US Productivity Growth 1995-2000
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
US Productivity Growth 1995-2000 Understanding the contribution of Information Technology relative to other factors McKinsey Global Institute With assistance from our Advisory Committee B. Solow, chairman, B. Bosworth, T. Hall, J. Triplett Washington, DC October 2001 This report is copyrighted by McKinsey & Company, Inc.; no part of it may be circulated, quoted, or reproduced for distribution without prior written approval from McKinsey & Company, Inc.. McKinsey Global Institute The McKinsey Global Institute was established in 1990 as an independent research group within McKinsey & Company, Inc. to conduct original research on important global issues. Its primary purpose is to develop insights into global economic issues and reach a better understanding of the workings of the global economy for the benefit of McKinsey clients and consultants. From time to time the Institute issues public reports. These reports are issued at the discretion of the Institute’s Director and its McKinsey Advisory Board, when they conclude that the Institute’s international perspective and its ability to access McKinsey’s knowledge of industry economics enable it to provide a valuable fact base to policy debates. The McKinsey Advisory Board is made up of McKinsey partners from Europe, the Pacific Basin and the Americas. The staff for the Institute are drawn primarily from McKinsey’s consultants who serve 6-12 month assignments and then return to client work. The Institute also commissions leading academics to participate in its research. The Institute’s Director is William Lewis, a McKinsey partner. The Institute is located in Washington, D.C. Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1: OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH CHAPTER 2: SYNTHESIS CHAPTER 3: PROSPECTIVE SCENARIOS CHAPTER 4: SECTOR CASE STUDIES Retail trade Wholesale trade Semiconductor manufacturing Computer manufacturing Telecommunications services Securities Retail banking Hotels APPENDIX: Measurement appendix Glossary of terms used Preface This report is the product of a year-long project by the McKinsey Global Institute, working in collaboration with McKinsey’s High Tech practice and San Francisco office. The objective of the project was to determine what caused the sudden increase in the rate of growth of labor productivity in the United States after 1995. McKinsey undertook this project as an important step towards developing our understanding of how the global economy works. The dramatic improvement in economic performance in the United States in 1995 embodied two main elements. The first was the unusual combination of extremely low levels of unemployment and low inflation. The second was the sharp increase in the rate of growth of labor productivity. These were the fundamental factors that led to the claim that the United States had a “New Economy.” The first element is being addressed in particular by Robert Solow and Alan Krueger in a project for the Russell Sage Foundation. The results of this project will be released in early 2002. Our objective was to understand the second element: what caused the increase in the labor productivity growth rate and would it be sustainable. In particular, we wanted to understand the contribution of information technology relative to other factors. We have evaluated the sustainability of the increased productivity growth rate in the context of a possible near-term recession in the U.S. This project differs from the projects conducted by the McKinsey Global Institute during the past ten years. The previous projects addressed the reasons for differences in productivity levels across the major economies of the world.1 The objective of this project was to understand the reasons for a change in the growth 1 Service Sector Productivity, McKinsey Global Institute, Washington, D.C., October 1992; Manufacturing Productivity, McKinsey Global Institute, Washington, D.C., October 1993; Employment Performance, McKinsey Global Institute, Washington, D.C., November 1994; Capital Productivity, McKinsey Global Institute, Washington, D.C., June 1996. Sweden’s Economic Performance, McKinsey Global Institute, Stockholm, September 1995; Australia’s Economic Performance, McKinsey/Australia and McKinsey Global Institute, Sydney, November 1995; Removing Barriers to Growth in France and Germany, McKinsey Global Institute, March 1997; Boosting Dutch Economic Performance, McKinsey Global Institute and Max Geldens Foundation for Societal Renewal, September 1997; Productivity-The Key to an Accelerated Development Path for Brazil, McKinsey Brazil Office and McKinsey Global Institute, Sao Paulo, Washington, March 1998; Productivity-led Growth for Korea, McKinsey Seoul Office and McKinsey Global Institute, Seoul, Washington, March 1998; Driving Productivity and Growth in the U.K. Economy, McKinsey London Office and McKinsey Global Institute, October 1998; Unlocking Economic Growth in Russia, McKinsey Global Institute, October 1999; Poland’s Economic Performance, McKinsey Global Institute, March 2000; Why the Japanese Economy is not Growing: micro barriers to Productivity Growth, McKinsey Global Institute, July 2000; India: The growth imperative; Understanding the Barriers to Rapid Growth and Employment Creation, McKinsey Global Institute, September 2001. rate of labor productivity within one country. Given the inconclusive nature of traditional economic approaches to analysis of this issue, we thought that our unique microeconomic approach using sector case studies might be successful in resolving this issue. This report consists of an executive summary, eleven chapters and an appendix. The first three chapters, Objectives and Approach, Synthesis, and Prospective scenarios provide an overview of our methods and our conclusions. They can be read as a stand-alone summary of our work. The following eight chapters provide our case studies on retail trade, wholesale trade, semiconductor manufacturing, computer manufacturing, telecommunications services, securities, retail banking, and hotels. Each of these cases has a brief summary in the beginning. A core group of ten consultants from McKinsey’s Global Institute, High Tech practice, and Los Angeles, San Francisco and Silicon Valley offices made up the working team for this project. The consultants, with the sections of the report to which they contributed, were: Angelique Augereau (wholesale, synthesis, and objectives and approach); Mike Cho (computer manufacturing, synthesis, and objectives and approach); Brad Johnson (retail); Brent Neiman (semiconductors and holdings measurement); Gabriela Olazabal (retail banking); Matt Sandler (software measurement); Sandra Schrauf (synthesis); Kevin Stange (hotels, prospective scenarios, and automotive measurement); Andrew Tilton (telecommunications and prospective scenarios); and Eric Xin (securities). Leslie Hill Jenkins and Cindy Neil provided administrative assistance to the team. Baudouin Regout and Allen Webb were responsible for day-to-day management of the project. This project was conducted under the direction of Mike Nevens, Lenny Mendonca, Vincent Palmade, and myself, with assistance from Greg Hughes and James Manyika. In carrying out the work we were fortunate to have an external advisory committee. The committee members were Robert Solow – MIT, chairman; Barry Bosworth, Brookings Institution; Ted Hall, retired McKinsey partner; and Jack Triplett, Brookings Institution. The working team had four all-day meetings with the advisory committee to periodically review progress during the course of the project and benefited from many written comments and individual discussions. McKinsey remains solely responsible for the content of this report. Throughout the project we also benefited from the unique worldwide perspective and knowledge that McKinsey consultants brought to bear on the industries researched for our case studies. Their knowledge was a product of intensive work with clients and a deep investment in understanding industry structure and behavior to support client work. McKinsey sector leaders provided valuable input to our case studies and reviewed our results. McKinsey’s research and information department provided invaluable information insight while working under trying deadlines. Tim Beacom, in particular, was involved with this effort from start to finish. Finally, we could not have undertaken this work without the information we received from numerous interviews with corporations, industry associations, government officials, and others. In particular, the Bureau for Economic Analysis at the US Department of Commerce, the Bureau of Labor Statistics at the US Department of Labor, the Census Department and the US Internal Revenue Service were especially helpful. We thank all those who gave of their time and help. Before concluding, I’d like to emphasize that this work is independent and has not been commissioned or sponsored in any way by any business, government, or other institution. Bill Lewis Director of the McKinsey Global Institute October 2001 Executive Summary The terrorist attacks of September 11 sent shock waves throughout the US economy, putting the debate about the “new economy” on hold and shifting the focus to a looming recession. While we cannot predict how consumer and business demand will evolve, we do have some good news. Our year-long research shows that many of the product, service, and process innovations underlying the US productivity improvement that began in 1995 will continue to generate productivity growth above the long-term, 1972-95 trend. However,