[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/30620.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Opening the Black Box: Task and Skill Mix and Productivity Dispersion

Author

Listed:
  • G. Jacob Blackwood
  • Cindy Cunningham
  • Matthew Dey
  • Lucia S. Foster
  • Cheryl Grim
  • John C. Haltiwanger
  • Rachel L. Nesbit
  • Sabrina Wulff Pabilonia
  • Jay Stewart
  • Cody Tuttle
  • Zoltan Wolf
Abstract
An important gap in most empirical studies of establishment-level productivity is the limited information about workers’ characteristics and their tasks. Skill-adjusted labor input measures have been shown to be important for aggregate productivity measurement. Moreover, the theoretical literature on differences in production technologies across businesses increasingly emphasizes the task content of production. Our ultimate objective is to open this black box of tasks and skills at the establishment-level by combining establishment-level data on occupations from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) with a restricted-access establishment-level productivity dataset created by the BLS-Census Bureau Collaborative Micro-productivity Project. We take a first step toward this objective by exploring the conceptual, specification, and measurement issues to be confronted. We provide suggestive empirical analysis of the relationship between within-industry dispersion in productivity and tasks and skills. We find that within-industry productivity dispersion is strongly positively related to within-industry task/skill dispersion.

Suggested Citation

  • G. Jacob Blackwood & Cindy Cunningham & Matthew Dey & Lucia S. Foster & Cheryl Grim & John C. Haltiwanger & Rachel L. Nesbit & Sabrina Wulff Pabilonia & Jay Stewart & Cody Tuttle & Zoltan Wolf, 2022. "Opening the Black Box: Task and Skill Mix and Productivity Dispersion," NBER Working Papers 30620, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:30620
    Note: EFG PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w30620.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ryan A. Decker & John Haltiwanger & Ron S. Jarmin & Javier Miranda, 2020. "Changing Business Dynamism and Productivity: Shocks versus Responsiveness," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(12), pages 3952-3990, December.
    2. Jan De Loecker & Pinelopi K. Goldberg & Amit K. Khandelwal & Nina Pavcnik, 2016. "Prices, Markups, and Trade Reform," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 84, pages 445-510, March.
    3. Cindy Cunningham & Sabrina Wulff Pabilonia & Jay Stewart & Lucia Foster & Cheryl Grim & John Haltiwanger & Zoltan Wolf, 2021. "Chaos Before Order: Productivity Patterns in U.S. Manufacturing," International Productivity Monitor, Centre for the Study of Living Standards, vol. 41, pages 138-152, Fall.
    4. Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, 2019. "Automation and New Tasks: How Technology Displaces and Reinstates Labor," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(2), pages 3-30, Spring.
    5. Chad Syverson, 2011. "What Determines Productivity?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 49(2), pages 326-365, June.
    6. Kristin Fairman & Lucia Foster & C.J. Krizan & Ian Rucker, 2008. "An Analysis of Key Differences in Micro Data: Results from the Business List Comparison Project," Working Papers 08-28, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    7. David H. Autor & Frank Levy & Richard J. Murnane, 2003. "The Skill Content of Recent Technological Change: An Empirical Exploration," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(4), pages 1279-1333.
    8. Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, 2020. "Robots and Jobs: Evidence from US Labor Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(6), pages 2188-2244.
    9. Paul Schreyer, 2001. "The OECD Productivity Manual: A Guide to the Measurement of Industry-Level and Aggregate Productivity," International Productivity Monitor, Centre for the Study of Living Standards, vol. 2, pages 37-51, Spring.
    10. Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, 2018. "The Race between Man and Machine: Implications of Technology for Growth, Factor Shares, and Employment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(6), pages 1488-1542, June.
    11. Dunne, Timothy & Haltiwanger, John & Troske, Kenneth R., 1997. "Technology and jobs: secular changes and cyclical dynamics," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 107-178, June.
    12. Lucia Foster & John Haltiwanger & Cody Tuttle, 2022. "Rising Markups or Changing Technology?," Working Papers 22-38, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    13. G. Jacob Blackwood & Lucia S. Foster & Cheryl A. Grim & John Haltiwanger & Zoltan Wolf, 2021. "Macro and Micro Dynamics of Productivity: From Devilish Details to Insights," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(3), pages 142-172, July.
    14. Nikolas Zolas & Zachary Kroff & Erik Brynjolfsson & Kristina McElheran & David Beede & Catherine Buffington & Nathan Goldschlag & Lucia Foster & Emin Dinlersoz, 2020. "Advanced Technologies Adoption and Use by U.S. Firms: Evidence from the Annual Business Survey," Working Papers 20-40, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    15. Devesh R. Raval, 2019. "The micro elasticity of substitution and non‐neutral technology," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 50(1), pages 147-167, March.
    16. Handel, Michael J., 2016. "The O-NET content model: strengths and limitations," Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 49(2), pages 157-176.
    17. David Card & John E. DiNardo, 2002. "Skill-Biased Technological Change and Rising Wage Inequality: Some Problems and Puzzles," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(4), pages 733-783, October.
    18. Handel, Michael J., 2016. "The O-NET content model: strengths and limitations," Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 49(2), pages 157-176.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Heyman, Fredrik & Norbäck, Pehr-Johan & Persson, Lars, 2021. "Automation, Work and Productivity: The Role of Firm Heterogeneity," Working Paper Series 1382, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, revised 09 Mar 2023.
    2. Barth, Erling & Davis, James C. & Freeman, Richard B. & McElheran, Kristina, 2023. "Twisting the demand curve: Digitalization and the older workforce," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 233(2), pages 443-467.
    3. Montobbio, Fabio & Staccioli, Jacopo & Virgillito, Maria Enrica & Vivarelli, Marco, 2022. "Robots and the origin of their labour-saving impact," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    4. Gries, Thomas & Naudé, Wim, 2022. "Modelling artificial intelligence in economics," Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 56, pages 1-12.
    5. Clément Bosquet & Paul Maarek & Elliot Moiteaux, 2021. "Routine-biased technological change and wages by education level: Occupational downgrading and displacement effects," Working Papers hal-03270715, HAL.
    6. David Autor & Caroline Chin & Anna Salomons & Bryan Seegmiller, 2024. "New Frontiers: The Origins and Content of New Work, 1940–2018," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 139(3), pages 1399-1465.
    7. Benjamin Moll & Lukasz Rachel & Pascual Restrepo, 2022. "Uneven Growth: Automation's Impact on Income and Wealth Inequality," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(6), pages 2645-2683, November.
    8. Kostøl, Fredrik B. & Svarstad, Elin, 2023. "Trade Unions and the Process of Technological Change," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    9. Ekaterina Prytkova & Fabien Petit & Deyu Li & Sugat Chaturvedi & Tommaso Ciarli, 2024. "The Employment Impact of Emerging Digital Technologies," CEPEO Working Paper Series 24-01, UCL Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities, revised Feb 2024.
    10. Ebeke, Christian H. & Eklou, Kodjovi M., 2023. "Automation and the employment elasticity of fiscal policy," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    11. Fierro, Luca Eduardo & Caiani, Alessandro & Russo, Alberto, 2022. "Automation, Job Polarisation, and Structural Change," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 499-535.
    12. Zhang, Xinchun & Sun, Murong & Liu, Jianxu & Xu, Aijia, 2024. "The nexus between industrial robot and employment in China: The effects of technology substitution and technology creation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    13. Xueyuan Gao & Hua Feng, 2023. "AI-Driven Productivity Gains: Artificial Intelligence and Firm Productivity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-21, June.
    14. Dosi, G. & Pereira, M.C. & Roventini, A. & Virgillito, M.E., 2022. "Technological paradigms, labour creation and destruction in a multi-sector agent-based model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    15. Luca Grilli & Sergio Mariotti & Riccardo Marzano, 2024. "Artificial intelligence and shapeshifting capitalism," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 303-318, April.
    16. Du, Longzheng & Lin, Weifen, 2022. "Does the application of industrial robots overcome the Solow paradox? Evidence from China," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    17. Krenz, Astrid & Strulik, Holger, 2022. "Automation and the Fall and Rise of the Servant Economy," VfS Annual Conference 2022 (Basel): Big Data in Economics 264034, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    18. Sergio De Nardis & Francesca Parente, 2022. "Technology and task changes in the major EU countries," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 40(2), pages 391-413, April.
    19. Niu, Meng & Wang, Zhenguo & Zhang, Yabin, 2022. "How information and communication technology drives (routine and non-routine) jobs: Structural path and decomposition analysis for China," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1).
    20. Chigusa Okamoto, 2019. "The effect of automation levels on US interstate migration," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 63(3), pages 519-539, December.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • E23 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Consumption, Saving, Production, Employment, and Investment - - - Production
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:30620. 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.