The Jobless Recovery : Does it Signal a New Era of Productivity-Led Growth?

By far the most widely noted and puzzling aspect of the current economic recovery is its failure to create jobs. While payroll employment in seven previous recessions increased a full 7 percent in the first twenty-three months following the NBER business cycle trough, such employment increased by only 0.8 percent - just over one-tenth as much - from March 1991 to March 1993. Part of the explanation of negligible job growth lies in the recovery's relatively slow pace of output growth, which has been little more than one-third the usual postwar pace. The remaining part of the job puzzle stems from the ebullient performance of productivity - that is, output per hour in the nonfarm business sector - which registered a growth rate of 3.2 percent in the four quarters ending in 1992:4, the most rapid rate recorded in any similar period for more than sixteen years. The share of output growth accounted for by productivity growth in the current recovery is 112 percent, far exceeding the 47 percent average of the previous postwar recoveries at the same stage. For any given pace of output growth, more rapid productivity growth by definition implies less rapid growth in labor input. This suggests that the recent revival in productivity growth may be the key to understanding the puzzling absence of job creation in the recovery. Productivity-led growth is nothing but good news. In the two decades ending in mid-1992, the nonfarm business sector registered an average annual productivity growth rate of less than 1 percent: 0.85 percent, to be exact. Imagine the benefits to the economy if the recent good news on productivity were to imply, as some have suggested, a doubling in productivity growth to a rate of 1.7 percent over the next decade. For any given path of labor input, nonfarm private business output in the year 2003 would be almost 9 percent larger - some $450 billion more - allowing that much more private and/or public spending. Productivity-led growth does not imply a jobless recovery in anything but the shortest run. Instead, any beneficial shock to productivity growth sets the stage for lower inflation that enables policy makers to stimulate output growth sufficiently to create the same number of jobs that would have occurred in the absence of the shock. If the jobless character of the 1991-93 recovery indeed has been caused by a benign productivity shock, then its jobless character implies that there has been too little stimulus to output growth, not that a productivity surge must necessarily rob the nation of jobs