<b>Research Commentary</b>—Using Income Accounting as the Theoretical Basis for Measuring IT Productivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We use the under-recognized income accounting identity to provide an important theoretical basis for using the Cobb-Douglas production function in IT productivity analyses. Within the income accounting identity we partition capital into non-IT and IT capital and analytically derive an accounting identity (AI)-based Cobb-Douglas form that both nests the three-input Cobb-Douglas and provides additional terms based on wage rates and rates of return to non-IT and IT capital. To empirically confirm the theoretical derivation, we use a specially constructed data set from a subset of the U.S. manufacturing industry that involve elaborate calculations of rates of return—a data set that is infeasible to obtain for most productivity studies—to estimate the standard Cobb-Douglas and our AI-based form. We find that estimates from our AI-based form correspond with those of the Cobb-Douglas, and our AI-based form has significantly greater explanatory power. In addition, empirical estimation of both forms is relatively robust to the assumption of intertemporally stable input shares required to derive the AI-based form, although there may be limits. Thus, in the context of future research the Cobb-Douglas form and its application in IT productivity work have a theoretically and empirically supported basis in the accounting identity. A poor fit to data or unexpected coefficient estimates suggests problems with data quality or intertemporally unstable input shares. Our work also shows how some returns to IT that do not show up in output elasticities can be found in total factor productivity (TFP)—the novel ways inputs are combined to produce output. The critical insight for future research is that many unobservables that have been considered part of TFP can be manifested in rates of return to IT capital, non-IT capital, and labor—rates of return that are separated from TFP in our AI-based form. Finally, finding that the additional rates of return terms partially explain TFP confirms the need for future IT productivity researchers to incorporate time-varying TFP in their models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.014 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".