IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v25y2014i3p449-467.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research Commentary —Using Income Accounting as the Theoretical Basis for Measuring IT Productivity

Author

Listed:
  • Dennis O. Kundisch

    (Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, University of Paderborn, D-33098 Paderborn, Germany)

  • Neeraj Mittal

    (Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001, India)

  • Barrie R. Nault

    (Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada)

Abstract

We use the under-recognized income accounting identity to provide an important theoretical basis for using the Cobb-Douglas production function in IT productivity analyses. Within the income accounting identity we partition capital into non-IT and IT capital and analytically derive an accounting identity (AI)-based Cobb-Douglas form that both nests the three-input Cobb-Douglas and provides additional terms based on wage rates and rates of return to non-IT and IT capital. To empirically confirm the theoretical derivation, we use a specially constructed data set from a subset of the U.S. manufacturing industry that involve elaborate calculations of rates of return—a data set that is infeasible to obtain for most productivity studies—to estimate the standard Cobb-Douglas and our AI-based form. We find that estimates from our AI-based form correspond with those of the Cobb-Douglas, and our AI-based form has significantly greater explanatory power. In addition, empirical estimation of both forms is relatively robust to the assumption of intertemporally stable input shares required to derive the AI-based form, although there may be limits. Thus, in the context of future research the Cobb-Douglas form and its application in IT productivity work have a theoretically and empirically supported basis in the accounting identity. A poor fit to data or unexpected coefficient estimates suggests problems with data quality or intertemporally unstable input shares. Our work also shows how some returns to IT that do not show up in output elasticities can be found in total factor productivity (TFP)—the novel ways inputs are combined to produce output. The critical insight for future research is that many unobservables that have been considered part of TFP can be manifested in rates of return to IT capital, non-IT capital, and labor—rates of return that are separated from TFP in our AI-based form. Finally, finding that the additional rates of return terms partially explain TFP confirms the need for future IT productivity researchers to incorporate time-varying TFP in their models.

Suggested Citation

  • Dennis O. Kundisch & Neeraj Mittal & Barrie R. Nault, 2014. "Research Commentary —Using Income Accounting as the Theoretical Basis for Measuring IT Productivity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 449-467, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:25:y:2014:i:3:p:449-467
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.2014.0534
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.2014.0534
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.2014.0534?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nirup M. Menon & Byungtae Lee & Leslie Eldenburg, 2000. "Productivity of Information Systems in the Healthcare Industry," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(1), pages 83-92, March.
    2. Jesus Felipe & J. S. L. McCombie, 2001. "The CES Production Function, the accounting identity, and Occam's razor," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(10), pages 1221-1232.
    3. repec:bla:revinw:v:48:y:2002:i:2:p:217-33 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Lucia Foster & John Haltiwanger & Chad Syverson, 2008. "Reallocation, Firm Turnover, and Efficiency: Selection on Productivity or Profitability?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 394-425, March.
    5. Joan Robinson, 1953. "The Production Function and the Theory of Capital," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 21(2), pages 81-106.
    6. Fisher, Franklin M, 1971. "Aggregate Production Functions and the Explanation of Wages: A Simulation Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 53(4), pages 305-325, November.
    7. Shaikh, Anwar, 1974. "Laws of Production and Laws of Algebra: The Humbug Production Function," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 56(1), pages 115-120, February.
    8. Kevin J. Stiroh, 2002. "Information Technology and the U.S. Productivity Revival: What Do the Industry Data Say?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1559-1576, December.
    9. Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1974. "The Cambridge-Cambridge Controversy in the Theory of Capital: A View from New Haven: A Review Article," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(4), pages 893-903, July/Aug..
    10. Erik Brynjolfsson & Lorin M. Hitt, 2003. "Computing Productivity: Firm-Level Evidence," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(4), pages 793-808, November.
    11. Paul A. Samuelson, 1962. "Parable and Realism in Capital Theory: The Surrogate Production Function," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 29(3), pages 193-206.
    12. Stephen D. Oliner & Daniel E. Sichel, 2000. "The Resurgence of Growth in the Late 1990s: Is Information Technology the Story?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 3-22, Fall.
    13. Samuelson, Paul A, 1979. "Paul Douglas's Measurement of Production Functions and Marginal Productivities," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 87(5), pages 923-939, October.
    14. Sanjeev Dewan & Chung-ki Min, 1997. "The Substitution of Information Technology for Other Factors of Production: A Firm Level Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(12), pages 1660-1675, December.
    15. Levi, Maurice D, 1973. "Errors in the Variables Bias in the Presence of Correctly Measured Variables," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(5), pages 985-986, September.
    16. Avi J. Cohen, 2003. "Retrospectives: Whatever Happened to the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversies?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(1), pages 199-214, Winter.
    17. D. W. Jorgenson & Z. Griliches, 1967. "The Explanation of Productivity Change," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 34(3), pages 249-283.
    18. Sanjeev Dewan & Kenneth L. Kraemer, 2000. "Information Technology and Productivity: Evidence from Country-Level Data," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(4), pages 548-562, April.
    19. Byungtae Lee & Anitesh Barua, 1999. "An Integrated Assessment of Productivity and Efficiency Impacts of Information Technology Investments: Old Data, New Analysis and Evidence," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 21-43, August.
    20. Vijay Gurbaxani & Nigel Melville & Kenneth Kraemer, 2000. "The Production of Information Services: A Firm-Level Analysis of Information Systems Budgets," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(2), pages 159-176, June.
    21. repec:bla:scandj:v:81:y:1979:i:4:p:459-74 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. van Garderen, Kees Jan & Lee, Kevin & Pesaran, M. Hashem, 2000. "Cross-sectional aggregation of non-linear models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 285-331, April.
    23. Solow, Robert M, 1974. "Law of Production and Laws of Algebra: The Humbug Production Function: A Comment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 56(1), pages 121-121, February.
    24. Neeraj Mittal & Barrie R. Nault, 2009. "Research Note ---Investments in Information Technology: Indirect Effects and Information Technology Intensity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 140-154, March.
    25. Jesus Felipe, 2001. "Aggregate Production Functions and the Measurement of Infrastructure Productivity: A Reassessment," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 27(3), pages 323-344, Summer.
    26. Zhuo (June) Cheng & Barrie R. Nault, 2007. "Industry Level Supplier-Driven IT Spillovers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(8), pages 1199-1216, August.
    27. Paul Chwelos & Ronald Ramirez & Kenneth L. Kraemer & Nigel P. Melville, 2010. "Research Note ---Does Technological Progress Alter the Nature of Information Technology as a Production Input? New Evidence and New Results," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(2), pages 392-408, June.
    28. Erik Brynjolfsson & Lorin Hitt, 1996. "Paradox Lost? Firm-Level Evidence on the Returns to Information Systems Spending," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(4), pages 541-558, April.
    29. Zhuo (June) Cheng & Barrie R. Nault, 2012. "Relative Industry Concentration and Customer-Driven IT Spillovers," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 340-355, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dawei (David) Zhang & Barrie R. Nault & Xueqi (David) Wei, 2019. "The Strategic Value of Information Technology in Setting Productive Capacity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 1124-1144, December.
    2. Sulin Ba & Barrie R. Nault, 2017. "Emergent Themes in the Interface Between Economics of Information Systems and Management of Technology," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 26(4), pages 652-666, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kunsoo Han & Robert J. Kauffman & Barrie R. Nault, 2011. "Research Note ---Returns to Information Technology Outsourcing," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 824-840, December.
    2. Neeraj Mittal & Barrie R. Nault, 2009. "Research Note ---Investments in Information Technology: Indirect Effects and Information Technology Intensity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 140-154, March.
    3. Prasanna Tambe & Lorin M. Hitt, 2014. "Job Hopping, Information Technology Spillovers, and Productivity Growth," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(2), pages 338-355, February.
    4. Jesus Felipe & Franklin M. Fisher, 2003. "Aggregation in Production Functions: What Applied Economists should Know," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2‐3), pages 208-262, May.
    5. Chou, Yen-Chun & Hao-Chun Chuang, Howard & Shao, Benjamin B.M., 2014. "The impacts of information technology on total factor productivity: A look at externalities and innovations," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 290-299.
    6. Stefan Schweikl & Robert Obermaier, 2020. "Lessons from three decades of IT productivity research: towards a better understanding of IT-induced productivity effects," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 70(4), pages 461-507, November.
    7. Zhuo (June) Cheng & Barrie R. Nault, 2007. "Industry Level Supplier-Driven IT Spillovers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(8), pages 1199-1216, August.
    8. Dawei Zhang & Zhuo (June) Cheng & Hasan A. Qurban H. Mohammad & Barrie R. Nault, 2015. "Research Commentary—Information Technology Substitution Revisited," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(3), pages 480-495, September.
    9. Prasanna Tambe, 2014. "Big Data Investment, Skills, and Firm Value," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(6), pages 1452-1469, June.
    10. Peng Huang & Marco Ceccagnoli & Chris Forman & D.J. Wu, 2022. "IT Knowledge Spillovers, Absorptive Capacity, and Productivity: Evidence from Enterprise Software," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(3), pages 908-934, September.
    11. Jesus Felipe & John S.L. McCombie, 2013. "The Aggregate Production Function and the Measurement of Technical Change," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1975.
    12. S K Mishra, 2010. "A Brief History of Production Functions," The IUP Journal of Managerial Economics, IUP Publications, vol. 0(4), pages 6-34, November.
    13. G. C. Harcourt, 2015. "On the Cambridge, England, Critique of the Marginal Productivity Theory of Distribution," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 47(2), pages 243-255, June.
    14. Paul Chwelos & Ronald Ramirez & Kenneth L. Kraemer & Nigel P. Melville, 2010. "Research Note ---Does Technological Progress Alter the Nature of Information Technology as a Production Input? New Evidence and New Results," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(2), pages 392-408, June.
    15. Prasanna Tambe & Lorin M. Hitt, 2012. "The Productivity of Information Technology Investments: New Evidence from IT Labor Data," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(3-part-1), pages 599-617, September.
    16. Prasanna Tambe & Lorin M. Hitt, 2014. "Measuring Information Technology Spillovers," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 53-71, March.
    17. Salome Baslandze, 2015. "The Role of the IT Revolution in Knowledge Diffusion, Innovation and Reallocation," 2015 Meeting Papers 1488, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    18. Dawei (David) Zhang & Barrie R. Nault & Xueqi (David) Wei, 2019. "The Strategic Value of Information Technology in Setting Productive Capacity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 1124-1144, December.
    19. Shao, Benjamin B.M. & Lin, Winston T., 2016. "Assessing output performance of information technology service industries: Productivity, innovation and catch-up," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 43-53.
    20. Guido Schryen, 2010. "Preserving Knowledge on IS Business Value," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 2(4), pages 233-244, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:25:y:2014:i:3:p:449-467. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.