Download Analyzing US Economy: Multifactor Productivity & Input Growth and more Exams Statistics in PDF only on Docsity! 1 Toward a BEA-BLS Integrated Industry-level Production Account for 1947-2016 Lucy P. Eldridge, Corby Garner, Thomas F. Howells, Brian C. Moyer, Matthew Russell, Jon D. Samuels, Erich H. Strassner and David B. Wasshausen 1 Lucy P. Eldridge is the Associate Commissioner of the Office of Productivity and Technology at the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Corby Garner is a Supervisory Economist within the Office of Productivity and Technology at the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Thomas F. Howells III is the Associate Director for Industry Economic Accounts at the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Brian C. Moyer is the Director of the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Matt Russell is a Division Chief within the Office of Productivity and Technology at the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Jon D. Samuels is a Research Economist at the Bureau of Economic Analysis and an Associate of the Institute of Quantitative Social Science at Harvard University. Erich H. Strassner is the Associate Director for National Economic Accounts at the Bureau of Economic Analysis. David B. Wasshausen is the Division Chief for the National Income and Wealth Accounts at the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Abstract This paper presents new collaborative research work by the BEA and BLS toward an account that covers 1947 to 2016, the entire time span of the GDP by Industry accounts. The prototype estimates that we have constructed reveal that for the past decade and a half, relatively slow input growth (in capital and labor services) has curtailed U.S. economic growth, even relative to the long slump between 1973 and 1995. The low contribution of capital input was concentrated in the Finance, insurance, real estate, rental and leasing and Manufacturing sectors, while the low contribution from labor was spread more equally across sectors. Keywords: Industry multifactor productivity, industry sources of economic growth, integrated production account, aggregate economic growth, U.S. total factor productivity. I. Introduction For students of economic growth, it is important to have complete information on outputs, inputs and productivity across all sectors of the economy. Since 2012, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) have maintained a complete integrated industry-level production account for the U.S. that combines output and intermediate inputs data from the BEA GDP by Industry accounts with measures of labor and capital inputs from the BLS Productivity Program. Although agencies throughout the decentralized U.S. statistical system have always worked closely together, this was an innovative effort for BEA and BLS to produce a joint product. The internally‐consistent production account includes a complete set of prices and quantities of output produced and inputs consumed by U.S. industries, as well as measures of multifactor productivity (MFP), also referred to as total factor productivity. Because GDP and 1 The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis or the Bureau of Labor Statistics. We have written this paper in honor of Dale Jorgenson, whose seminal work on KLEMS measurement has inspired this paper, and whose research agenda on economic measurement and engagement with the U.S. statistical agencies has been an invaluable resource. We are grateful to Matt Calby, Justin Harper, Eugene Njinkeu, and Ethan Schein of BEA and Kendra Asher, Corey Holman, Mike Jadoo, and Randal Kinoshita of BLS for their work on the estimates presented in this paper. 2 aggregate productivity data begin in 1929 and 1947 respectively, there has been a growing demand to have consistent industry-level data that also span this period. This paper navigates numerous hurdles to extend the BEA/BLS integrated industry-level production accounts over seven decades, from 1947 to 2016. Dale W. Jorgenson and J. Steven Landefeld (2006) identified an integration of the nation’s national accounts and productivity statistics as a high priority of their “new architecture” for the U.S. national accounts.2 One of the main applications of integrated GDP and productivity statistics is to provide “growth accounting” that is consistent with official GDP accounts. Growth accounting attributes economic growth to its underlying sources across industries and factors of production, including capital, labor, and multifactor productivity. Recently, growth accounting has been applied to identify the role of information technology (as a contributor to aggregate MFP and as a capital input) in economic growth, measure the role of the upgrading of the labor force on economic growth, understand the sources of the slow recovery in the U.S., and for cross country comparisons of why economic growth rates differ. Therefore, having integrated and official statistics is of utmost importance. In response to customer demand, BEA and BLS developed a conceptual framework for creating an integrated production account in 2006.3 In 2008, BEA and BLS presented a prototype integrated production account for the private nonfarm business sector that included a reconciliation of the BEA and BLS estimates.4 The initial focus on the private nonfarm sector was an effort to be consistent with the existing official measures of multifactor productivity produced by BLS. The real output of government, private households, and nonprofit institutions were removed from the output and input sides of the account because direct measures of output are generally not available for these nonmarket sectors.5 Including nonmarket sectors tends to dampen estimates of aggregate productivity growth because often productivity growth for these sectors is imposed to be zero by construction. Thus, the official multifactor productivity data for the U.S. focus on the private business sector, which constitutes about 74 percent of GDP. Although the initial prototype for the BEA/BLS integrated industry-level production account covered the private nonfarm business sector, the ultimate goal was to have a complete accounting of the entire U.S. economy.6 Therefore, the BEA/BLS integrated industry-level production account that was released in 2012 covered the entire economy and included data for 63 industries.7 The completeness of this account allows users to identify sources of growth in output, factor inputs, and productivity at the aggregate level, highlight the performance of individual industries, and identify industry contributions to aggregate output and productivity 2 This built upon Christensen et al. (1973) research that proposed a set of accounts that incorporate indices of input volume by sector, and Jorgenson et al. (1987) research that extended the accounting system to measures of output by industry. 3 See Fraumeni et al. (2006) outlined differences in source data and methods that required resolution for a successful account. 4 See Harper, et al. (2008). 5 Direct measures of output for government enterprises are available, however subsidies account for a large fraction of government capital income, making it is difficult to estimate reliable measures of capital for the government sector. Capital measures for nonprofit institutions and government are estimated following methodology outlined in Harper et al (2008). 6 This initial prototype also did not include estimates of labor composition at the industry level. 7 See Fleck et al. (2014). 5 industry level intermediate input price and quantity. Because the BEA industry accounts have more detailed underlying information than the published Use Tables, we are able to take advantage of this data to make refined assignments to E, M, or S. In the account we present here, our E, M, S assignment for the 1947-1997 period is related to the method used for 1997 forward in the official GDP by Industry accounts. In the official accounts for 1997 forward, E, M, S assignments are made using the underlying Use Table at the “working level.” The working level of detail for tables beginning in 1997 includes about 5,000 goods and services and about 800 industries. At this level of detail, it is possible to directly assign each cell in the use matrix to an E, M, S category (that is, for each detailed commodity and each industry) . For 1947-1997, “working level” information is not available, and only information at the “summary level” is available. The “summary level” includes a Use Table on the order of about 63 commodities and 63 industries. The methodology that we use in this paper for 1947-1996 allows us to deviate from the assumption that the entire cell of the Use Table published at the summary level gets allocated to a single E, M, or S category. In particular, we assign Use Table cells between 1947 and 1996 using cell-specific E, M, and S ratios at the summary level (but based on “working level”) table in 1997. To be clear, we are not using industry-level E, M, S ratios in 1997 and bringing these all the way back in time to 1947. We are assuming that within a particular cell of the use table, the same E, M, S ratio holds in 1947 as in 1997. For example, suppose that the working level table in 1997 allows us to estimate that at the summary level 90% of the Oil and gas extraction commodity purchased by the Farm industry was Energy and 10% was Services (like installation services). In our historical data between 1947 and 1997, we assume that this same 90%-10% split applies to purchases of Oil and gas by the Farm industry. We reproduce this methodology for every cell in the Use Table, allowing us to improve on the assumption that 100% of the Oil and gas by the Farm industry is an Energy purchase, and ensuring consistency with the data from 1997 forward that underlies the official EMS estimates in the GDP by Industry accounts.11 An alternative way to gain intuition for our approach is that we basically assign each cell in the 1947-1996 Use Table to an E, M, S category, just as in Jorgenson et al. and just as we do at the “working level” in the 1997-2016. But, then we further divide the cells to allow a portion of each cell to be reapportioned as in the 1997 detailed data. While we think that this is an improvement over previous studies that assigned each cell of the use table at the summary level in its entirety to an E, M, S category, we do note that this assumes that within each cell of the summary-level use table, there was no structural change across E, M, and S categories between 1947 and 1996. Of course, our method does capture structural change in energy, materials, and services across cells in the use table. For example, if the Farm industry has a higher cost share of Oil and gas in 1947 than in 1997, the overall energy share in Farms would be higher in 1947 than in 1997, assuming similar structures for the other intermediate inputs. In summary, this dataset provides the estimates of gross output, and intermediate inputs in current and constant dollars, including energy, materials, and purchased services that we use to implement equation (EQN 11.1). 11 We apply the same price deflator to E, M, and S at the cell level, ensuring that our E, M, and S splits do not impact the GDP by Industry estimates via double deflation. 6 We note that the framework described in equation (EQN 11.1) is based on the concept of industry gross output that underlies BEA’s GDP by Industry accounts. The official BLS MFP measures are based on the concept of sectoral output. Sectoral output is equal to gross output less only those intermediate inputs that are produced within that industry or sector; intermediate inputs used in production from outside the industry are not removed. Thus, sectoral output represents the value of output leaving the sector or industry. For detailed industries, sectoral output is very close to gross output because very few industry outputs are used as intermediate inputs in the same industry. IV. Labor Input The measure of labor input that we use accounts for both the change in hours worked by industry, as well as the change in the composition of industry workers. Measuring labor composition is important because an improvement in the composition of the workforce, for example due to a higher level of educational attainment, represents movement along the production function, not a shift in the production function. If labor composition was not accounted for in the measure of labor input, the contribution of MFP would be confounded with contributions from changes in the characteristics of the workforce. The BLS productivity program regularly publishes measures of hours worked and labor composition for NIPA level industries from 1987 forward.12 The next two subsections divide the discussion of labor input into hours worked and labor composition. Hours Worked Measures of hours worked are developed by the BLS primarily using data on employment and average weekly hours from the BLS Current Employment Statistics (CES) program and supplemented with data from the Current Populations survey (CPS) and the National Compensation Survey (NCS).13 Hours worked for employees are calculated as the product of employment and average weekly hours paid and adjusted to remove paid leave using an adjustment ratio of hours worked to hours paid. We want to capture the total hours actually worked and available for production activities. Hours worked for the self-employed are estimated directly from the CPS. The earliest hours series for sub-aggregates of the economy published by BLS begin in 1964 and cover 13 economic sectors.14 The data become more detailed in 1979 when wholesale trade, retail trade, transportation and warehousing and utilities are available as individual industry groups. Complete 4-digit NAICS industry coverage begins in 1990. To estimate the historical series of hours worked for employees, components of employment and an adjustment ratio of hours worked to hours paid are created separately. The CES began collecting data on employment for all workers and hours for production workers in 1947 with the primary interest in understanding the goods-producing economy. Therefore, 12 https://www.bls.gov/mfp/ Accessed December 1, 2018. 13 BLS Handbook of Methods: Industry Productivity Measures, https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/inp/pdf/inp.pdf Accessed December 1, 2018. 14 Natural resources, construction, durable and nondurable manufacturing, transportation, trade and utilities, information, financial activities, professional business services, education and health, leisure and hospitality, other services, and government. See nonfarm hours in table “U.S. Nonfarm Economy by Sector - employees only” and farm data in “Total U.S. Economy - all workers” at bls.gov/lpc 7 employment and hours data beginning in 1947 only cover durable and nondurable manufacturing, mining, construction, the aggregate service sector, and a few select industries. Coverage of employment expanded in 1958, and additional hours became available in 1964. CES employment data for most 3-digit SIC sub-sectors begin in 1972 with continual expansion in service-producing industries through 1990. To fill in the industry gaps in earlier years, data for the first available year that an industry is published is used to determine an industry’s size relative to its next larger available parent sector and this share is held constant going back in time.15 To estimate hours a similar approach is taken, using the available production worker hours and assuming that nonproduction and production workers work similar average weekly hours in a given industry.16 The historical CES hours-paid data by industry are converted to an hours worked basis using adjustment ratios for 14 major industry group available from the BLS productivity program beginning with data for 1947.17 The CPS are the primary data to estimate hours worked for self-employed workers, and are used beginning in 1979.18 Prior to 1979, data are available for a more aggregate set of 10 SIC sectors back to 1947. To create the more detailed industry data it is assumed that the distribution of self- employed workers within each sector is similar to the all employee distribution of workers. These data are scaled to be consistent with more aggregate measures currently published. The data on hours for both employees and self-employed are converted from SIC 1987 to NAICS 2002 using SIC to NAICS CES conversion ratios then converted where necessary using CES NAICS 2002 to NAICS 2007 conversion ratios. The BEA National Income and Product Accounts contain NAICS industry employment and hours data for some industries back to 1947, with the level of industry detail improving over time. We convert these data to NAICS 2007, using the CES bridge ratios as well as NAICS 1997 to NAICS 2002 conversion ratios from the Economic Census Core Business Statistics. For consistency with output measures from BEA, the BLS data are scaled to these NIPA measures. Labor Composition Measures of hours worked treat every hour the same regardless of the worker’s experience and education. Labor composition measures account for the effect of shifts in the age, education, and gender composition of the work force on the efficacy of labor for use in production. Growth in labor input in the production framework can be decomposed into the growth in hours and the 15 This is a limiting assumption as industries may not have existed or could be expanding so that their historic importance is overstated. However, this is the only data available. This is done for total number of employees, production workers, and production worker hours 16 Measures of hours for nonproduction workers for 1987 forward use data from the CPS to more accurately capture hours worked. See Eldridge et al. (2004). 17 Data for 1996 forward use hours worked to hours paid ratios based on the Employment Cost Index (ECI) of the National Compensation Survey. See https://www.bls.gov/lpc/lprhws/lprhwhp.pdf Accessed December 1, 2018. Hours worked to hours paid adjustments use data from the BLS Hours at Work survey for 1982-1996 and data on leave practices that were collected from Employer Expenditure surveys. These surveys begin in 1952 and were conducted periodically and only covered major industry groups 18 Respondents are assigned to a class of worker based on their primary job from 1979-1993; class of worker is collected for primary and secondary jobs beginning in 1994. Data for 1987 are published by industry the BLS productivity program; Data from 1979 – 1987 are controlled to published BEA estimates. 10 this dataset as well. The BLS has also constructed labor composition measures from 1976-2016 using the monthly CPS data and BEA/BLS will work toward incorporating these measures into this integrated account in the future. V. Capital inputs Capital services data are from the multifactor productivity statistics produced by the BLS. The estimate of capital services are produced by first estimating the productive capital stock and then estimating the rental price of capital. The productive capital stock is measured as the sum of past investments net of deterioration and are constructed by BLS as vintage aggregates of real historical investments by U.S. industries using the perpetual inventory method (Fleck et al. 2014). Economic theory dictates aggregating the different capital stocks of assets by using the marginal product of each asset to estimate industry capital input measures. A profit-maximizing firm will accumulate capital up to the point at which its marginal product equals what it would have to pay to obtain the capital service. However, due to firms owning their capital, there is not a clear way to measure these marginal products from observable transactions. Thus, an implicit rental price, or user cost of capital, must be calculated for each asset within an industry. Vintage aggregation provides a mechanism to combine the value of various types and vintages of capital stocks over time into a single capital service measure using capital rental prices as weights. Since some capital assets, such as railroad structures, can last up to 90 years, these vintage aggregations require a sizable amount of investment data over an extended period of time. With the previous release of the BEA/BLS integrated production account, historical vintages of real investment data needed to be made to compute capital service measures by industry. This investment data go back as far as the BEA fixed asset data- 1901 and a measure of productive capital stocks were generated for each of the roughly 100 assets in the capital service measure (Fleck et al. 2014). Because of the need to account for all previous investments, historical stocks covering 1947–2016 for equipment, structures and intangibles had previously been computed for past releases of the integrated BEA/BLS accounts. However, since inventory and land estimates are non-depreciable, vintage aggregation was not required to estimate those asset pieces. Hence, the historical stocks of inventories and land were not readily available from our previous iterations of the BEA/BLS integrated account. Stocks for these assets for 1947-1986 were estimated for the first time for this paper, as are 1947-1986 estimates of capital services for federal and state and local governments. Estimating Inventory Stocks Inventories consist of finished goods, work-in-process, and materials and services. They are the stock of goods held in reserve that are intended to be sold (finished goods) or transformed int o finished goods (work-in-process or materials and supplies). Stock of inventories are considered to provide capital services because they represent both an input into the production process and an opportunity cost to the firm. Industry market value of inventories is reported annually in the BEA National Income and Product Accounts. This data is used to calculate capital stocks directly, because inventories are considered to be non-depreciable assets and thus vintage aggregation is not necessary. 11 Data on industry investment in inventories is provided quarterly in the BEA National Income and Product Accounts. For all NIPA manufacturing industries, data is available by stage of processing (finished goods, work-in-process and materials and supplies) starting in 1996. For nonmanufacturing industries, quarterly total inventories is available at the aggregate levels of Farm, Mining-Utilities-Construction, Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade, Retail Trade and All Other sectors. For currently published measures, BLS annualizes the quarterly BEA data, using converted SIC 1987-1996 data to create a full 1987-2016 time series. BLS then uses inventory investment data for each industry from the IRS to break out the aggregate nonmanufacturing sectors to the NIPA industry detail. The differences between the SIC 1972 and 1987 classifications for Farm, Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade, Retail Trade and “All Other” aggregate sectors is negligible. Therefore, the quarterly inventory series were linked together using the latest definition on a level basis to obtain a series for 1947-1986. A three step process to convert these data to a NAICS 2007 basis was used. Historical SIC data was converted to a NAICS 1997 basis by moving a piece out of manufacturing and into the “Other” sector to better align with the NAICS 1997 treatment of auxiliaries in the NAICS definition. The NAICS 1997-based inventory data for Farm, Mining-Utilities-Construction, Wholesale Trade, Retail Trade and All Other sectors were linked to the BLS 1987-2016 time series. This rudimentary assumption holds that at the aggregate sector, the differences introduced by the 2002 NAICS were not significantly different from the 1997 NAICS definition at this level of detail. The final step is to break out the aggregate sector data to the NIPA industry detailed level for the nonmanufacturing industries. For the 1947-1986 period, BLS used the 1997 ratios of IRS industry inventory investment for each year to distribute the detailed industries from the aggregate. For industries within the manufacturing sector, we were able to take advantage of historical SIC inventory investment by stage of processing that is available for 1967-1986. To complete the time series, manufacturing total inventories for 1947-1966 were distributed by using the share of finished goods, work-in-process, and materials and supplies to total manufacturing in 1967. BLS then converted this SIC data to NAICS and linked it to its previous 1987-2016 estimates. Estimating Land Stocks As with inventories, land is not considered to have efficiency decline and thus vintage aggregation of the land stocks was not necessary for previous versions of the integrated account. For all nonfarm industries, land is estimated by applying a land-structure ratio based on unpublished estimates by the BLS to the value of structures. These ratios are based on data from 2001 for all counties in Ohio. Farm land stock is based on data from the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and is available for 1960-forward. For 1947-1959, the change in farm land value from 1961-1960 is applied. Historical Capital Rental Prices Capital rental prices equal the price of an asset multiplied by the sum of the rate of depreciation and the appropriate rate of return on the asset, accounting for both inflation and taxes. Because 12 rental prices are computed separately for each asset category × industry combination, they have significant data requirements. Income components from BEA’s GDP-by-Industry data play an integral role in calculating the rental price for each of the 63 industries. With the release of the historical Input Output Tables, BEA published a time series of GDP by Industry data for all 63 industries back to 1947 on a NAICS 2007-basis. Additionally, the major components of value added were published beginning in 1987. Some of the underlying estimates of these data are also published on a NAICS-2007 basis starting in 1998.20 Of the 18 income pieces needed for the rental price computation, 13 are available in BEA’s Historical SIC GDP-by-Industry dataset on a SIC 1972 basis. BLS converted these data to a NAICS 2007-basis to ensure that the data going into the BEA/BLS integrated production account would be consistent. The process for estimating these data is a four step process similar to that of the earlier work accomplished by the BEA in recoding their SIC National Income and Product Account data back to 1947.21 First, each detailed income component from the GDP-by-Industry data was converted to a NAICS 1997-basis by using the variable SIC 1972 to NAICS 1997 bridge previously used by BEA to convert the Input Output tables to a NAICS 1997 basis. This bridge was first used to publish NAICS-based GDP-by-Industry data that were released in December of 2005 and this bridge serves as the beginning point for the Integrated BEA/BLS production account value added conversion to a NAICS basis.22 This work provided annual conversion ratios for 1978-1986 but due to limited data availability these ratios are held fixed prior to 1978. Future work will hope to add more information from which to pick up a bridge reflecting the changing industry dynamic s from the 1947-1978 period. Second, the NAICS 1997-based data were then converted to NAICS 2002 using historical data used in previous conversions by the BEA to move estimates to a more current NAICS definition during a comprehensive revision. These bridge ratios were provided to BLS to keep the consistency of the income conversions with the other statistics that BEA had already transitioned. BLS currently uses historical NAICS 2002-based data to create a complete time series of the GDP by Industry income components not published prior to 1998. This NAICS 2002-based data is converted to NAICS 2007 by using conversion ratios based off of the rate of change in the NAICS 2002 to NAICS 2007-based gross operating surplus for each industry for 1987-1997. The historical 1947-1986 GOS data, were linked to the 2002 basis using the overlapping 1987 (NAICS 1997) and 1987(NAICS 2002) gross operating surplus data. We linked that series onto the NAICS 2007 based GOS published estimates in 1998. After initial conversion of the pieces of value added from 1947-1986 the fourth and final step of the process was to scale the value added components, GOS, employee compensation, and taxes on production and imports to ensure consistency with value added so that each sub component 20 BEA chose not to convert the major components of value-added prior to 1987 due to limited SIC data in the 1947- 1986 period and data validity concerns. See Yuskavage, (2007). 21 See Garner et al. (2018). 22 See Yuskavage, Robert E and Mahnaz Fahim-Nader (2005). 15 1947 and 1963, State and local government, Health care and social assistance, and Other transportation equipment had the largest labor contributions to industry output growth. Tables 11.3 and 11.4 present new information on the sources of intermediate input growth across industries. As noted above, this information is new because previously published estimates of intermediate input included the total, while those used in this account include breakdowns on energy, materials, and services. Between 1963 and 2016, the largest users of energy intermediate (measured as the contribution of energy to gross output growth) were Air transportation, Truck transportation, Water transportation, and Utilities industries. The largest users of materials inputs were the Computers and electronic products industry (likely from constant quality semiconductor inputs), Motor vehicles, bodies and trailers, and parts, and Other transportation equipment. The Data processing, internet publishing, and other information services, Securities, commodity contracts, and investments, Funds, trusts, and other financial vehicles, and Administrative and support services industries made extensive use of intermediate inputs of services. Obviously, this data is extremely useful for analyzing production processes across industries. INSERT TABLE 11.3 HERE INSERT TABLE 11.4 HERE Because the tabulations from this account are based on preliminary data, we have chosen to present only the high level results as a proof of concept. Future data development and research will permit a more fundamental analysis on the sources of growth across industries. VIII. The Sector Origins of Economic Growth In this section, we describe the sector origins of economic growth using the dataset described above and aggregating over industries. Before moving on to the results, we describe our framework for aggregating across industries. The starting is production possibility frontier model of production described in Jorgenson, Ho, Samuels, and Stiroh (2007). (EQN 11.4) ∆𝑙𝑛𝑉 = ∑ 𝛾𝑗∆𝑙𝑛𝑉𝑗 𝑗 Equation ( EQN 11.4) says that aggregate value added growth, lnV , in year t is the share weighted growth in industry level real value added growth, ln jV , where the weights are the average of period t and t-1 shares of each industry’s nominal value added in aggregate nominal value added. Because value added growth is not directly measured, we use the growth accounting identity that the growth of gross output (Qj) equals the weighted growth of intermediate inputs, (which itself is an aggregate of the energy, material, and service inputs from industry j, and value added (Vj) to back out the growth rate of value added. Rearranging equation (EQN 11.5), which is the growth accounting relationship between gross output, intermediate inputs, and value added, yields equation (EQN 11.6): (EQN 11.5) ∆𝑙𝑛𝑄𝑗 = 𝑤𝑣𝑗∆𝑙𝑛𝑉𝑗 + 𝑤𝐸𝑗∆𝑙𝑛𝐸𝑗 + 𝑤𝑀𝑗∆𝑙𝑛𝑀𝑗 + 𝑤𝑆𝑗∆𝑙𝑛𝑆𝑗 16 where the weights are the average of period t and t-1 shares of value added and intermediate input factors in nominal gross output. (EQN 11.6) ∆𝑙𝑛𝑉𝑗 = ∆𝑙𝑛𝑄𝑗− 𝑤𝐸𝑗∆𝑙𝑛𝐸𝑗− 𝑤𝑀𝑗∆𝑙𝑛𝑀𝑗− 𝑤𝑆𝑗∆𝑙𝑛𝑆𝑗 𝑤𝑣𝑗 Combining equations (EQN 11.1), and (EQN 11.6) cancels the intermediate inputs of E, M, S such that (EQN 11.7) ∆𝑙𝑛𝑉𝑗 = 𝑤𝐾𝑗𝑡 ∆𝑙𝑛𝐾𝑗𝑡 +𝑤𝐿𝑗𝑡 ∆𝑙𝑛𝐿𝑗𝑡+∆𝑙𝑛𝑀𝐹𝑃𝑗 𝑤𝑣𝑗 Combining equations (EQN 11.4) and (EQN 11.7) yields the bottom up growth accounting that we use to present results: (EQN 11.8) ∆𝑙𝑛𝑉 = ∑ 𝛾𝑗𝑗 𝑤𝑘,𝑗 𝑤𝑉,𝑗 ∆𝑙𝑛𝐾𝑗 + ∑ 𝛾𝑗 𝑤𝐿,𝑗 𝑤𝑉,𝑗 ∆𝑙𝑛𝐿𝑗𝑗 + ∑ 𝛾𝑗 1 𝑤𝑉,𝑗 ∆𝑙𝑛𝑀𝐹𝑃𝑗𝑗 Equation (EQN 11.8) is the direct aggregation approach to analyzing the sources of growth. That is, we define ∑ 𝛾𝑗 𝑊𝐾,𝑗 𝑊𝑉,𝑗 ∆𝑙𝑛𝐾𝑗 as the aggregate contribution of capital to aggregate value added growth. Similarly, ∑ 𝛾𝑗 1 𝑊𝑉 ,𝑗 ∆𝑙𝑛𝑀𝐹𝑃𝑗 is the contribution of industry j to aggregate value added growth in addition to also being the industry contribution to aggregate MFP growth, where the weights are typically referred to in the literature as “Domar weights.” Table 11.5 presents the bottom up sources of U.S. economic growth for the period as a whole and for major sub-periods. Between 1947 and 2016, GDP grew by slightly more than 3 percentage points per year based on the integrated account. Of this, capital input accumulation accounted for about half of GDP growth, labor input accounted for a bit more than a quarter, and MFP growth a bit less than a quarter of growth. The data that we have described above allows us to decompose the contributions of capital input by type of capital input, and the contribution of labor input by type of worker. Over the period as a whole, Information technology equipment capital accounted for about 15 percent of the total capital input contribution, Research and development capital about 10 percent, and Other capital about seventy percent.24 INSERT TABLE 11.5 HERE 24 IT Equipment includes Computers and Communications equipment. Other capital includes structures, land, and other durable equipment. 17 The fastest growth sub-period that we consider was the decade between1963-1973, but across all sub-periods (even the Information technology boom between 1995 and 2000), the contribution of MFP growth never exceeded 35 percent of GDP growth. One important use of this data and framework is to put the post 2000 growth period in historical perspective. Our results show that growth during the period that includes the ongoing recovery from the financial crisis and the jobless growth period in the early 2000s was slow even in comparison to the slow growth period between 1973 and 1995 that preceded the IT investment boom. On average MFP during the 2000-2016 period was actually higher than MFP growth during the 1973-1995 period, putting the current MFP slowdown in historical perspective. Of the approximately 1.10 percentage point difference in GDP growth between the 2000-2016 period and the 1973-1995 period, capital and labor input both contributed about 0.6 points less during the 2000-2016 period than during the 1973-1995 period, highlighting the importance of slow input growth over the last sixteen years. Tables 11.6 and 11.7 present information on U.S. economic growth from the bottom-up at the major sector level.25 Table 11.6 includes information that was previously available from BEA’s GDP by Industry accounts, while Table 11.7 includes new information on the sources of growth. Starting with Table 11.6, the Manufacturing sector was the largest contributor to growth over the period as a whole; the next largest contributors were the Finance, insurance, real estate, rental and leasing, Other services, and the Trade sectors. It is also instructive to compare the sector sources of the slow growth period after 2000 with the slow growth period between 1973 and 1995. While the slowdown was broad based across sectors, the slowdown in the Manufacturing and Trade sectors accounted from more than half of the slowdown in 2000-2016 relative to 1973-1995. INSERT TABLE 11.6 HERE INSERT TABLE 11.7 HERE The transformation of the economy from Agricultural and Manufacturing toward services is evident in the bottom panel of Table 11.6. In the 1947-1963 period, these two sectors accounted about a third of nominal GDP. In the 2007-2016 period, these sectors accounted for less than fifteen percent of nominal GDP. The bottom-up sources of growth are given in Table 11.7. As noted earlier, the accumulation of capital input accounted for the majority of economic growth between 1947 and 2016. The largest contributor at the sector level was Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing, which includes owner occupied housing. The Manufacturing sector also made significant capital investments over the period. The key advantage of the sources of growth framework is that it quantifies the impact of these investments on economic growth in a way that is integrated with the national accounts. While the aggregate results presented in Table 11.5 indicate that a major source of the relatively slow growth in 2000-2016 was the slowdown in the contribution of capital input, Table 11.7 shows the sector origins of this. Of the approximately 0.60 percentage point slowdown in the contribution of capital input, more than half of this was accounted for by 25 Sector level information is created by aggregating contributions described in equation (6) to the reported sector level.