What Does It Take to Explain Procyclical Productivity?

Yi Wen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2202/1534-6005.1180
2004-01-01
Contributions in Macroeconomics
Abstract:Labor productivity comoves strongly with output, leads output and em- ployment, and is only weakly correlated with employment at the business- cycle frequency. Procyclical productivity is observed in virtually all coun- tries and industries, and it is observed at both the business-cycle frequency and the seasonal frequency. Such prominent features of economic °uctu- ations present a litmus test for business cycle theory. The conventional explanations for procyclical labor productivity are factor hoarding (labor hoarding and capacity utilization) or increasing returns to scale. Existing equilibrium-business cycle theory explain procyclical labor productivity by technology shocks. The sheer magnitude of excess volatilities in produc- tivity relative to employment seems to defy explanations from increasing returns alone. The technology-shock explanation, on the other hand, comes perilously close to assuming the conclusion. Furthermore, even in periods of pure demand shocks, labor productivity remains procyclical. Applying general equilibrium theory, this paper shows that neither technology shocks nor increasing returns to scale are necessary for understanding procycli- cal productivity. Factor hoarding is su±cient for demand shocks to induce procyclical productivity at both aggregate and disaggregate levels despite constant or even diminishing returns to scale.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?