Industrial production and capacity utilization: the 2005 annual revision

On November 7, 2005, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System issued revisions to its index of industrial production (IP) and the related measures of capacity and capacity utilization for the period from January 1972 through September 2005. For this period, both the levels and the rates of change were revised. For years before 1972, the levels, but not the rates of change, were also revised. Overall, the changes to total industrial production were small. ; Besides the revisions to the monthly data for IP and capacity utilization starting in 1972, the comparison base year for all production and capacity indexes was changed: The indexes are now expressed as percentages of output in 2002 instead of 1997. The rebasing affects all series from their start dates: 1919 for total IP and manufacturing IP, 1948 for manufacturing capacity, and 1967 for total industrial capacity.Industrial production index ; Industrial capacity

Industrial production and capacity utilization: the 2003 annual revision

In late 2003, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve issued revisions to its measures of industrial, capacity, and capacity utilization for the period from January 1972 to September 2003. The changes are generally small and principally affect data from 2000 to the present. ; Measured from fourth quarter to fourth quarter, industrial output is now reported to have increased at a slower rate in 2000 and to have contracted a bit more slowly in 2001 than reported earlier. The changes to total industrial production in other years are slight. The revision still places the most recent peak in total IP in June 2000 and the corresponding trough in December 2001. The 6-1/4 percent peak-to-trough decline in output is about 1/2 percentage point less than the previous estimate. After the trough, the total index showed gains in the first half of 2002, only to trend down again until mid-2003 and then to head up. ; The revised measures of overall capacity are only minimally different from earlier estimates. Capacity expanded rapidly during the second half of the 1990s and slowed considerably since then. The rate of industrial capacity utilization (the ratio of production to capacity) remained at a low level in the third quarter of 2003--the last full quarter of data--and was unchanged by the revision. At 74.6 percent, the operating rate is 4 percentage points below the trough of the 1990-91 recession and 6.7 percentage points below its 1972-2002 average.Industrial production index ; Industrial capacity

Industrial production and capacity utilization: the 2008 annual revision

On March 28, 2008, the Federal Reserve published revisions to its index of industrial production (IP) and the related measures of capacity and capacity utilization. Although the revision affected the data from January 1972 through February 2008, most of the changes were for the period beginning in 2003. Relative to earlier estimates, measured from fourth quarter to fourth quarter, IP is now reported to have increased more slowly in 2006, but changes to output gains in other years since 2003 were more modest. The period from 2003 through 2007 was marked by a steady, moderate rise in industrial output; on average, production increased 2.2 percent per year, and the annual rates of change ranged from 1.5 percent to 3.1 percent.Industrial capacity ; Industrial productivity

Industrial production and capacity utilization: the 2004 annual revision

In late 2004, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve issued revisions to its index of industrial production (IP) and the related measures of capacity and capacity utilization for the period from January 1972 to November 2004. Overall, the changes to total industrial production were small. ; Measured from the fourth quarter of 2002 to the third quarter of 2004, industrial output is reported to have increased a little less than shown previously. Production expanded more slowly in 2000 than earlier estimates indicated, whereas the contraction in 2001 was a little less steep. The rise in output in 2002 was slightly stronger than reported earlier. ; Although the level of IP was a bit lower in the third quarter of 2004 than previously reported, the rate of industrial capacity utilization--the ratio of production to capacity--was revised upward. At 78.2 percent, the utilization rate for total industry is 0.9 percentage point higher than previously reported but still 2.9 percentage points below its 1972-2003 average. ; The revision indicated that industrial capacity expanded at a slower rate in 2002 and 2004 than estimated previously. Capacity is reported to have declined a bit in 2003; previously, a small increase had been reported. The current figures for capacity in 2000 and 2001 indicate a slightly stronger rate of increase than the earlier estimates did.Industrial production index ; Industrial capacity

New Evidence on Sex Segregation and Sex Differences in Wages from Matched Employee-Employer Data

We assemble a new matched employer-employee data set covering essentially all industries and occupations across all regions of the U.S. We use this data set to re-examine the question of the relative contributions to the overall sex gap in wages of sex segregation vs. wage differences by sex within occupation, industry, establishment, and occupation-establishment cells. This new data set is especially useful because earlier research on this topic relied on data sets that covered only a narrow range of industries, occupations, or regions. Our results indicate that a sizable fraction of the sex gap in wages is accounted for by the segregation of women into lower-paying occupations, industries, establishments, and occupations within establishments. Nonetheless, a substantial part of the sex gap in wages remains attributable to the individual's sex. This latter finding contrasts sharply with the conclusions of previous research (especially Groshen, 1991), which indicated that sex segregation accounted for essentially all of the sex wage gap. Further research into the sources of within-establishment within-occupation sex wage differences is therefore much more important than previously thought.

Why are Racial and Ethnic Wage Gaps Larger for Men than for Women? Exploring the Role of Segregation

We examine the possible sources of the larger racial and ethnic wage gaps for men than for women in the U.S. Specifically, using a newly created employer-employee matched data set containing workers in essentially all occupations, industries, and regions, we examine whether these wage differences can be accounted for by differences between men and women in the patterns of racial and ethnic segregation within occupation, industry, establishments, and occupation-establishment cells. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper to examine segregation by race and ethnicity at the level of establishment and job cell. Our results indicate that greater segregation between Hispanic men and white men than between Hispanic women and white women accounts for essentially all of the higher Hispanic-white wage gap for men. In addition, our estimates indicate that greater segregation between black and white men than between black and white women accounts for a sizable share (one-third to one-half) of the higher black-white wage gap for men. Our results imply that segregation is an important contributor to the lower wages paid to black and Hispanic men than to white men with similar individual characteristics. Our results also suggest that equal pay types of laws may offer some scope for reducing the black-white wage differential for men the Hispanic-white wage differential for men.

Reciprocity and Retaliation in U.S. Trade Policy

The increasing use of activist unilateral policies by the United States to open foreign markets or deter unfair trading practices is highly controversial. This study reexamines the arguments for and against reciprocity and retaliation in light of actual experience since the early 1980s, especially the more aggressive use by the United States of section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which gives the president broad authority to retaliate against "unjustifiable, unreasonable, or discriminatory" foreign trade practices. It analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of these policies and the circumstances under which they are likely to succeed or fail. The study contains an empirical assessment of all section 301 cases concluded between 1975 and 1993. It also provides detailed case studies of various trade conflicts including the Super 301 negotiations involving Japan, Brazil, India, Taiwan, and Korea, financial services disputes with Japan and the European Union, the US-EU conflict over oilseeds, and the US-Japan beef and citrus negotiations.The authors recommend against the future use of Super 301 and urge that the United States pursue a strategy of aggressive multilateralism in the new World Trade Organization.