Raw Materials, Profits, and the Productivity Slowdown: Some Doubts
Raw Materials, Profits, and the Productivity Slowdown: Some Doubts
复制标题
原材料、利润和生产率放缓：一些疑虑
DOI：
10.2307/1884647
复制
发表时间：
1986
影响因子：
13.7
通讯作者：
David B Grubb
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
David B Grubb
Bruno [1984]认为，在给定的资本和劳动力投入水平下，物质投入的下降可以解释大多数经合组织国家在1973年之后首次出现的生产率增长的测量下降。这篇评论提出以下问题：1。可用的产出统计数据是否显示总产出下降，正如生产率放缓的材料假说解释所要求的那样？或者，它们是否显示了真实的增加值（定义为总产出减去物质投入）的下降，这表明“技术进步”的下降？“我的结论是，材料假说不能解释用GDP数据衡量的生产率增长的福尔斯下降，但可以解释用制造业生产指数衡量的每年0.5%的下降。2.发生了哪些材料价格和数量变动？为了分离出所有经合组织国家共同的外生材料价格成分，并排除能源成本，我研究了美国的能源价格。N.发达国家进口基本商品价格指数。就进口国的成本而言，真实的原材料价格的上涨远远小于石油价格的上涨，到1970年代后期，真实的工业材料价格回落到1960年代的水平。虽然没有材料投入量的一般指数，但材料的主要组成部分之一金属的数据表明，自1970年代初以来，相对于产出和早期趋势，这种投入每年下降约2%。因此，直接评估测量偏差以及材料投入价格和数量的统计数据表明，材料投入的替代不能解释生产率增长的大部分下降。
Bruno [1984] argues that a fall in material input, for given levels of capital and labor input, can explain a measured fall in productivity growth which in most OECD countries first appeared after 1973. This comment asks the following: 1. Do the available output statistics show a fall in gross output, as the materials hypothesis explanation of the productivity slowdown requires? Or do they show a fall in real value added, defined as gross output less material input, which indicates a fall in "technical progress?" I conclude that the materials hypothesis cannot explain falls in productivity growth measured using GDP data, but could explain partperhaps 0.5 percent per annumof the fall measured using the index of manufacturing production. 2. What materials price and quantity movements have occurred? To isolate the component of material prices that is exogenous, common to all OECD countries, and excludes energy costs, I look at the U. N. price index for basic commodities imported by developed countries. The rise in real raw material prices was much smaller in terms of its cost to importing countries than the oil price rise, and by the late 1970s real industrial materials prices had fallen back to the levels of the 1960s. While a general index of material input quantities is not available, data for metals, one major component of materials, suggest that this input has fallen by about 2 percent per annum since the early 1970s relative to output and to earlier trends. So statistics which directly evaluate measurement biases, and material input prices and quantities, suggest that substitution away from material inputs cannot explain much of the fall in productivity growth.