent per year. We then examine the changing importance of the factors determining ALP growth. As shown in equation (3.3), ALP growth depends on a capital deepening effect, a labor quality effect, and a TFP effect.
94
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
Note: Annual contributions are defined in equation (3.3) in text.
Figure 3.9 Sources of U.S. labor productivity growth, 1959–1998.
Figure 3.9 plots the importance of each factor, revealing the wellknown productivity slowdown of the 1970s and 1980s, and highlighting the acceleration of labor productivity growth in the late 1990s. The slowdown through 1990 reflects less capital deepening, declining labor quality growth, and decelerating growth in TFP. The growth of ALP slipped further during the early 1990s with the serious slump in capital deepening only partly offset by a revival in the growth of labor quality and an uptick in TFP growth. Slow growth in hours combined with slow ALP growth during 1990–1995 to produce a further slide in the growth of output. This stands out from previous cyclical recoveries during the postwar period, when output growth accelerated during the recovery, powered by more rapid hours and ALP growth. For the most recent period of 1995–1998, strong output growth reflects growth in labor hours and ALP almost equally. Comparing 1990– 1995 to 1995–1998, output growth accelerated by nearly two percentage points due to a one percentage point increase in hours worked, and a 1.0 percentage point increase in ALP growth.29 Figure 3.9 shows the acceleration in ALP growth is due to rapid capital deepening from the investment boom, as well as faster TFP growth. Capital deepening contributed 0.49 percentage points to the acceleration in ALP growth, while
Raising the Speed Limit
95
acceleration in TFP growth added 0.63 percentage points. Growth in labor quality slowed somewhat as growth in hours accelerated. This reflects the falling unemployment rate and tightening of labor markets as more workers with relatively low marginal products were drawn into the work force. Oliner and Sichel (2000) also show a decline in the growth contribution of labor quality in the late 1990s, from 0.44 for 1991–1995 to 0.31 for 1996–1999. Our decomposition also throws some light on the hypothesis advanced by Gordon (1999b), who argues the vast majority of recent ALP gains are due to the production of IT, particularly computers, rather than the use of IT. As we have already pointed out, more efficient ITproduction generates aggregate TFP growth as more computing power is produced from the same inputs, while IT-use affects ALP growth via capital deepening. In recent years, acceleration of TFP growth is a slightly more important factor in the acceleration of ALP growth than capital deepening. Efficiency gains in computer production are an important part of aggregate TFP growth, as Gordon’s results on ALP suggest. We return to this issue in greater detail below. 3.2.5.3 Total Factor Productivity Growth Finally, we consider the remarkable performance of U.S. TFP growth in recent years. After maintaining an average rate of 0.33 percent for the period 1973–1990, TFP growth rose to 0.36 percent for 1990–1995 and then vaulted to 0.99 percent per year for 1995–1998. This jump is a major source of growth in output and ALP for the U.S. economy (figures 3.4 and 3.9). While TFP growth for the 1990s has yet to attain the peaks of some periods in the Golden Age of the 1960s and early 1970s, the recent acceleration suggests that the U.S. economy may be recuperating from the anemic productivity growth of the past two decades. Of course, caution is warranted until more historical experience is available. As early as Domar (1961), economists have utilized a multi-industry model of the economy to trace aggregate productivity growth to its sources at the level of individual industries. Jorgenson, Gollop, and Fraumeni (1987) and Jorgenson (1990b) have employed this model to identify the industry-level sources of growth. More recently, Gullickson and Harper (1999) and Jorgenson and Stiroh (2000a) have used the model for similar purposes. We postpone more detailed consideration of the sources of TFP growth until we have examined the impact of alternative price deflators on our growth decomposition.
96
3.2.6
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
Alternative Growth Accounting Estimates
Tables 3.1 through 3.3 and figures 3.1 through 3.9 report our primary results using the official data published in the NIPA. As we have already noted, however, there is reason to believe that the rates of inflation in official price indices for certain high-tech assets, notably software and telecommunications equipment, may be overstated. Moulton, Parker, and Seskin (1999) and Parker and Grimm (2000a), for example, report that only the prepackaged portion of software investment is deflated with a constant-quality deflator. Own-account software is deflated with an input cost index and custom software is deflated with a weighted average of the prepackaged and own-account deflator. Similarly, BEA reports that in the communications equipment category, only telephone switching equipment is deflated with a constant-quality, hedonic deflator. This subsection incorporates alternative price series for software and communications equipment and examines the impact on the estimates of U.S. economic growth and its sources. Table 3.4 presents growth accounting results under three different scenarios. The Base Case repeats the estimates from table 3.2, which are based on official NIPA price data. Two additional cases, Moderate Price Decline and Rapid Price Decline, incorporate price series for software and communications equipment that show faster price declines and correspondingly more rapid real investment growth.30 The Moderate Price Decline case assumes that prepackaged software prices are appropriate for all types of private software investment, including custom and business own-account software. Since the index for prepackaged software is based on explicit quality adjustments, it falls much faster than the prices of custom and own-account software, −10.1 percent vs. 0.4 percent and 4.1 percent respectively, for the full period 1959–1998 according to Parker and Grimm (2000a). For communications equipment, the data are more limited and we assume prices fell 10.7 percent per year throughout the entire period. This estimate is the average annual “smoothed” decline for digital switching equipment for 1985–1996 reported by Grimm (1997). While this series may not be appropriate for all types of communications equipment, it exploits the best available information. The Rapid Price Decline case assumes that software prices fell 16 percent per year for 1959–1998, the rate of quality-adjusted price decline reported by Brynjolfsson and Kemerer (1996) for microcomputer
Raising the Speed Limit
97
spreadsheets for 1987–1992. This is a slightly faster decline than the −15 percent for 1986 –1991 estimated by Gandal (1994), and considerably faster than the 3 percent annual decline for word processors, spreadsheets, and databases for 1987–1993 reported by Oliner and Sichel (1994). For communications equipment, we used estimates from the most recent period from Grimm (1997), who reports a decline of 17.9 percent per year for 1992–1996. While this exercise necessarily involves some arbitrary choices, the estimates incorporate the limited data now available and provide a valuable perspective on the crucial importance of accounting for quality change in the prices of investment goods. Comparisons among the three cases are also useful in suggesting the range of uncertainty currently confronting analysts of U.S. economic growth. Before discussing the empirical results, it is worthwhile to emphasize that more rapid price decline for information technology has two direct effects on the sources of growth, and one indirect effect. The alternative investment deflators raise real output growth by reallocating nominal growth away from prices and towards quantities. This also increases the growth rate of capital stock, since there are larger investment quantities in each year. More rapid price declines also give greater weight to capital services from information technology. The counter-balancing effects of increased output and increased input growth lead to an indirect effect on measured TFP growth. Depending on the relative shares of high-tech assets in investment and capital services, the TFP residual will increase if the output effect dominates or decrease if the effect on capital services dominates.31 Following Solow (1957, 1960), Greenwood, Hercowitz, and Krusell (1997) omit the output effect and attribute the input effect to “investment-specific” (embodied) technical change. This must be carefully distinguished from the effects of industry-level productivity growth on TFP growth, discussed in section 3.4. Table 3.4 reports growth accounting results from these three scenarios—Base Case, Moderate Price Decline, and Rapid Price Decline. The results are not surprising; the more rapid the price decline for software and communications, the faster the rate of growth of output and capital services. Relative to the Base Case, output growth increases by 0.16 percentage points per year for 1995–1998 in the Moderate Price Decline case and by 0.34 percentage points in the Rapid Price Decline case. Capital input growth shows slightly larger increases across the
Table 3.4 Impact of alternative deflation of software and communications equipment on the sources of U.S. economic growth, 1959–1998 Base Case
Moderate Price Decline
Rapid Price Decline
1959– 1973
1973– 1990
1990– 1995
1995– 1998
1959– 1973
1973– 1990
1990– 1995
1995– 1998
1959– 1973
1973– 1990
1990– 1995
1995– 1998
4.33
3.13
2.74
4.73
4.35
3.30
2.90
4.89
4.36
3.38
3.03
5.07
4.18 0.00 0.07
2.78 0.02 0.16
2.18 0.09 0.20
3.66 0.17 0.39
4.12 0.00 0.07
2.76 0.02 0.16
2.17 0.09 0.20
3.66 0.17 0.39
4.08 0.00 0.07
2.75 0.02 0.16
2.16 0.09 0.20
3.66 0.17 0.39
0.03 0.05 0.00
0.08 0.06 0.02
0.13 0.05 0.09
0.21 0.12 0.19
0.04 0.12 0.00
0.14 0.19 0.02
0.22 0.13 0.09
0.29 0.21 0.19
0.05 0.16 0.00
0.17 0.25 0.02
0.29 0.19 0.09
0.40 0.27 0.19
Growth in Private Domestic Output Growth (Y ) Contribution of Selected Output Components Other (Yn ) Computer and Software Consumption (Cc ) Computer Investment (Ic ) Software Investment (Is ) Communications Investment (Im ) Computer and Software CD Services (Dc ) Contribution of Capital Services (K)
1.44
1.16
0.91
1.61
1.54
1.39
1.15
1.83
1.61
1.51
1.32
2.09
1.26 0.09 0.03 0.06
0.81 0.20 0.07 0.08
0.51 0.19 0.15 0.06
0.86 0.46 0.19 0.10
1.25 0.09 0.05 0.16
0.80 0.20 0.15 0.25
0.51 0.19 0.28 0.18
0.86 0.46 0.29 0.23
1.25 0.09 0.06 0.22
0.79 0.20 0.18 0.34
0.51 0.19 0.36 0.27
0.85 0.46 0.45 0.33
Contribution of CD Services (D) Non-Computers and Software (Dn) Computers and Software (Dc ) Contribution of Labor (L) Aggregate Total Factor Productivity (T F P )
0.63 0.63 0.00 1.25 1.01
0.47 0.44 0.02 1.17 0.33
0.29 0.20 0.09 1.18 0.36
0.56 0.37 0.19 1.57 0.99
0.63 0.63 0.00 1.25 0.94
0.46 0.44 0.02 1.17 0.27
0.29 0.20 0.09 1.18 0.27
0.56 0.37 0.19 1.57 0.93
0.63 0.63 0.00 1.25 0.88
0.46 0.44 0.02 1.18 0.22
0.29 0.20 0.09 1.18 0.23
0.56 0.37 0.19 1.57 0.85
Growth of Capital and CD Services Growth of Labor Input
4.99 2.14
3.85 2.04
2.85 2.01
4.94 2.81
5.24 2.14
4.40 2.04
3.43 2.01
5.44 2.81
5.41 2.14
4.70 2.04
3.84 2.01
6.02 2.81
Other (Kn ) Computers (Kc ) Software (Ks ) Communications (Km )
Table 3.4 (continued) Base Case
Moderate Price Decline
Rapid Price Decline
1959– 1973
1973– 1990
1990– 1995
1995– 1998
1959– 1973
1973– 1990
1990– 1995
1995– 1998
1959– 1973
1973– 1990
1990– 1995
1995– 1998
Contribution of Capital and CD Quality Contribution of Capital and CD Stock Contribution of Labor Quality Contribution of Labor Hours
0.40 1.66 0.45 0.80
0.41 1.22 0.20 0.97
0.43 0.77 0.37 0.81
0.95 1.23 0.25 1.32
0.48 1.68 0.45 0.80
0.59 1.26 0.20 0.97
0.63 0.82 0.37 0.81
1.11 1.28 0.25 1.32
0.54 1.69 0.45 0.80
0.70 1.27 0.20 0.98
0.78 0.84 0.37 0.81
1.34 1.31 0.25 1.32
Average Labor Productivity (ALP )
2.95
1.44
1.37
2.37
2.98
1.61
1.52
2.53
2.99
1.69
1.65
2.72
Notes: Base Case uses official NIPA price data. Moderate Price Decline uses prepackaged software deflator for all software and annual price changes of −10.7 percent for communications equipment. Rapid Price Decline uses annual price changes of −16 percent for software and −17.9 percent for communications equipment. See text for details and sources. A contribution is defined as the share-weighted, real growth rate. CD refers to consumers’ durable assets. All values are percentages.
100
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
three cases. Clearly, constant-quality price indexes for information technology are essential for further progress in understanding the growth impact of high-tech investment. The acceleration in output and input growth reflects the increased contributions from IT, and determines the effect on the TFP residual. In particular, the output contribution from software for 1995–1998 increases from 0.21 percentage points in the Base Case to 0.29 percentage points under Moderate Price Decline to 0.40 percentage points with Rapid Price Decline. Similarly, the capital services contribution for software increase from 0.19 to 0.29 to 0.45 percentage points. The contribution of communications equipment shows similar changes. Residual TFP growth falls slightly during the 1990s, as the input effect outweighs the output effect, due to the large capital services shares of IT. This exercise illustrates the sensitivity of the sources of growth to alternative price indexes for information technology. We do not propose to argue the two alternative cases are more nearly correct than the Base Case with the official prices from NIPA. Given the paucity of qualityadjusted price data on high-tech equipment, we simply do not know. Rather, we have tried to highlight the importance of correctly measuring prices and quantities to understand the dynamic forces driving U.S. economic growth. As high-tech assets continue to proliferate through the economy and other investment goods become increasingly dependent on electronic components, these measurement issues will become increasingly important. While the task that lies ahead of us will be onerous, the creation of quality-adjusted price indexes for all high-tech assets deserves top priority. 3.2.7
Decomposition of TFP Growth
We next consider the role of high-tech industries as a source of TFP growth. As discussed above, production of high-tech investment goods has made important contributions to aggregate growth. CEA (2000), for example, allocates 0.39 percentage points of aggregate TFP growth to the computer production, while Oliner and Sichel (2000) allocate 0.47 percentage points to the production of computers and computer-related semiconductor production for the period 1995–1999.32 We employ a methodology based on the price “dual” approach to measurement of productivity at the industry level. Anticipating our complete industry analysis section 3.4, below, it is worthwhile to spell out the decomposition of TFP growth by industry. Using the
Raising the Speed Limit
101
Domar approach to aggregation, industry-level productivity growth is weighted by the ratio of the gross output of each industry to aggregate value added to estimate the industry contribution to aggregate TFP growth. In the dual approach, the rate of productivity growth is measured as the decline in the price of output, plus a weighted average of the growth rates of input prices. In the case of computer production, this expression is dominated by two terms; namely, the price of computers and the price of semiconductors, a primary intermediate inputs into the computer-producing industry. If semiconductor industry output is used only as an intermediate good to produce computers, then its contribution to computer industry productivity growth, weighted by computer industry output, precisely cancels its independent contribution to aggregate TFP growth.33 This independent contribution from the semiconductor industry, based on the complete Domar weighting scheme, is the value of semiconductor output divided by aggregate value added, multiplied by the rate of price decline in semiconductors. We report details of our TFP decomposition for the three alternative cases described above for 1990–1995 and 1995–1998 in table 3.5, and summarize the IT vs. non-IT comparison in figure 3.10. In our Base Case, using official NIPA data, we estimate the production of information technology accounts for 0.44 percentage points for 1995–1998, compared to 0.25 percentage points for 1990–1995. This reflects the accelerating relative price changes prices due to radical shortening of the product cycle for semiconductors.34 As we have already suggested, the estimates of price declines for hightech investments in our Base Case calculations may be conservative; in fact, these estimates may be very conservative. Consider the Moderate Price Decline Case, which reflects only part of the data we would require for constant-quality estimates of the information technology price declines. This boosts the contribution of information technology to TFP growth to 0.64 percentage points, an increase of 0.20 percentage points for 1995–1998. Proceeding to what may appear to be the outer limit of plausibility, but still consistent with the available evidence, we can consider the case of Rapid Price Decline. The contribution of information technology to TFP growth is now a robust 0.86 percentage points, accounting for all of TFP growth for 1995–1998. As a final observation from the TFP decomposition, we note that the TFP acceleration in the late 1990s does not appear to be entirely located within IT-producing industries. While the actual growth rates
102
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
Table 3.5 Information technology decomposition of TFP growth for alternative deflation cases, 1990–1998 Base Case 1990– 1995
1995– 1998
Moderate Price Decline 1990– 1995
Aggregate TFP Growth
0.36
0.99
Information Technology Computers Software
0.25
0.44
0.46
0.16 0.05
0.32 0.08
0.04 0.11
0.04 0.55
Communications Non-Information Technology Computers Software Communications Computers Software Communications
-16.6 -3.4 -3.5 0.96 1.54 1.05
1995– 1998
0.27 0.93 TFP Contribution
Rapid Price Decline 1990– 1995 0.23
0.85
0.64
0.64
0.86
0.16 0.17
0.32 0.18
0.16 0.28
0.32 0.34
0.13 -0.19
0.13 0.29
0.21 -0.41
0.20 -0.01
Relative Price Change -16.6 -29.6 -16.6 -11.3 -9.7 -18.0 -12.7 -12.7 -19.9 Average Nominal Share 1.09 0.96 1.09 0.96 1.88 1.54 1.88 1.54 1.02 1.05 1.02 1.05
-29.6 -4.2 -3.8
1995– 1998
-29.6 -18.0 -19.9 1.09 1.88 1.02
Notes: Base Case uses official NIPA price data. Moderate Price Decline uses prepackaged software deflator for all software and −10.7 percent for communications equipment. Rapid Price Decline uses −16 percent for software and −17.9 percent for communications equipment. See text for details and sources. A TFP contribution is defined as the shareweighted, growth rate of relative prices.
vary considerably across our three alternative cases, non-IT TFP growth increased markedly in each case when the early 1990s are compared to the late 1990s. This runs counter to the conclusion of Gordon (1999b), who reports the entire acceleration of labor productivity growth in the late 1990s reflects gains in IT-production. This divergence likely reflects Gordon’s detrending procedure which attributes a sizable portion of recent productivity growth to cyclical factors, as well as his focus on labor productivity and our focus on TFP growth. This acceleration of non-IT TFP growth could also be interpreted as evidence of a “new economy.” If these productivity gains do indeed reflect spillovers from IT into non-IT industries, this would provide some missing evidence for the new economy side. Alternatively, however,
Raising the Speed Limit
103
1.2
Base Case
Moderate Price Decline
Rapid Price Decline
1.0
Annual Contribution (%)
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1990—95
1995—98
1990—95
1995—98
1990—95
1995—98
-0.2 -0.4 Information Technology
Non-Information Technology
-0.6
Note: Annual contribution of information technology is the share-weighted decline in relative prices.
Figure 3.10 TFP decomposition for alternative deflation cases.
this could reflect technological progress in non-IT industries that is entirely independent of the IT revolution. Differentiation between these two hypotheses is impossible at the aggregate level, and requires detailed industry data for the most recent period 1995–1998. Without these data, identification problems prevent us from drawing firm conclusions about the sources and implications of the acceleration of TFP in non-IT industries. 3.3
Setting the Speed Limit
We now consider the sustainability of recent U.S. growth trends over longer time horizons. Rapid output growth is highly desirable, of course, but cannot continue indefinitely if fueled by a falling unemployment rate and higher labor force participation. Output growth driven by continuing TFP improvements, on the other hand, is more likely to persist. The sustainability of growth has clear implications for government policies. Since economic growth affects tax revenues, potential government expenditures, and the long-term viability of programs like Social Security and Medicare, it is closely studied by government agencies. This section examines the impact of the recent success of the U.S. economy on official growth forecasts.
104
3.3.1
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
A Brief Review of Forecast Methodologies
The importance of economic growth for the U.S. government is evident in the considerable effort expended on projecting future growth. No fewer than five government agencies—the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Social Security Administration (SSA), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA), and the General Accounting Office (GAO)—report estimates of future growth for internal use or public discussion. This section briefly discusses the methodologies used by these agencies. 35 All forecasts are based on models that rest securely on neoclassical foundations. While the details and assumptions vary, all employ an aggregate production model similar to equation (3.1), either explicitly or implicitly. In addition, they all incorporate demographic projections from the SSA as the basic building block for labor supply estimates. CBO (1995, 1997, 1999a, 1999b, 2000) and GAO (1995, 1996a) employ an aggregate production function and describe the role of labor growth, capital accumulation, and technical progress explicitly. SSA (1992, 1996), OMB (1997, 2000), and CEA (2000) on the other hand, employ a simplified relationship where output growth equals the sum of growth in hours worked and labor productivity. Projections over longer time horizons are driven by aggregate supply with relatively little attention to business cycle fluctuations and aggregate demand effects. Given the common framework and source data, it is not surprising that the projections are quite similar. Reporting on estimates released in 1997, Stiroh (1998b) finds that SSA and GAO projections of per capita GDP in 2025 were virtually identical, while CBO was about 9 percent higher due to economic feedback effects from the improving government budget situation. More recently, CBO (2000) projects real GDP growth of 2.8 percent and OMB (2000) projects 2.7 percent for 1999– 2010, while CEA (2000) reports 2.8 percent for 1999–2007. Although the timing is slightly different—CBO projects faster growth than OMB earlier in the period and CEA reports projections only through 2007—the estimates are virtually identical. All three projections identify the recent investment boom as a contributor to rising labor productivity and capital deepening as a source of continuing economic growth. We now consider the CBO projections in greater detail.
Raising the Speed Limit
3.3.2
105
CBO’s Growth Projections
CBO utilizes a sophisticated and detailed, multi-sector growth model of the U.S. economy.36 The core of this model is a two-factor production function for the non-farm business sector with CBO projections based on labor force growth, national savings and investment, and exogenous TFP growth. Production function parameters are calibrated to historical data, using a Cobb-Douglas model: Y = A · H 0.7 · K 0.3,
(3.6)
where Y is potential output, H is potential hours worked, K is capital input, and A is potential total factor productivity.37 CBO projects hours worked on the basis of demographic trends with separate estimates for different age and sex classifications. These estimates incorporate SSA estimates of population growth, as well as internal CBO projections of labor-force participation and hours worked for the different categories. However, CBO does not use this demographic detail to identify changes in labor quality. Capital input is measured as the service flow from four types of capital stocks—producers’ durable equipment excluding computers, computers, nonresidential structures, and inventories. Stocks are estimated by the perpetual inventory method and weighted by rental prices, thereby incorporating some changes in capital quality. TFP growth is projected on the basis of recent historical trends, with labor quality growth implicitly included in CBO’s estimate of TFP growth. Turning to the most recent CBO projections, reported in CBO (2000), we focus on the non-farm business sector, which drives the GDP projections and is based on the most detailed growth model. Table 3.6 summarizes CBO’s growth rate estimates for the 1980s and 1990s, and projections for 1999–2010. We also present estimates from BLS (2000) and our results.38 CBO projects potential GDP growth of 3.1 percent for 1999–2010, up slightly from 3.0 percent in the 1980s and 2.9 percent in the 1990s. CBO expects actual GDP growth to be somewhat slower at 2.8 percent, as the economy moves to a sustainable, long-run growth rate. Acceleration in potential GDP growth reflects faster capital accumulation and TFP growth, partly offset by slower growth in CBO projects potential GDP growth of 3.1 percent for 1999–2010, up slightly from 3.0 percent in the 1980s and 2.9 percent in the 1990s.
106
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
Table 3.6 Growth rates of output, inputs, and total factor productivity comparison of BLS, CBO, and Jorgenson-Stiroh BLS Nonfarm Business 1990– 1999 Real Output Labor Input Hours Worked Labor Quality Capital Input TFP—not adjusted for labor quality TFP—adjusted for labor quality ALP
3.74 1.68
2.06
CBO Overall Economy
CBO Nonfarm Business
Jorgenson– Stiroh
1980– 1990– 1999– 1980– 1990– 1999– 1980– 1990– 1990 1999 2010 1990 1999 2010 1990 1998 3.0 1.6
1.4
2.9 1.2
1.7
3.1 1.1
1.9
3.2
3.4
3.5
1.6
1.5
1.2
3.6 0.9
3.6 1.2
4.4 1.4
1.5
1.9
2.3
3.48
3.55
2.14 1.81 0.33 3.57 0.91
2.34 1.76 0.58 3.68 0.97
0.73
0.63
1.67
1.79
Notes: CBO estimates refer to “potential” series that are adjusted for business cycle effects. Growth rates do not exactly match table 3.5 since discrete growth rate are used here for consistency with CBO’s methodology. Hours worked for CBO. Overall Economy refers to potential labor force.
CBO expects actual GDP growth to be somewhat slower at 2.8 percent, as the economy moves to a sustainable, long-run growth rate. Acceleration in potential GDP growth reflects faster capital accumulation and TFP growth, partly offset by slower growth in hours worked. Projected GDP growth is 0.4 percent higher than earlier estimates (CBO, 1999b) due to an upward revision in capital growth (0.1 percent), slightly more rapid growth in hours (0.1 percent), and faster TFP growth, reflecting the benchmark revisions of NIPA, and other technical changes (0.2 percent).39 CBO’s estimates for the non-farm business sector show strong potential output growth of 3.5 percent for 1999–2010. While projected output growth is in line with experience of the 1990s and somewhat faster than the 1980s, there are significant differences in the underlying sources. Most important, CBO projects an increasing role for capital accumulation and TFP growth over the next decade, while hours growth slows. This implies that future output growth is driven by ALP growth, rather than growth in hours worked.
Raising the Speed Limit
107
CBO projects potential non-farm business ALP growth for 1999–2010 to rise to 2.3 percent, powered by capital deepening (3.2 percent) and TFP growth (1.4 percent). This represents a marked jump in ALP growth, relative to 1.5 percent in the 1980s and 1.9 percent in the 1990s. In considering whether the recent acceleration in ALP growth represents a trend break, CBO “gives considerable weight to the possibility that the experience of the past few years represents such a break (CBO, 2000, pg. 43).” This assumption appears plausible given recent events, and low unemployment and high labor-force participation make growth in hours worked a less likely source of future growth. Falling investment prices for information technology make capital deepening economically attractive, while the recent acceleration in TFP growth gives further grounds for optimistic projections. As the investment boom continues and firms substitute toward more information technology in production, CBO has steadily revised its projected growth rates of capital upward. It is worthwhile noting just how much the role of capital accumulation has grown in successive CBO projections, rising from a projected growth rate of 3.6 percent in January 1999 (CBO, 1999a) to 4.1 percent in July 1999 (CBO, 1999b) to 4.4 percent in January 2000 (CBO, 2000). This reflects the inclusion of relatively fastgrowing software investment in the benchmark revision of NIPA, but also extrapolates recent investment patterns. Similarly, CBO has raised its projected rate of TFP growth in successive estimates—from 1.0 percent in January 1999 to 1.1 percent in July 1999 to 1.4 percent in January 2000.40 These upward revisions reflect methodological changes in how CBO accounts for the rapid price declines in investment, particularly computers, which added 0.2 percent. In addition, CBO adjustments for the benchmark revision of NIPA contributed another 0.1 percent. Table 3.6 also reports our own estimates of growth for roughly comparable periods. While the time periods are not precisely identical, our results are similar to CBO’s. We estimate slightly faster growth during the 1980s, due to rapidly growing consumers’ durable services, but slightly lower rates of capital accumulation due to our broader measure of capital. Our growth of hours worked is higher, since we omit the cyclical adjustments made by CBO to develop their potential series.41 Finally, our TFP growth rates are considerably lower, due to our labor quality adjustments and inclusion of consumers’ durables. If we were to drop the labor quality adjustment, our estimate would rise to 1.0 percent per year from 1990 to 1998, compared to 1.2 percent for CBO for
108
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
1990–1999. The remaining difference reflects the fact that we do not include the rapid TFP growth of 1999, but do include the services of consumers’ durables, which involve no growth in TFP. 3.3.3
Evaluating CBO’s Projections
Evaluating CBO’s growth projections requires an assessment of their estimates of the growth of capital, labor, and TFP. It is important to emphasize that this is not intended as a criticism of CBO, but rather a description of “best practice” in the difficult area of growth projections. We also point out comparisons between our estimates and CBO’s estimates are not exact due to our broader output concept and our focus on actual data series, as opposed the potential series that are the focus of CBO. We begin with CBO’s projections of potential labor input. These data, based on the hours worked from BLS and SSA demographic projections, show a decline in hours growth from 1.5 percent in the 1990s to 1.2 percent for the period 1999–2010. This slowdown reflects familiar demographic changes associated with the aging of the U.S. population. However, CBO does not explicitly estimate labor quality, so that labor composition changes are included in CBO’s estimates of TFP growth and essentially held constant. We estimate growth in labor quality of 0.57 percent per year for 1990– 1998, while our projections based on demographic trends yield a growth rate of only 0.32 percent for the 1998–2010 period. Assuming CBO’s labor share of 0.70, this implies that a decline in the growth contribution from labor quality of about 0.18 percentage points per year over CBO’s projection horizon. Since this labor quality effect is implicitly incorporated into CBO’s TFP estimates, we conclude their TFP projections are overstated by this 0.18 percentage point decline in the labor quality contribution. TFP growth is perhaps the most problematical issue in long-term projections. Based on the recent experience of the U.S. economy, it appears reasonable to expect strong future productivity performance. As discussed above and shown in table 3.2, TFP growth has increased markedly during the period 1995–1998. However, extrapolation of this experience runs the risk of assuming that a temporary productivity spurt is a permanent change in trend. Second, the recent acceleration of TFP growth is due in considerable part to the surge in productivity growth in IT-producing industries.
Raising the Speed Limit
109
This makes the economy particularly vulnerable to slowing productivity growth in these industries. Computer prices have declined at extraordinary rates in recent years and it is far from obvious that this can continue. However, acceleration in the rate of decline reflects the change in the product cycle for semiconductors, which has shifted from three years to two and may be permanent. We conclude that CBO’s projection of TFP growth is optimistic in assuming a continuation of recent productivity trends, but nonetheless reasonable. However, we reduce this projection by only 0.18 percent per year to reflect the decline in labor quality growth, resulting in projected TFP growth of 1.22 percent per year. To obtain a projection of labor input growth we add labor quality growth of 0.32 percent per year to CBO’s projection of growth in hours of 1.2 percent per year. Multiplying labor input growth of 1.52 percent per year by the CBO labor share of 0.7, we obtain a contribution of labor input of 1.06 percent. CBO’s projected annual growth of capital input of 4.4 percent is higher than in any other decade, and 0.8 percent higher than in the 1990s.42 This projection extrapolates recent increases in the relative importance of computers, software, and communications equipment. Continuing rapid capital accumulation is also predicated on the persistence of high rates of decline in asset prices, resulting from rapid productivity growth in the IT-producing sectors. Any attenuation in this rate of decline would produce a double whammy—less TFP growth in IT-producing industries and reduced capital deepening elsewhere. Relative to historical trends, CBO’s capital input growth projection of 4.4 percent seems out-of-line with the projected growth of potential output of 3.5 percent. During the 1980s capital growth exceeded potential output growth by 0.4 percent, according to their estimates, or 0.1 percent in our estimates. In the 1990s, capital growth exceeded output growth by only 0.2 percent, again according to their estimates, and 0.1 percent in our estimates. This difference jumps to 0.9 percent for the period of CBO’s projections, 1999–2010. Revising the growth of capital input downward to reflect the difference between the growth of output and the growth of capital input during the period 1995–1998 of 0.2 percent would reduce the CBO’s projected output growth to 3.35 percent per year. This is the sum of the projected growth of TFP of 1.22 percent per year, the contribution of labor input of 1.06 percent per year, and the contribution of capital input of 1.07 percent per year. This is a very modest reduction in output growth
110
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
from CBO’s projection of 3.5 percent per year and can be attributed to the omission of a projected decline in labor quality growth. We conclude that CBO’s projections are consistent with the evidence they present, as well as our own analysis of recent trends. We must emphasize, however, that any slowdown in technical progress in information technology could have a major impact on potential growth. Working through both output and input channels, the U.S. economy has become highly dependent on information technology as the driving force in continued growth. Should productivity growth in these industries falter, the projections we have reviewed could be overly optimistic. 3.4
Industry Productivity
We have explored the sources of U.S. economic growth at the aggregate level and demonstrated that accelerated TFP growth is an important contributor to the recent growth resurgence. Aggregate TFP gains—the ability to produce more output from the same inputs—reflects the evolution of the production structure at the plant or firm level in response to technological changes, managerial choices, and economic shocks. These firm- and industry-level changes then cumulate to determine aggregate TFP growth. We now turn our attention to industry data to trace aggregate TFP growth to its sources in the productivity growth of individual industries, as well as reallocations of output and inputs among industries. Our approach utilizes the framework of Jorgenson, Gollop, and Fraumeni (1987) for quantifying the sources of economic growth for U.S. industries. The industry definitions and data sources have been brought up-to-date. The methodology of Jorgenson, Gollop, and Fraumeni for aggregating over industries is based on Domar’s (1961) approach to aggregation. Jorgenson and Stiroh (2000a) have presented summary data from our work; other recent studies of industry-level productivity growth include BLS (1999), Corrado and Slifman (1999), and Gullickson and Harper (1999). The remainder of this section summarizes our methodology and discusses the results. 3.4.1
Methodology
As with the aggregate production model discussed in section 3.2, we begin with an industry-level production model for each industry. A crucial distinction, however, is that industry output Qi is measured using a
Raising the Speed Limit
111
”gross output” concept, which includes output sold to final demand as well as output sold to other industries as intermediate goods. Similarly, inputs include all production inputs, including capital services Ki and labor services Li , as well as intermediate inputs, energy Ei and materials Mi , purchased from other industries.43 Our model is based on the industry production function: Qi = Ai · Xi (Ki , Li , Ei , Mi ),
(3.7)
where time subscripts have been suppressed for clarity. We can derive a growth accounting equation similar to equation (3.2) for each industry to measure the sources of economic growth for individual industries. The key difference is the use of gross output and an explicit accounting of the growth contribution of intermediate inputs purchased from other industries. This yields: ln Qi = w Ki ln Ki + w Li ln Li + w Ei ln Ei + w Mi ln Mi + ln Ai
(3.8)
where w i is the average share of the subscripted input in the i-th industry and the assumptions of constant returns to scale and competitive markets imply w Ki + w Li + w Ei + w Mi = 1. The augmentation factor ln Ai represents the growth in output not explained by input growth and is conceptually analogous to the TFP concept used above in the aggregate accounts. It represents efficiency gains, technological progress, scale economies, and measurement errors that allow more measured gross output to be produced from the same set of measured inputs. We refer to this term as industry productivity or simply productivity to distinguish it from TFP, which is estimated from a value added concept of output.44 Domar (1961) first developed an internally consistent methodology that linked industry-level productivity growth in equation (3.8) with aggregate TFP growth in equation (3.2). He showed that aggregate TFP growth can be expressed as a weighted average of industry productivity growth: 37 Pi,t−1 · Qi,t−1 1 Pi,t · Qi,t , (3.9) w i · ln Ai , w i = + ln A = 2 PY ,t · Yt PY ,t−1 · Yt−1 i=1
112
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
where w i is the ”Domar weight,” Pi · Qi is current dollar gross output in sector i , and PY · Y is current dollar aggregate value added. This simplified version of the aggregation formula given by Jorgenson, Gollop, and Fraumeni (1987), excludes re-allocations of value added, capital input, and labor input by sector. Jorgenson and Stiroh (2000a) show that these terms are negligible for the period 1958–1996, which is consistent with the results of Jorgenson, Gollop, and Fraumeni (1987) and Jorgenson (1990b) for periods of similar duration. Domar weights have the notable feature that they do not sum to unity. This reflects the different output concepts used at the aggregate and industry levels in equations (3.1) and (3.7), respectively. At the aggregate level, only primary inputs are included, while both primary and intermediate inputs are included in the industry production functions. For the typical industry, gross output considerably exceeds value added, so the sum of gross output across industries exceeds the sum of value added. This weighting methodology implies that economy-wide TFP growth can grow faster than productivity in any industry, since productivity gains are magnified as they work their way through the production process.45 In addition to providing an internally consistent aggregation framework, industry-level gross output allows an explicit role for intermediate goods as a source of industry growth. For example, Triplett (1996a) shows that a substantial portion of the price declines in computer output can be traced to steep price declines in semiconductors, the major intermediate input in the computer-producing industry. Price declines in semiconductors reflect technological progress—Moore’s law in action. This should be measured as productivity growth in the industry that produces semiconductors. By correctly accounting for the quantity and quality of intermediate inputs, the gross output concept allows aggregate TFP gains to be correctly allocated among industries. 3.4.2
Data Sources
Our primary data include a set of interindustry transactions accounts developed by the Employment Projections office at the BLS. These data cover a relatively short-time period from 1977 to 1995. We linked the BLS estimates to industry-level estimates back to 1958, described by Stiroh (1998a), and extrapolated to 1996 using current BLS and BEA industry data.46 This generated a time series for 1958 to 1996 for 37 industries, at roughly the two-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) level,
Raising the Speed Limit
113
including Private Households and General Government.47 Table 3.7 lists the 37 industries, the relative size in terms of 1996 value added and gross output, and the underlying SIC codes for each industry. Before proceeding to the empirical results, we should point out two limitations of this industry-level analysis. Due to the long lag in obtaining detailed interindustry transactions, investment, and output data by industry, our industry data are not consistent with the BEA benchmark revision of NIPA published in December 1999; they correspond to the NIPA produced by BEA in November 1997. As a consequence, they are not directly comparable to the aggregate data described in Tables 3.1 through 3.6. Since the impact of the benchmark revision was to raise output and aggregate TFP growth, it is not surprising that the industry data show slower output and productivity growth. Second, our estimates of rental prices for all assets in this industry analysis are based on the industry-wide asset revaluation terms, as in Stiroh (1998a). They are not directly comparable to the aggregate data on capital input, where asset-specific revaluation terms are included in the rental price estimates. The use of industry-wide revaluation terms tends to reduce the growth in capital services since assets with falling relative prices, such as computers, have large service prices and rapid accumulation rates. 3.4.3
Empirical Results
3.4.3.1 Sources of Industry Growth Table 3.8 reports estimates of the components of equation (3.8) for the period 1958–1996. For each industry, we show the growth in output, the contribution of each input (defined as the nominal share-weighted growth rate of the input), and productivity growth. We also report average labor productivity (ALP) growth, defined as real gross output per hour worked, and the Domar weights calculated from equation (3.9). We focus the discussion of our results on industry productivity and ALP growth. Industry productivity growth was the highest in two high-tech industries, Industrial Machinery and Equipment, and Electronic and Electric Equipment, at 1.5 percent and 2.0 percent per year, respectively. Industrial Machinery includes the production of computer equipment (SIC #357) and Electronic Equipment includes the production of semiconductors (SIC #3674) and communications equipment (SIC #366). The enormous technological progress in the production of these high-tech
114
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
Table 3.7 1996 value added and gross output by industry Industry Agriculture Metal Mining Coal Mining Petroleum and Gas Nonmetallic Mining Construction
SIC Codes
Value-Added Gross Output
01–02, 07–09 10 11–12 13 14 15–17
133.3 8.8 14.7 57.4 10.5 336.0
292.2 10.7 21.1 83.3 17.0 685.5
Food Products Tobacco Products
20 21
147.2 26.7
447.6 32.7
Textile Mill Products Apparel and Textiles Lumber and Wood Furniture and Fixtures Paper Products Printing and Publishing
22 23 24 25 26 27
19.9 40.7 34.2 23.4 68.3 113.5
58.9 98.5 106.7 54.5 161.0 195.6
Chemical Products Petroleum Refining Rubber and Plastic Leather Products Stone, Clay, and Glass Primary Metals Fabricated Metals
28 29 30 31 32 33 34
184.0 44.7 64.1 3.4 40.4 57.6 98.4
371.2 184.3 148.9 8.1 79.1 182.1 208.8
35 36 371 372–379 38 39 40–47
177.8 161.9 84.9 68.0 81.3 24.8 258.6
370.5 320.4 341.6 143.8 150.0 49.3 487.7
48 491, %493 492, %493, 496 50–59 60–67 70–87, 494–495
189.7 111.8 32.9 1,201.2 857.8 1,551.9 95.2
315.8 186.7 57.9 1,606.4 1,405.1 2,542.8 220.2
88
1,248.4 1,028.1
1,248.4 1,028.1
Industrial Machinery and Equipment Electronic and Electric Equipment Motor Vehicles Other Transportation Equipment Instruments Miscellaneous Manufacturing Transport and Warehouse Communications Electric Utilities Gas Utilities Trade FIRE Services Government Enterprises Private Households General Government
Notes: All values are in current dollars. Value added refers to payments to capital and labor; Gross output includes payments for intermediate inputs.
Raising the Speed Limit
115
capital goods has generated falling prices and productivity growth, and fueled the substitution towards information technology. An important feature of these data is that we can isolate productivity growth for industries that produce intermediate goods, for example, Electronic and Electric Equipment.48 Consider the contrast between computer production and semiconductor production. Computers are part of final demand, sold as consumption and investment goods, and can be identified in the aggregate data, as we did in table 3.2. Semiconductors, on the other hand, do not appear at the aggregate level, since they are sold almost entirely as an input to computers, telecommunications equipment, and an increasingly broad range of other products such as machine tools, automobiles, and virtually all recent vintages of appliances. Nonetheless, improved semiconductor production is an important source of aggregate TFP growth since it is ultimately responsible for the lower prices and improved quality of goods like computers produced for final demand. The enormous price declines in computer equipment and the prominent role of investment in computers in the GDP accounts have led Gordon (1999b), Whelan (1999), and others to emphasize technological progress in the production of computers. Triplett (1996a), however, quantifies the role of semiconductors as an intermediate input and estimates that falling semiconductor prices may account for virtually all of the relative price declines in computer equipment. He concludes, ”productivity in the computer industry palls beside the enormous increases in productivity in the semiconductor industry (Triplett, 1996a, pg. 137).”49 The decline in prices of semiconductors is reflected in the prices of intermediate input into the computer industry, effectively moving productivity away from computers and toward semiconductor production. Building on this observation, Oliner and Sichel (2000) present a model that includes three sectors—semiconductor production, computer production, and other goods—and shows that semiconductors productivity is substantially more important than computer productivity. Our complete industry framework with Domar aggregation over all industries captures the contributions of productivity growth from all industries. The impact of intermediate inputs can be seen in table 3.8 in the large contribution of material inputs in the Industrial Machinery industry. Since a substantial portion of these inputs consists of semiconductors purchased from the Electronic Equipment industry, productivity gains that lower the price of semiconductors increase the flow of intermediate inputs into the Industrial Machinery industry. By correctly accounting
116
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
Table 3.8 Sources of U.S. economic growth by industry, 1958–1996
Industry
Contributions of Inputs Productivity ALP Domar Output Growth Capital Labor Energy Materials Growth Growth Weight
Agriculture
1.70
0.19
−0.13
−0.04
0.51
1.17
3.21
0.062
Metal Mining Coal Mining Petroleum and Gas Nonmetallic Mining Construction Food Products Tobacco Products
0.78 2.35 0.43 1.62 1.43 2.20 0.43
0.73 0.82 0.61 0.59 0.07 0.21 0.59
−0.07 0.00 −0.01 0.18 0.87 0.18 0.05
−0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.00
−0.26 0.63 0.20 0.34 0.91 1.27 −0.01
0.44 0.84 −0.44 0.46 −0.44 0.54 −0.20
0.99 2.32 0.88 1.52 −0.38 1.59 0.88
0.003 0.005 0.022 0.003 0.113 0.076 0.004
Textile Mill Products Apparel and Textiles Lumber and Wood Furniture and Fixtures Paper Products Printing and Publishing Chemical Products Petroleum Refining Rubber and Plastic Leather Products Stone, Clay, and Glass Primary Metals Fabricated Metals
2.23 2.03 2.24 2.91
0.12 0.24 0.21 0.31
0.02 0.17 0.33 0.58
0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02
0.86 0.82 1.70 1.44
1.23 0.80 −0.02 0.56
2.54 2.01 1.55 1.78
0.013 0.022 0.015 0.007
2.89 2.51
0.50 0.55
0.40 1.20
0.05 0.02
1.51 1.19
0.42 −0.44
1.96 0.14
0.022 0.024
3.47 2.21 5.17 −2.06 1.86 1.14 2.28
0.74 0.44 0.47 −0.11 0.26 0.13 0.26
0.47 0.24 1.16 −1.13 0.37 0.05 0.28
0.09 0.49 0.08 −0.02 0.00 −0.03 0.00
1.58 0.71 2.43 −1.08 0.82 0.77 1.09
0.58 0.33 1.04 0.28 0.41 0.22 0.65
2.02 0.80 1.94 2.08 1.30 1.51 1.88
0.048 0.033 0.016 0.004 0.014 0.040 0.035
Industrial Machinery and Equipment
4.79
0.52
0.75
0.02
2.04
1.46
3.15
0.048
Electronic and Electric Equipment Motor Vehicles Other Transportation Equipment Instruments Miscellaneous Manufacturing Transport and Warehouse Communications Electric Utilities Gas Utilities
5.46
0.76
0.65
0.03
2.04
1.98
4.08
0.036
3.61 1.31
0.28 0.23
0.29 0.37
0.02 0.00
2.78 0.52
0.24 0.18
2.28 1.00
0.043 0.027
5.23 2.53
0.65 0.34
1.44 0.41
0.03 0.00
1.99 0.95
1.12 0.82
2.57 2.08
0.017 0.008
3.25
0.20
0.72
0.12
1.34
0.86
1.74
0.061
5.00 3.22 0.56
1.62 1.01 0.66
0.53 0.20 −0.04
0.02 0.67 0.14
1.95 0.83 0.05
0.88 0.51 −0.24
3.93 2.52 0.94
0.033 0.026 0.016
Raising the Speed Limit
117
Table 3.8 (continued)
Industry Trade FIRE Services Goverment Enterprises Private Households General Government
Contributions of Inputs Productivity ALP Domar Output Growth Capital Labor Energy Materials Growth Growth Weight 3.66 3.42 4.34 2.86
0.62 1.14 0.84 1.24
0.83 0.94 1.70 1.08
0.04 0.00 0.07 0.23
1.19 1.52 1.92 0.83
0.98 −0.18 −0.19 −0.52
2.49 0.66 0.92 0.49
0.195 0.131 0.208 0.022
3.50 1.35
3.55 0.60
−0.06 0.75
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
5.98 0.46
0.137 0.131
Notes: Output Growth is the average annual growth in real gross output. Contributions of Inputs are defined as the average, share-weighted growth of the input. Productivity Growth is defined in equation (3.8). ALP Growth is the growth in average labor productivity. Domar Weight is the average ratio of industry gross output to aggregate value added as defined in equation (3.9). All numbers except Domar Weights are percentages.
for these inputs, industry productivity growth in the Industrial Machinery industry falls, and we can rightly allocate technological progress to the Electronic Equipment industry, which produces semiconductors. While this type of industry reallocation does not affect aggregate productivity growth, it is important to identify the sources of productivity growth and allocate this among industries in order to assess the sustainability of the recent acceleration. The two high-tech industries also show high rates of average labor productivity (ALP) growth of 3.1 percent and 4.1 percent per year. This reflects an underlying relationship similar to equation (3.3) for the aggregate data, where industry ALP growth reflects industry productivity growth, labor quality growth, and increases in input intensity, including increases in capital as well as intermediate inputs per hour worked. As implied by table 3.8, these industries showed rapid accumulation of capital and intermediate inputs, which raised ALP growth above productivity growth. It is also worthwhile to note that Communications, another high-tech industry, shows ALP growth much faster than industry productivity growth due to the rapid accumulation of inputs, notably intermediate materials. These results highlight the crucial importance of accounting for all inputs when examining the sources of industry growth. Productivity growth in information technology provides a final perspective on the conclusions of Greenwood, Hercowitz, and Krusell
118
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
(1997) and Hercowitz (1998). They argue that some 60 percent of postwar U.S. growth can be attributed to investment-specific (embodied) productivity growth, which they distinguish from input accumulation and (disembodied) productivity growth. As evidence, they note the relative price of equipment in the United States has fallen 3 percent per year, which they interpret as evidence of technical change that affect capital goods, but not consumption goods. Our decomposition, however, reveals that declines in the prices of investment goods are the consequence of improvements in industry (disembodied) productivity. Domar aggregation shows how these improvements contribute directly to aggregate TFP growth. There is no separate role for investment-specific technical change. Other industries that show relatively strong productivity growth include Agriculture, Textile Mill Products, Rubber and Plastic, Instruments, Trade. All of these industries experienced productivity growth in the 1.0 percent per year range, and ALP growth in the 2–3 percent range. Industries with the slowest productivity growth include Petroleum and Gas, Construction, Printing and Publishing, and Government Enterprises, all of which showed a declines in productivity of nearly 0.5 percent per year. It is worth emphasizing that nine industries showed negative productivity growth for the entire period, a counter-intuitive result, if we were to interpret productivity growth solely as technological progress. It is difficult to envision technology steadily worsening for a period of nearly 40 years as implied by these estimates. The perplexing phenomenon of negative technical progress was a primary motivation for the work of Corrado and Slifman (1999) and Gullickson and Harper (1999), who suggest persistent measurement problems as a plausible explanation. Corrado and Slifman (1999) conclude, ”a more likely statistical explanation for the implausible productivity, profitability, and price trends . . . is that they reflect problems in measuring prices (pg. 331).” If prices are systematically overstated because quality change is not accurately measured, then output and productivity are correspondingly understated. We do not pursue this idea here, but simply point out that measurement problems are considered a reasonable explanation by some statistical agencies.50 An alternative interpretation for negative productivity growth is the possibility of declines in efficiency that have no association with technology. These might include lower quality of management and worsening of industrial organization through the growth of barriers to entry. This
Raising the Speed Limit
119
appears to be plausible explanation, given the widespread occurrence of negative productivity growth for extended periods of time. Until more careful research linking firm- and plant-level productivity to industry productivity estimates has been done, it would be premature to leap to the conclusion that estimates of economic performance should be adjusted so as to eliminate negative productivity growth rates, wherever they occur. Low productivity growth rates are surprising in light of the fact that many of the affected industries are heavy investors in information technology. Stiroh (1998a), for example, reports nearly 80 percent of computer investment in the early 1990s was in three service-related industries, Trade, FIRE, and Services. Triplett (1999b) reports a high concentration in service industries using the BEA’s capital use survey. The apparent combination of slow productivity growth and heavy computer-use remains an important obstacle for new economy proponents who argue that the use of information technology is fundamentally changing business practices and raising productivity throughout the U.S. economy. 3.4.3.2 Comparison to Other Results Before proceeding to the Domar aggregation results, it is useful to compare these results to three other recent studies—BLS (1999), Corrado and Slifman (1999) and Gullickson and Harper (1999). BLS (1999) reports industry productivity growth (”industry multifactor productivity” in their terminology) for 19 manufacturing industries for 1949–1996. Corrado and Slifman (1999) report estimates of ALP growth for selected one- and two-digit SIC industries for the period 1977–1997. Gullickson and Harper (1999) report industry productivity growth for certain oneand two-digit SIC industries based on two output series for the period 1947–1992. Similar to BLS (1999), Gullickson and Harper use a “sectoral output” concept estimated by the Employment Projections staff at BLS and also, for 1977–1992, use BEA’s gross output series, “adjusted for consistency.”51 Note that none of these studies reflect the BEA benchmark revision of NIPA. Time period, industry classification, and methodological differences make a definitive reconciliation to our results impossible. For example, BLS (1999) reports detailed manufacturing industries; Corrado and Slifman (1999) use a value added concept, BEA’s “gross product originating,” for output; Gullickson and Harper (1999) use the same data
120
Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh
sources as we do, but make different adjustments for consistency and do not account for labor quality growth. Nonetheless, it is useful to compare broad trends over similar time periods to assess the robustness of our findings. We first consider the ALP estimates from Corrado and Slifman (1999). We can compare similar time periods, but there are relatively few overlapping industries since our industry breakdown focuses on manufacturing industries, while they provide details primarily for service industries. For comparable industries, however, the results are quite similar. For seven industries with comparable definitions, five show differences in ALP growth of less than 0.25 percent when we compare our estimates for 1977–1996 to Corrado and Slifman’s estimates for 1977– 1997 (Corrado and Slifman, 1999, table 2).52 Our ALP growth rates for Communication and Trade are below theirs by 1.3 percent and 0.4 percent, respectively, for these periods. Our productivity estimates for 1977–1992 for the majority of industries are similar to those of Gullickson and Harper (1999). The range of discrepancies is somewhat greater due to the difficulty of linking the various data sets needed to estimate intermediate inputs and industry productivity growth. For 7 of the 11 comparable industries productivity differences are below 0.5 percent, while we found larger discrepancies for Metal Mining, Coal Mining, Petroleum and Gas, and Services.53 Similar differences can also be seen in Gullickson and Harper’s comparison of productivity growth estimated from the BLS and BEA gross output series, where they find differences of 0.5 percentage points or more in 17 out of 40 industries and aggregates. Methodological differences, such as the inclusion of labor quality growth in our estimates of labor input growth, contribute to this divergence, as do different
