Prácticas generacionales para corregir e incentivar a los hijos

Labor productivity has experienced two surges in the United States, one around 1995 and the other post 2000. In contrast, Germany experienced two successive pro- ductivity reductions in the same time periods. We employ industry-level data from the ifo industry growth accounting database (Röhn et al., 2007) to analyze the

sources of Germany’s productivity demise. We compare our results to the US per- formance to identify the drivers of Germany’s departure from the technology fron- tier.

The disaggregation to the 52 industry-level allows us to identify clear but dis- tinct sources of the two German productivity declines. The post 1995 slowdown was characterized by a surge in productivity gains in the ICT-Intensive industries, espe- cially in the ICT-Producing industries. The origin of this productivity surge was the substitution of investment from Non-ICT-capital to ICT-capital. Compared to the US, however, German productivity gains in these ICT-Intensive industries were small (particularly Trade, Finance and ICT-manufacturing). Our estimates identify that the source of the weak productivity gains rests in the lackluster performance of German ICT-Using industries. Ultimately the productivity gains in ICT-Intensive industries were too small to offset large productivity reductions in Non-ICT indus- tries.

The sources of the second productivity slowdown were different. The positive impact of ICT-Intensive industries vanished after 2000, as these industries’ ICT capi- tal deepening and TFP growth decelerated significantly. Non-ICT productivity never recovered, however. We can only surmise that ICT diffusion was significantly smaller in Germany than in the US. The resurgence of Non-ICT capital deepening was too small to prevent a second aggregate productivity decline.

Comparing the sources of the second productivity decline in Germany post 2000 to the first post 1995, we make two especially worrisome observations. First, the number of industries experiencing negative TFP growth increased dramatically after 2000. 28 out of 52 industries accounting for almost 50 percent of aggregate value added showed negative total factor productivity growth. Second, a larger num- ber of German industries was responsible for the prolonged divergence in US versus German productivity. During the first productivity divergence post 1995, 22 indus- tries contributed to the divergence while this number increased to 27 industries post 2000.

Appendix Chapter 3

Table 3.A1: Value-Added Share and ALP, TFP Contributions by Industry

ALP Contributions TFP Contributions

Industry VA share

2003 1991-

1995 1995-2000 2000-2003 1991-1995 1995-2000 2000-2003 Communications a) 2.1 0.19 0.18 0.15 0.05 0.13 0.11 Computer & Related Services a) 1.6 -0.01 0.03 -0.01 -0.03 0.00 -0.05

Instruments a) 0.9 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00

Radio, TV & Comm. Equipment a) 0.5 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.05

Office Machinery & Computers a) 0.2 0.04 0.09 0.06 0.02 0.09 0.06 Health, Social Work b) 7.2 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.14 0.11 0.13

Wholesale Trade b) 4.8 0.12 0.22 0.23 0.05 0.16 0.18 Construction b) 4.3 -0.10 0.00 0.08 -0.13 -0.01 0.07 Retail Trade b) 4.2 0.00 0.05 0.03 -0.05 0.02 0.01 Financial Intermediation b) 3.5 0.06 0.18 0.04 0.01 0.12 -0.01 Machinery b) 3.3 0.15 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.04 -0.02 Motor Vehicles d) 3.3 0.05 -0.09 0.23 0.00 -0.10 0.18

Sale, Repair Motor vehicles b) 1.8 -0.04 0.01 0.06 -0.06 0.00 0.05

Rental. Leasing Services b) 1.9 0.03 0.05 0.00 -0.05 -0.03 -0.08 Rec., Cultural, & Sports Activities b) 1.9 -0.01 0.02 -0.04 -0.04 0.00 -0.07 Electrical Apparatus n.e.c. b) 1.6 0.04 0.08 -0.03 0.00 0.06 -0.05

Other Services b) 1.4 0.02 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 -0.02 -0.02

Rubber, Plastic b) 1.1 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 Publishing, Printing b) 1.0 0.01 0.05 -0.04 -0.01 0.03 -0.06 Organizations, n.e.cb) 0.9 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 Insurance b) 0.8 0.04 -0.08 -0.19 0.02 -0.09 -0.20

Other Transport Equipment b) 0.5 -0.01 0.05 0.03 -0.02 0.05 0.02

Aux. Fin. & Ins. Intermediation b) 0.5 -0.01 -0.02 0.00 -0.02 -0.02 0.00 Research & Development b) 0.4 0.01 0.02 -0.02 0.01 0.02 -0.02 Water Transport b) 0.2 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.02 Recycling b) 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Real Estate c) 11.7 0.00 -0.07 0.51 0.17 -0.03 0.14 Other Business Services e) 8.8 -0.10 -0.39 -0.13 -0.09 -0.45 -0.17 Pub. Admin., Defense, Soc. Security c) 6.2 0.20 0.11 0.03 0.09 0.02 -0.05

Education c) 4.6 0.01 0.02 -0.09 -0.01 0.00 -0.11

Chemicals c) 2.3 0.18 0.11 0.10 0.13 0.07 0.08

Fabricated Metal Products c) 2.0 0.02 0.07 0.01 -0.01 0.05 0.00 Food, Tobacco c) 2.0 -0.02 0.01 -0.04 -0.06 0.02 -0.04 Electricity, Gas c) 1.7 0.09 0.17 0.03 0.01 0.09 0.01 Hotels, Restaurants c) 1.6 -0.03 -0.01 -0.03 -0.04 -0.01 -0.04

Land Transport c) 1.5 0.11 0.02 -0.06 0.06 -0.02 -0.08

Auxiliary Transport Activities c) 1.5 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing c) 1.1 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.03 Basic Metals c) 0.9 0.09 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.02

Non-Metallic Mineral Products c) 0.7 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.01

Sewage & Refuse Disposal c) 0.6 -0.03 -0.03 -0.02 -0.07 -0.07 -0.04

Furniture & Misc. Manufacturing c) 0.5 -0.01 0.02 -0.01 -0.03 0.01 -0.02 Paper, Pulp c) 0.5 0.00 0.03 0.00 -0.01 0.02 -0.01 Wood Products c) 0.4 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00

Textiles c) 0.3 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00

Coke, Petroleum, Nuclear Fuels c) 0.3 -0.06 -0.02 -0.01 -0.07 -0.02 0.00

Water Supply c) 0.3 0.01 0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 Air Transport c) 0.3 0.04 0.02 -0.02 0.03 0.01 -0.03 Energy Mining & Quarrying c) 0.1 0.04 -0.02 -0.01 0.02 -0.02 -0.01

Mining & Quarrying, exc. Energy c) 0.1 0.02 0.00 -0.01 0.01 0.00 -0.01

Apparel c) 0.1 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Leather c) 0.0 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

a) ICT-Producing Industry, b) ICT-Using Industry 1995 and 2000, c) Non-ICT-Intensive Industry d) ICT-Using Industry in 1995, e) ICT- Using Industry in 2000. Notes: Average annual percentages. ALP contributions are labor productivity growth rates multiplied by average value added shares. Contributions of TFP are industry TFP growth rates multiplied by industry output share in aggregate value added (Domar-weight). ICT-Using are Non-ICT-Producing industries whose ICT capital share exceeds the median. ICT-Producing industries are defined according to DeStatis (2006).

References Chapter 3

Bailey, M. N. and R. Z. Lawrence (2001), “Do we have a New E-conomy?,” Ameri- can Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 91, 308-312.

Bell, L. and R. B. Freeman (2001), “The Incentive For Working Hard: Explaining Hours Worked Differences In The US And Germany,” Labor Economics, 8,

181-202.

Blanchard, O. (2004), “Euroland's secret success story,” Goldman Sachs Global Economics Paper No. 102.

Colecchia, A. and P. Schreyer (2002), “ICT Investment and Economic Growth in the 1990s: Is the United States a Unique Case?: A Comparative Study of Nine OECD Countries,” Review of Economic Dynamics, 5, 408-442.

German Statistical Office (2006), “Informations-Technologie in Unternehmen und Haushalten 2005,” press release, Wiesbaden.

Harberger, A. C. (1998), “A Vision of the Growth Process,” American Economic Review, 88, 1-32.

Hermann, M. and A. Müller (1997), “Schätzung immaterieller Anlageinvestitionen in der Volkswirtschaft,” ifo Studien zur Strukturforschung, 26, ifo Institut, Mün-

chen.

Inklaar, R., M. O’Mahony and M. P. Timmer (2005), “ICT and Europe’s Productiv- ity Performance; Industry-level Growth Account Comparisons with the United States,” Review of Income and Wealth, 51, 505-536.

Jorgenson, D. W. and K. J. Stiroh (2000), “Raising the Speed Limit: US Economic Growth in the Information Age,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1,

125-211.

Jorgenson, D. W., M. S. Ho and K. J. Stiroh (2005a), “Growth of US Industries and Investments in Information Technology and Higher Education,” in Carol Cor- rado, John Haltiwanger and Daniel Sichel (eds.), Measuring Capital in the New Economy, University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Jorgenson, D. W., M. S. Ho and K. J. Stiroh (2005b), “Information Technology and the American Growth Resurgence,” MIT Press, Cambridge.

Jorgenson, D. W., M. S. Ho and K. J. Stiroh (2006), “The Sources of the Second Surge of US Productivity and Implications for the Future,” mimeo Federal Re- serve Bank of New York.

Jorgenson, D. W., M. S. Ho, J. Samuels, and K. J. Stiroh (2006), “Industry Origins of the American Productivity Resurgence,” downloadable at:

http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/jorgenson/papers/IndustryOriginsA merProdResurg_081706.pdf

Jorgenson, D. W., F. M. Gallop and B. M. Fraumeni (1987), “Productivity and US Economic Growth,” Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Oliner, S. D. and D. E. Sichel (2000), “The Resurgence of Growth in the Late 1990s: Is Information Technology the Story?,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14,

3-22.

O’Mahony, M. and B. van Ark (2003), “EU Productivity and Competitiveness: An Industry Perspective, Can Europe Resume the Catching-up Process?,” Euro- pean Union.

Röhn, O., T. S. Eicher and T. Strobel (2007), “German Industry Growth Accounting Database,” Cesifo Working Paper1915.

Schreyer, P. (2002), “Computer Price Indices and International Growth and Produc- tivity Comparisons,” Review of Income and Wealth, 48, 15-31.

Schwerdt, G. and J. Turunen (2007), “Growth in Euro Area Labor Quality,” forth- coming Review of Income and Wealth.

Stiroh, K. J. (2002), “Information Technology and the US Productivity Revival: What Do the Industry Data Say?,” American Economic Review, 92, 1559-1576.

Stiroh, K. J. (2006), “The Industry Origins of the Second Surge of US Productivity Growth,” mimeo. Federal Reserve Bank of New York,

Stiroh, K. and M. Botsch (2007), “Information Technology and Productivity Growth in the 2000s,” German Economic Review, 8, 255-280.

Timmer, M., G. Ypma and B. van Ark (2003), “IT in the European Union: Driving Productivity Divergence?,” Groningen Growth and Development Center Work- ing Paper GD-67.

Triplett, J. E. and B. P. Bosworth (2004), “Productivity in the US Services Sector: New Sources of Economic Growth,” Brookings Institution Press.

Van Ark, B. and R. Inklaar (2005), “Catching up or Getting Stuck? Europe’s Trou- bles to Exploit ICT’s Productivity Potential,” Groningen Growth and Devel- opment Center Working Paper GD-79.

Van Ark, B. and R. Inklaar (2003), “ICT Production and Use in Germany, Japan and the United States: A Comparison of Manufacturing and Services,” in I. Hopp- ner (ed.), Prospects for Core Industries in Japan and Germany, Japanese-

Van Ark, B, R. Inklaar and R. H. McGuckin (2003a), “ICT and Productivity in Europe and the United States: Where Do the Differences Come From?,” CE- Sifo Economic Studies, 49, 295-318.

Van Ark, B, R Inklaar and R H. McGuckin (2003b), “The Contribution of ICT- Producing and ICT-Using Industries to Productivity Growth: A Comparison of Canada, Europe and the United States,” International Productivity Monitor, 6,

Eidesstattliche Versicherung

Ich versichere hiermit eidesstattlich, dass ich die vorliegende Arbeit selbstständig und ohne fremde Hilfe verfasst habe. Die aus fremden Quellen direkt oder indirekt übernommenen Gedanken sowie mir gegebene Anregungen sind als solche kenntlich gemacht. Die Arbeit wurde bisher keiner anderen Prüfungsbehörde vorgelegt und auch noch nicht veröffentlicht.

München, 24. Februar 2008

Curriculum Vitae

October 2004 – February 2008

Ph.D. Student at the University of Munich and Junior Researcher at the Ifo Institute for Economic Research

April 2007 – June 2007

Visiting Scholar

University of Washington, Seattle October 1998 –

February 2004

Diploma in Economics

Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster September 2001 –

July 2002 Visiting Graduate Student in Economics University of Washington, Seattle 1997 Abitur _{Altes Gymnasium Oldenburg, Oldenburg} 04. 11. 1977 Born in Oldenburg, Germany