Industry Level Supplier-Driven IT Spillovers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We model and estimate the effects to downstream productivity from information technology (IT) investments made upstream. Specifically, we examine how an industry’s productivity is affected by the IT capital stock of its suppliers. These supplier-driven IT spillovers occur because, due to competition in the supplying industry, quality benefits from suppliers’ IT investments can pass downstream. If the output deflators of supplying industries (consequently the intermediate input deflator of the using industries) do not capture the quality improvement from IT, then the output productivity of the supplying industries is mismeasured or misassigned. We develop and empirically test a model capturing these supplier-driven effects using data on 85 manufacturing industries at the three-digit SIC code level. We find that for a 10.5% increase in suppliers’ IT capital, the suppliers’ output increases by 0.63%–0.70%, which is more than covering the cost of the increase in suppliers’ IT capital. In addition, this increase in suppliers’ IT capital increases the average downstream industry’s output by $66–$72 million, thereby confirming substantial supplier-driven IT spillovers downstream. We also infer the magnitude of the measurement error of the price deflator of the intermediate input resulting from the failure to account for IT-related quality improvement, finding that the measured price deflator overestimates the true deflator by approximately 30% at the mean level of IT capital.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 it