IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/10627.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Using Investment Data to Assess the Importance of Price Mismeasurement

Author

Listed:
  • Diego Comin

Abstract

This paper presents a new approach to assess the role of price mismeasurement in the productivity slowdown. I invert the firm's investment decision to identify the embodied and disembodied components of productivity growth. With a Cobb-Douglas production function, output price mismeasurement only should affect the latter. Contrary to the mismeasurement hypothesis, I find that in the Post-War period, disembodied productivity grew faster in the hard-to-measure than in the non-manufacturing easy-to-measure sectors, and that disembodied productivity slowed down less in the hard-to-measure than in the easy-to-measure sectors since the 70's. These results hold a fortiori when capital and labor are complements.

Suggested Citation

  • Diego Comin, 2004. "Using Investment Data to Assess the Importance of Price Mismeasurement," NBER Working Papers 10627, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:10627
    Note: EFG
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w10627.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Productivity, R&D, and the Data Constraint," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 347-374, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Zvi Griliches, 1992. "Output Measurement in the Service Sectors," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number gril92-1.
    3. Martin Neil Baily & Robert J. Gordon, 1988. "The Productivity Slowdown, Measurement Issues, and the Explosion of Computer Power," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 19(2), pages 347-432.
    4. G. Christian Ehemann & Brent R. Moulton, 2001. "Balancing the GDP Account," BEA Papers 0014, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
    5. James Bessen, 2002. "Technology Adoption Costs and Productivity Growth: The Transition to Information Technology," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 5(2), pages 443-469, April.
    6. Zvi Griliches, 1992. "Introduction to "Output Measurement in the Service Sectors"," NBER Chapters, in: Output Measurement in the Service Sectors, pages 1-22, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Bresnahan, Timothy F, 1986. "Measuring the Spillovers from Technical Advance: Mainframe Computers inFinancial Services," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 742-755, September.
    8. Brent R. Moulton, 2001. "The Expanding Role of Hedonic Methods in the Official Statistics of the United States," BEA Papers 0018, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
    9. Bruce W. Hamilton, 2001. "Using Engel's Law to Estimate CPI Bias," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(3), pages 619-630, 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. Diego Comin & Mark Gertler, 2006. "Medium-Term Business Cycles," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(3), pages 523-551, June.
    2. Bruno Tissot & Les Skoczylas, 2005. "Revisiting recent productivity developments across OECD countries," BIS Working Papers 182, Bank for International Settlements.

    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. Faïz Gallouj & Maria Savona, 2009. "Innovation in services: a review of the debate and a research agenda," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 149-172, April.
    2. Robert Gordon, 1995. "Problems in the Measurement and Performance of Service-Sector Productivity in the United States," RBA Annual Conference Volume (Discontinued), in: Palle Andersen & Jacqueline Dwyer & David Gruen (ed.),Productivity and Growth, Reserve Bank of Australia.
    3. Comin Diego A, 2006. "Using Investment Data to Assess the Importance of Price Mismeasurement," The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-42, April.
    4. Oulton, Nicholas, 2004. "A statistical framework for the analysis of productivity and sustainable development," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 19963, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Alexandru-Ioan Stan, 2018. "Computational speed and high-frequency trading profitability: an ecological perspective," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 28(3), pages 381-395, August.
    6. Barry P. Bosworth & Jack E. Triplett, 2007. "The Early 21st Century U.S. Productivity Expansion is Still in Services," International Productivity Monitor, Centre for the Study of Living Standards, vol. 14, pages 3-19, Spring.
    7. Ark, Bart van & Broersma, Lourens & Jong, Gjalt de, 1999. "Innovation in services : overview of data sources and analytical structures," GGDC Research Memorandum 199944, Groningen Growth and Development Centre, University of Groningen.
    8. Stephen D. Oliner & Daniel E. Sichel, 1994. "Computers and Output Growth Revisited: How Big Is the Puzzle?," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 25(2), pages 273-334.
    9. Fred V. Carstensen & William F. Lott & Stan McMillen, 2003. "The Economic Impact of Connecticut's Information Technology Industry," CCEA Studies 2003-02, University of Connecticut, Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis.
    10. Ian Goldin & Pantelis Koutroumpis & François Lafond & Julian Winkler, 2024. "Why Is Productivity Slowing Down?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 62(1), pages 196-268, March.
    11. Maroto-Sánchez, Andrés & Cuadrado-Roura, Juan R., 2009. "Is growth of services an obstacle to productivity growth? A comparative analysis," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 254-265, December.
    12. repec:dgr:rugggd:199944 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Patrick Musso, 2006. "Capital Obsolescence, Growth Accounting and Total Factor Productivity," Revue de l'OFCE, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 97(5), pages 217-233.
    14. Clemens Struck & Adnan Velic, 2017. "To Augment Or Not To Augment? A Conjecture On Asymmetric Technical Change," Trinity Economics Papers tep0117, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    15. repec:dgr:rugggd:199945 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Broersma, Lourens & McGuckin, Robert, 1999. "The Impact of Computers on Productivity in the Trade Sector: Explorations with Dutch Microdata," GGDC Research Memorandum 199945, Groningen Growth and Development Centre, University of Groningen.
    17. Zúniga-González, Carlos Alberto, 2012. "Current expenditure impact on the municipality management productivity of Nicaragua, 2007-2011," Working Papers 140548, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, León (Unan-León), Researching Center for Applied Economics (RCAE).
    18. Sultan, Muyed, 2008. "The Tertiary Sector Is Going to Dominate the World Economy; Should We Worry?," MPRA Paper 14681, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Dinah Maclean, 1997. "Lagging Productivity Growth in the Service Sector: Mismeasurement, Mismanagement or Misinformation?," Staff Working Papers 97-6, Bank of Canada.
    20. Ky‐hyang Yuhn & Seung R. Park, 2010. "Information Technology, Organizational Transformation and Productivity Growth: An Examination of the Brynjolfsson–Hitt Proposition," Asian Economic Journal, East Asian Economic Association, vol. 24(1), pages 87-108, March.
    21. Linnea Polgreen & Pedro Silos, 2008. "Capital-Skill Complementarity and Inequality: A Sensitivity Analysis," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 11(2), pages 302-313, April.
    22. Robert C. Feenstra & Christopher R. Knittel, 2009. "Reassessing the US Quality Adjustment to Computer Prices: The Role of Durability and Changing Software," NBER Chapters, in: Price Index Concepts and Measurement, pages 129-160, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C6 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling
    • D9 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics

    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:nbr:nberwo:10627. 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://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.