Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Residual: On Monitoring and Benchmarking Firms, Industries, and Economies with Respect to Productivity

  • Published:
Journal of Productivity Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Productivity is an important component of profitability, and therefore an important variable for monitoring and benchmarking exercises. This survey discusses the basic accounting model as well as the various measurement problems one gets involved in. By virtue of its structural features, this model is applicable to individual firms and aggregates such as industries or economies.Though the measurement of productivity change and productivity differences is important, still more important is their explanation. Thus, first, this article reviews recent results relating to the decomposition of aggregate productivity change into components due to firm dynamics and intra-firm productivity change, results which were obtained by studying longitudinal enterprise microdata sets. Second, this article reviews a number of methods for decomposing productivity change and productivity differences, whether at the individual firm level or at aggregate level, into partial measures relating to technological change and efficiency change. The combination of both research strategies seems to be a promising undertaking.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abramowitz, M. (1956). “Resource and Output Trends in the U.S. since 1870.” The American Economic Review 46, 5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahn, S. (2001). “Firm Dynamics and Productivity Growth: A Review of Micro Evidence from OECD Countries.'' Working Paper No. 297, Economics Department, OECD, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldaz, N. and J. A. Millaá (2003). ''Intermediate Inputs and Manufacturing Sectors Growth in the Spanish Regions.'' Journal of Regional Science, forthcoming.

  • Balk, B. M. (1995). ''Axiomatic Price Index Theory: A Survey.'' International Statistical Review 63, 69–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balk, B. M. (1997).''The Decomposition of Cost Efficiency and the Canonical Form of Cost Function and Cost Share Equations.” Economics Letters 55, 45–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balk, B. M. (1998). Industrial Price, Quantity, and Productivity Indices: The Micro-Economic Theory and an Application.Boston/Dordrecht/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balk, B. M. (2001a). ''Scale Efficiency and Productivity Change.'' Journal of Productivity Analysis 15, 159– 183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balk, B. M. (2001b). ''Aggregation Methods in International Comparisons: What Have We Learned?'' Report Series Research in Management, Erasmus Research Institute of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam.

  • Balk, B. M., R. Färe and S. Grosskopf. (2001). ''The Theory of Economic Price and Quantity Indicators.'' Mimeo, Methods and Informatics Department, Statistics Netherlands, Voorburg.

  • Balk, B. M. and G. van Leeuwen. (1999).''Parametric Estimation of Technical and Allocative Efficiencies and Productivity Changes: A Case Study.'' In S. Biffignandi (ed.) Micro-and Macrodata of Firms: Statistical Analysis and International Comparison, Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baily, M., C. Hulten and D. Campbell. (1992). ''Productivity Dynamics in Manufacturing Plants.'' Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics 2, 187–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartelsman, E. J. and M. Doms. (2000). ''Understanding Productivity: Lessons from Longitudinal Microdata.'' Journal of Economic Literature XXXVIII, 569–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basu, S. and J. G. Fernald. (2002). ''Aggregate Productivity and Aggregate Technology.'' European Economic Review 46, 963–991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennet, T. L. (1920). ''The Theory of Measurement of Changes in Cost of Living.'' Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 83, 455–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berndt, E. R. (1991). The Practice of Econometrics, Classic and Contemporary. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berndt, E. R. and N. J. Rappaport. (2001). “Price and Quality of Desktop and Mobile Personal Computers: A Quarter-Century Historical Overview.'' American Economic Association Papers and Proceedings, The American Economic Review 91, 268–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blank, J. L. T. (ed.) (2000). Public Provision and Performance. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boskin, M. J., E. R. Dulberger, R. J. Gordon, Z. Griliches, and D.W. Jorgenson. (1996). ''Toward a More Accurate Measure of the Cost of Living.'' Final Report to the [U.S.] Senate Finance Committee from the Advisory Commission To Study The Consumer Price Index.

  • Brynjolfsson, E. and L. M. Hitt. (2000). ''Beyond Computation: Information Technology, Organizational Transformation and Business Performance.'' Journal of Economic Perspectives 14(4), 23–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantner, U. and H. Hanusch.(2001). ''Heterogeneity and Evolutionary Change: Empirical Conception, Findings and Unresolved Issues.'' In J. Foster and J. S. Metcalfe (eds), Frontiers of Evolutionary Economics. Cheltenham, U.K./Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caves, D. W., L. R. Christensen and W.E. Diewert.(1982). ''The Economic Theory of Index Numbers and the Measurement of Input, Output, and Productivity.'' Econometrica 50, 1393–1414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coelli, T. J. (1996). ''A Guide to FRONTIER Version 4.1: A Computer Program for Stochastic Frontier Production and Cost Function Estimation.'' CEPA Working Papers No. 7/96, Centre for Efficiency and Productivity Analysis, School of Economics, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia.

  • Cooper, W. W., L.M. Seiford and K. Tone. (1999). Data Envelopment Analysis: A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software.Boston/Dordrecht/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copeland, M. A. (1937). ''Concepts of National Income.'' In Studies in Income and Wealth, Volume 1. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietzenbacher, E. and B. Los. (1998). ''Structural Decomposition Techniques: Sense and Sensitivity." Economic Systems Research 10, 307–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diewert, W. E. (1982). ''Duality Approaches to Microeconomic Theory.'' In K. J. Arrow and M. D. Intriligator (eds.). Handbook of Mathematical Economics, Volume II, Amsterdam: North-Holland. Also in W. E. Diewert and A. O. Nakamura, Essays in Index Number Theory, Volume 1, (eds.). Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diewert, W. E. (1992). ''Fisher Ideal Output, Input, and Productivity Indexes Revisited.'' The Journal of Productivity Analysis 3, 211–248. Also in W. E. Diewert and A. O. Nakamura (eds.), Essays in Index Number Theory, Volume 1.Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diewert, W. E. (1998). ''Index Number Theory using Differences rather than Ratios.'' Discussion Paper No.98–10, Department of Economics, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diewert, W. E. (2000). ''The Challenge of Total Factor Productivity Measurement.'' International Productivity Monitor 1, 45–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diewert, W. E. (2001a). ''Research in Price Measurement for the Next Twenty Years.'' Discussion Paper No.01–11, Department of Economics, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diewert, W. E. (2001b). ''Measuring the Price and Quantity of Capital Services under Alternative Assumptions.'' Discussion Paper No. 01–24, Department of Economics, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diewert, W. E. (2001c). ''Notes on the Role of Government: To Facilitate Growth or to Provide Services?'' Mimeo, Department of Economics, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diewert, W. E. and A. M. Smith. (1994). ''Productivity Measurement for a Distribution Firm.'' Journal of Productivity Analysis 5, 335–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diewert, W. E. and T. J. Wales. (1987). ''Flexible Functional Forms and Global Curvature Conditions.'' Econometrica 55, 43–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diewert, W. E. and T. J. Wales. (1988). ''A Normalized Quadratic Semiflexible Functional Form.'' Journal of Econometrics 37, 327–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diewert, W. E. and T. J. Wales. (1992). ''Quadratic Spline Models for Producer's Supply and Demand Functions.'' International Economic Review 33, 705–722.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domar, E. D. (1961). ''On the Measurement of Technological Change.'' The Economic Journal LXXI, 709–729.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eichhorn, W. and J. Voeller. (1976). Theory of the Price Index.Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems 140, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurostat. (2001). Handbook on Price and Volume Measures in National Accounts. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European ommunities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Färe, R., S. Grosskopf and C. A. K. Lovell. (1994). Production Frontiers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Färe, R. and D. Primont. (1995). Multi-Output Production and Duality: Theory and Applications.Boston/London/Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Fox, K. J. (2002). ''Problems with (Dis)Aggregating Productivity, and Another Productivity Paradox.'' Draft, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales, Sydney.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuentes, H. J., E. Grifell-Tatjé and S. Perelman. (2001). ''A Parametric Distance Function Approach for Malmquist Productivity Index Estimation.'' Journal of Productivity Analysis 15, 79–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrigosa, E. G. and E. Grifell-Tatjé. (1992). ''Profits and Total Factor Productivity: A Comparative Analysis.'' Omega International Journal of Management Science 20, 553–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1996). ''The Discovery of the Residual: A Historical Note.'' Journal of Economic Literature XXXIV, 1324–1330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (2001). R&D, Education, and Productivity: A Retrospective.Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. and H. Regev. (1995). ''Firm Productivity in Israeli Industry, 1979–1988.'' Journal of Econometrics 65, 175–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosskopf, S. (2002). ''Some Remarks on Productivity and its Decompositions.'' Mimeo. Department of Economics, Oregon State University, Corvallis OR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosskopf, S. and C. Moutray. (2001). ''Evaluat ing Performance in Chicago Public High Schools in the Wake of Decentralization.'' Economics of Education Review 20, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haltiwanger, J. (1997). ''Measur ing and Analyzing Aggregate Fluctuations: The Importance of Building from Microeconomic Evidence.'' Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Economic Review 79(3), 55–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haltiwanger, J. (2000). ''Aggregate Growth: What have we Learned from Microeconomic Evidence?'' Working Paper No.267, Economics Department, OECD, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J. J. (2001). ''Micro Data, Heterogeneity, and the Evaluation of Public Policy: Nobel Lecture.'' Journal of Political Economy 109, 673–748.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulten, C. R. (1978). ''Growth Accounting with Intermediate Inputs.'' Review of Economic Studies 45, 511–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulten, C. R.(1990). ''The Measurement of Capital.'' In E.R. Berndt and J. E. Triplett (eds.), Fifty Years of Economic Measurement, Studies in Income and Wealth Volume 54. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulten, C. R. (2001). ''Total Factor Productivity: A Short Biography.'' In C.R. Hulten, E.R. Dean and M.J. Harper (eds.), New Developments in Productivity Analysis, Studies in Income and Wealth Volume 63. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgenson, D. W. (1980). ''Accounting for Capital.'' In G. von Furstenberg (ed.) Capital, Efficiency and Growth, Cambridge UK: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgenson, D. W. (2001). ''Information Technology and the U.S. Economy.'' The American Economic Review 91, 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgenson, D. W. and Z. Griliches. (1967). ''The Explanation of Productivity Change.'' Review of Economic Studies 34, 249–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumbhakar, S. C. and C. A. K. Lovell. (2000). Stochastic Frontier Analysis. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, R. G. and K. Carlaw. (2000).'' What does Total Factor Productivity Measure?'' International Productivity Monitor 1, 31–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzen, G. (1990). ''Konsistent Addierbare Relative Änderungen.'' Allgemeines Statistisches Archiv 74, 336–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovell, C. A. K. (2000). ''Measuring Efficiency in the Public Sector.'' In J. L. T. Blank (ed.). Public Provision and Performance. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovell, C. A. K. (2001). ''The Decomposition of Malmquist Productivity Indexes.'' Mimeo, Department of Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuckin, R. H. (1995). ''Establishment Microdata for Economic Research and Policy Analysis: Looking Beyond the Aggregates.'' Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 13, 121–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuckin, R. H. and B. van Ark. (2001). Performance 2000: Productivity, Employment, and Income in the World's Economies. New York: The Conference Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. M. (1984). ''Profitability = Productivity+ Price Recovery.'' Harvard Business Review 62, 145– 153.

    Google Scholar 

  • New South Wales Treasury. (1999). ''Profit Composition Analysis: A Technique for Linking Productivity Measurement & Financial Performance.'' Research & Information Paper TRP 99–5, Office of Financial Management, NSW Treasury, Sydney.

  • OECD. (2001a). Measuring Productivity: Measurement of Aggregate and Industry-Level Productivity Growth. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2001b). ''Chapter VII. Productivity and Firm Dynamics: Evidence from Microdata.'' OECD Economic Outlook No.69.

  • Schreyer, P. (2000). ''Separability, Path-Dependence and Value-Added Based Productivity Measures: An Attempt of Clarification.'' Mimeo, National Accounts Division, OECD, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreyer, P. and D. Pilat. (2001). ''Measuring Productivity.'' OECD Economic Studies No.33, 127–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solow, R. M. (1957). ''Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function.'' Review of Economics and Statistics 39, 312–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, G. (1947). Trends in Output and Employment. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen, J. (1942). ''Zur Theorie der Langfristigen Wirtschaftsentwicklung.'' Weltwirtschafliches Archiv 55, 511–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Törnqvist, L., P. Vartia and Y. O. Vartia. (1985). ''How Should Relative Changes Be Measured?'' The American Statistician 39, 43–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triplett, J. E. (1990). ''Hedonic Methods in Statistical Agencies: An Intellectual Biopsy.'' In E.R. Berndt and J.E. Triplett (eds.), Fifty Years of Economic Measurement, Studies in Income and Wealth Volume 54.Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dalen, J. and B. Bode. (2002). ''Quality-Corrected Price Indices: The Case of the Dutch New Passenger Car Market, 1990–1999.'' Mimeo, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam.

  • Woolford, K., editor. (2001). Papers and Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the International Working Group on Price Indices. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zofio, J. L. (2001). ''Malmquist Productivity Index Decompositions: A Unifying Framework.'' Mimeo, Departamento de Análisis Económico, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Cantoblanco, 28049 Madrid, Spain.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Erasmus Research Institute of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Methods and Informatics Department, Statistics Netherlands, P.O. Box 4000, 2270 JM, Voorburg, The Netherlands

    Bert M. Balk

Authors
  1. Bert M. Balk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Balk, B.M. The Residual: On Monitoring and Benchmarking Firms, Industries, and Economies with Respect to Productivity. Journal of Productivity Analysis 20, 5–47 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024817024364

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024817024364

Keywords

Search

Navigation