Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,112

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Paradox Lost? Firm-Level Evidence on the Returns to Information Systems Spending

Open access
Brynjolfsson, Erik, Hitt, Lorin·1996·Management Science
DOI 10.1287/mnsc.42.4.541
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The “productivity paradox” of information systems (IS) is that, despite enormous improvements in the underlying technology, the benefits of IS spending have not been found in aggregate output statistics. One explanation is that IS spending may lead to increases in product quality or variety which tend to be overlooked in the aggregate statistics, even if they increase output at the firm-level. Furthermore, the restructuring and cost-cutting that are often necessary to realize the potential benefits of IS have only recently been undertaken in many firms. Our study uses new firm-level data on several components of IS spending for 1987–1991. The dataset includes 367 large firms which generated approximately 1.8 trillion dollars in output in 1991. We supplemented the IS data with data on other inputs, output, and price deflators from other sources. As a result, we could assess several econometric models of the contribution of IS to firm-level productivity. Our results indicate that IS spending has made a substantial and statistically significant contribution to firm output. We find that the gross marginal product (MP) for computer capital averaged 81% for the firms in our sample. We find that the MP for computer capital is at least as large as the marginal product of other types of capital investment and that, dollar for dollar, IS labor spending generates at least as much output as spending on non-IS labor and expenses. Because the models we applied were similar to those that have been previously used to assess the contribution of IS and other factors of production, we attribute the different results to the fact that our data set is more current and larger than others explored. We conclude that the productivity paradox disappeared by 1991, at least in our sample of firms.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/mnsc.42.4.541

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L.
Venue
Management Science
Publisher
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
Published
1996-04
Volume
42
Issue
4
Pages
541-558
ISSN
  • 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5501
DOI
10.1287/mnsc.42.4.541
OpenAlex
W2141954228
Cited by
2,112
References
1
FWCI
72.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.