IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/3142.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Solow Productivity Paradox in Historical Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Crafts, Nicholas

Abstract

A growth accounting methodology is used to compare the contributions to growth in terms of capital-deepening and total factor productivity growth of three general-purpose technologies, namely, steam in Britain during 1780-1860, electricity and information and communications technology in the United States during 1899-1929 and 1974-2000, respectively. The format permits explicit comparison of earlier episodes with the results for ICT obtained by Oliner and Sichel. The results suggest that the contribution of ICT was already relatively large before 1995 and it is suggested that the true productivity paradox is why economists expected more sooner from ICT.

Suggested Citation

  • Crafts, Nicholas, 2002. "The Solow Productivity Paradox in Historical Perspective," CEPR Discussion Papers 3142, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:3142
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP3142
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Romer, Paul M, 1986. "Increasing Returns and Long-run Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(5), pages 1002-1037, October.
    2. Bresnahan, Timothy F. & Trajtenberg, M., 1995. "General purpose technologies 'Engines of growth'?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 83-108, January.
    3. Robert J. Gordon, 2000. "Does the "New Economy" Measure Up to the Great Inventions of the Past?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 49-74, Fall.
    4. Paul Schreyer, 2000. "The Contribution of Information and Communication Technology to Output Growth: A Study of the G7 Countries," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2000/2, OECD Publishing.
    5. Jack E. Triplett, 1999. "The Solow productivity paradox: what do computers do to productivity?," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 32(2), pages 309-334, April.
    6. Karl Whelan, 2002. "Computers, Obsolescence, And Productivity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(3), pages 445-461, August.
    7. Nicholas Oulton, 2002. "ICT and Productivity Growth in the United Kingdom," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 18(3), pages 363-379.
    8. Dale W. Jorgenson & Kevin J. Stiroh, 2000. "Raising the Speed Limit: U.S. Economic Growth in the Information Age," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 31(1), pages 125-236.
    9. 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.
    10. McGuckin, Robert H & Stiroh, Kevin J, 2001. "Do Computers Make Output Harder to Measure?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 295-321, October.
    11. Dirk Pilat & Franck Lee, 2001. "Productivity Growth in ICT-producing and ICT-using Industries: A Source of Growth Differentials in the OECD?," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2001/4, OECD Publishing.
    12. M. Blaug, 1961. "The Productivity Of Capital In The Lancashire Cotton Industry During The Nineteenth Century," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 13(3), pages 358-381, April.
    13. Paul A. David & Gavin Wright, 1999. "Early Twentieth Century Productivity Growth Dynamics: An Inquiry into the Economic History of "Our Ignorance"," Oxford University Economic and Social History Series _033, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    14. Devine, Warren D., 1983. "From Shafts to Wires: Historical Perspective on Electrification," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 347-372, June.
    15. John W. Kendrick, 1961. "Productivity Trends in the United States," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number kend61-1, June.
    16. David, Paul A., 1989. "COMPUTER AND DYNAMO: The Modern Productivity Paradox in a Not-Too Distant Mirror," Economic Research Papers 268373, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    17. Paul David & Gavin Wright, 1999. "Early Twentieth Century Productivity Growth Dynamics: An Inquiry into the Economic History of Our Ignorance," Oxford Economic and Social History Working Papers _033, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    18. Romer, Paul M, 1990. "Endogenous Technological Change," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(5), pages 71-102, October.
    19. John W. Kanefsky, 1979. "Motive Power in British Industry and the Accuracy of the 1870 Factory Return," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 32(3), pages 360-375, August.
    20. Erik Brynjolfsson & Lorin M. Hitt, 2000. "Beyond Computation: Information Technology, Organizational Transformation and Business Performance," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 23-48, Fall.
    21. Martin Brookes & Zaki Wahhaj, 2001. "Is the Internet Better than Electricity?," World Economics, World Economics, 1 Ivory Square, Plantation Wharf, London, United Kingdom, SW11 3UE, vol. 2(2), pages 53-72, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Harald Edquist & Magnus Henrekson, 2006. "Technological Breakthroughs and Productivity Growth," Research in Economic History, in: Research in Economic History, pages 1-53, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    2. Crafts, Nicholas, 2004. "Productivity Growth in the Industrial Revolution: A New Growth Accounting Perspective," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(2), pages 521-535, June.
    3. Sang-Yong Tom Lee & Xiao Jia Guo, 2004. "Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and Spillover: A Panel Analysis," Econometric Society 2004 Far Eastern Meetings 722, Econometric Society.
    4. Federico Biagi, 2013. "ICT and Productivity: A Review of the Literature," JRC Working Papers on Digital Economy 2013-09, Joint Research Centre.
    5. Mr. James Morsink & Mr. Markus Haacker, 2002. "You Say You Want A Revolution: Information Technology and Growth," IMF Working Papers 2002/070, International Monetary Fund.
    6. Mauro Napoletano & Andrea Roventini & Sandro Sapio, 2004. "Yeast vs. Mushrooms: A Note on Harberger's "A Vision of the Growth Process"," LEM Papers Series 2004/03, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    7. Pierre-Alain Muet, 2006. "Impacts économiques de la révolution numérique," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 57(3), pages 347-375.
    8. Tamim Bayoumi & Markus Haacker, 2002. "Its Not What You Make, Its How You Use IT: Measuring the Welfare Benefits of the IT Revolution Across Countries," CEP Discussion Papers dp0548, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    9. Gust, Christopher & Marquez, Jaime, 2004. "International comparisons of productivity growth: the role of information technology and regulatory practices," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 33-58, February.
    10. 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.
    11. Gunnarsson, Gudmundur & Mellander, Erik & Savvidou, Eleni, 2004. "Human capital is the key to the IT productivity paradox," Working Paper Series 2004:13, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    12. Susanto Basu & John G. Fernald & Nicholas Oulton & Sylaja Srinivasan, 2004. "The Case of the Missing Productivity Growth, or Does Information Technology Explain Why Productivity Accelerated in the United States but Not in the United Kingdom?," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2003, Volume 18, pages 9-82, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Gilbert Cette & Jacques Mairesse & Yusuf Kocoglu, 2002. "The Diffusion of ICTs and Growth of the French Economy over the Long-term, 1980-2000," International Productivity Monitor, Centre for the Study of Living Standards, vol. 4, pages 27-38, Spring.
    14. Atzeni, Gianfranco E. & Carboni, Oliviero A., 2006. "ICT productivity and firm propensity to innovative investment: Evidence from Italian microdata," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 139-156, June.
    15. Hannes Leo, 2001. "ICT Investment and Growth of Output and Productivity," WIFO Working Papers 162, WIFO.
    16. Jonathan Temple, 2002. "The Assessment: The New Economy," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 18(3), pages 241-264.
    17. Dirk Pilat, 2001. "Productivity Growth in the OECD Area: Some Recent Findings," International Productivity Monitor, Centre for the Study of Living Standards, vol. 3, pages 32-44, Fall.
    18. Henry van der Wiel, 2001. "Does ICT boost Dutch productivity growth?," CPB Document 16.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    19. Nicholas Crafts, 2004. "Steam as a general purpose technology: A growth accounting perspective," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(495), pages 338-351, April.
    20. Oliner, Stephen D. & Sichel, Daniel E. & Stiroh, Kevin J., 2008. "Explaining a productive decade," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 633-673.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Growth accounting; General purpose technologies; Productivity paradox;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O47 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - Empirical Studies of Economic Growth; Aggregate Productivity; Cross-Country Output Convergence

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cpr:ceprdp:3142. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    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.