The R&D Puzzle in U.S. Manufacturing Productiveness Development

Danial Lashkari and Jeremy Pearce

In a earlier put up, we supplied proof for a broad-based slowdown in productiveness progress throughout industries and companies within the U.S. manufacturing sector beginning in 2010. Since companies’ funding in analysis and growth (R&D) for brand new applied sciences constitutes a central driver of productiveness progress, on this put up we ask if the noticed slowdown in productiveness could also be attributable to a decline in R&D. We discover that “R&D depth” has been growing at each the agency and {industry} degree, whilst productiveness progress declines. This factors to a decline within the effectiveness of R&D in producing productiveness progress in U.S. manufacturing.

The Sources of Productiveness Development

We develop two measures of R&D depth in U.S. manufacturing. The first measure is the ratio of R&D expenditure to gross output. The second measure is the ratio of actual R&D expenditure per employee hour, which deflates R&D expenditure by the wages of expert staff within the U.S. We use these measures within the combination information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and Bureau of Financial Evaluation (BEA), and on the agency degree by leveraging information on public companies from Compustat/CRSP. The chart beneath plots R&D depth measures from the BEA/BLS from 1987-2022.

Rising Mixture R&D Depth in Manufacturing

Sources: Authors’ calculations primarily based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Productiveness Accounts and the Bureau of Financial Evaluation (BEA) Non-public Non-Residential Funding Accounts.
Notes: The chart reveals the reported R&D expenditure as a share of gross output (left panel) and deflated R&D expenditure per employee hour within the {industry} (proper panel). It calculates R&D depth in every {industry} on the NAICS three-digit degree and computes the mixture depth via the share of every {industry} in complete employment in manufacturing, as outlined by BLS labor hours. R&D per employee hour is deflated by the wages of expert staff. The preliminary values are normalized to be equal to 100 in 1987.

We discover that R&D expenditure has been rising relative to output and to hours labored. The rise in R&D depth has been ongoing since 1987, with some proof of a slowdown in its progress when in comparison with total employment within the sector.

Another measure of nationwide R&D expenditure by the Nationwide Science Basis, which incorporates government-funded R&D, additionally finds growing combination R&D expenditure as a share of complete output from 1987-2022.

The truth that R&D depth has been growing whereas productiveness is flat means that the power of R&D to spice up productiveness progress has been declining. In the remainder of this put up, we present that this decline within the effectivity of R&D seems broadly throughout companies and sectors.

We begin by dividing the “chief” and “follower” industries by their productiveness progress within the 1987-2007 interval, taking the highest 4 industries as main industries and the remainder as following. We carry out the identical evaluation because the earlier charts with the 2 measures of R&D depth. We additionally report the modifications in R&D depth within the desk additional down on this put up. We discover that each main and following industries have been steadily growing their R&D expenditure/ output. For each leaders and followers, R&D depth grew yearly by 2.5 % from 1987-2007 and a pair of.4 % from 2010-2022. Concurrently, the productiveness progress of each main and following industries has fallen to close zero in 2010-22, in line with the effectiveness of R&D declining.

A Agency-Degree Perspective 

Since publicly listed companies report their R&D expenditure, we are able to use this information to guage whether or not patterns noticed for these companies are according to these we documented utilizing industry-level information. Within the subsequent chart, we carry out the identical train plotting the Compustat R&D depth towards the BEA/BLS R&D depth.

Rising Agency-Degree R&D Depth in Manufacturing

Sources: Authors’ calculations primarily based on CRSP/Compustat, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Productiveness Accounts, and Bureau of Financial Evaluation (BEA) Non-public Non-Residential Funding Accounts.
Notes: The chart reveals the reported R&D expenditure as a share of income in comparison with the R&D/gross output BEA measure (left panel) and deflated R&D expenditure per employee within the agency or the {industry} (proper panel). It calculates R&D depth in every {industry} on the NAICS three-digit degree and computes the mixture depth via the share of every {industry} in complete employment in manufacturing, as outlined by BLS labor hours. R&D per employee hour is deflated by the wages of expert staff. The preliminary values are normalized to be equal to 100 in 1987.

Each the {industry} and agency information present related tendencies over a lot of the interval, apart from the 2000s, throughout which the 2 diverged. Nonetheless, each sequence point out rising R&D depth from 1987-2022, with no proof of any declines in these investments. We additionally discover that patenting in manufacturing has not declined since 2010.

We subsequent take a look at whether or not the motivation of companies to put money into expertise has declined attributable to a rising hole between chief and follower companies inside every {industry}. When main companies have important benefits and market energy, they’re safer from competitors and should have much less incentive to put money into new applied sciences and improvements. Concurrently, following companies could also be discouraged by a rising hole between them and the leaders and scale back R&D funding. 

We once more break up companies into leaders and followers to research whether or not one kind of agency has a special sample of R&D funding. We think about the highest 10 % of companies by way of ongoing employment share (the imply of the earlier interval and the present interval), conditional on reporting nonzero R&D expenditures within the two consecutive durations. We discover that each teams of companies are growing their R&D depth. Thus, our proof means that neither the discouragement nor the complacency impact is resulting in declines in R&D depth.

Modifications in R&D Depth in U.S. Manufacturing, 1987-2007 vs 2010-2022

Summing Up 

So as to add to the thriller of the productiveness slowdown in manufacturing, we produce proof that R&D expenditures haven’t slowed since 2010 and in reality R&D funding has proceeded at a comparatively greater depth each by way of inputs and outputs. Why is that this funding not arresting the slowdown in manufacturing productiveness? We go away this query for additional work.

Danial Lashkari is a analysis economist in Labor and Product Market Research within the Federal Reserve Financial institution of New York’s Analysis and Statistics Group. 

Jeremy Pearce is a analysis economist in Labor and Product Market Research within the Federal Reserve Financial institution of New York’s Analysis and Statistics Group. 

Easy methods to cite this put up:
Danial Lashkari and Jeremy Pearce, “The R&D Puzzle in U.S. Manufacturing Productiveness Development,” Federal Reserve Financial institution of New York Liberty Road Economics, January 6, 2025, https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2025/01/the-rd-puzzle-in-u-s-manufacturing-productivity-growth/.