Official statistical data on the structure, evolution and performance of the U.S. economy are produced by a variety federal, state and local agencies. Much of the methodology, policy frameworks and infrastructure for U.S. economic measurement have been in place for decades. There are growing concerns that the economy is evolving more rapidly than are the economic statistics we use to monitor it. We discuss both the challenges and opportunities to modernizing federal economic statistics. We describe an incremental approach that federal statistics agencies can follow to build a 21st century economic measurement system.

The view that small businesses create the most jobs remains appealing to policymakers and small business advocates. Using data from the Census Bureau's Business Dynamics Statistics and Longitudinal Business Database, we explore the many issues at the core of this ongoing debate. We find that the relationship between firm size and employment growth is sensitive to these issues. However, our main finding is that once we control for firm age, there is no systematic relationship between firm size and growth. Our findings highlight the important role of business start-ups and young businesses in U.S. job creation.

Item-level transactions data yield cost-of-living indices that can account for quality change and consumer substitution. Transactions data require confronting the rapid turnover of items because prices of new and existing products are interrelated in equilibrium. This paper evaluates multiple approaches to measuring quality change at scale. It shows that a hedonic superlative approach—using econometrics or machine learning for hedonic estimation combined with index formulas that require simultaneous observation of item-level price and expenditure—yields improved measures of the cost of living. Accounting for ubiquitous quality change and for consumer substitution yields lower measures of inflation than traditional, official methods. (JEL C43, C45, E31, L15, L81)

The pace of job reallocation has declined in the United States in recent decades. We draw insight from canonical models of business dynamics in which reallocation can decline due to (i ) lower dis persion of idiosyncratic shocks faced by businesses, or (ii ) weaker marginal responsiveness of businesses to shocks. We show that shock dispersion has actually risen, while the responsiveness of business-level employment to productivity has weakened. Moreover, declining responsiveness can account for a significant fraction of the decline in the pace of job reallocation, and we find suggestive evidence this has been a drag on aggregate productivity. (JEL D24, E24, E32, J21, J23, J24, L60)

A large literature documents declining measures of business dynamism including high-growth young firm activity and job reallocation. A distinct literature describes a slowdown in the pace of aggregate labor productivity growth. We relate these patterns by studying changes in productivity growth from the late 1990s to the mid 2000s using firm-level data. We find that diminished allocative efficiency gains can account for the productivity slowdown in a manner that interacts with the within-firm productivity growth distribution. The evidence suggests that the decline in dynamism is reason for concern and sheds light on debates about the causes of slowing productivity growth.

A growing body of evidence indicates that the U.S. economy has become less dynamic in recent years. This trend is evident in declining rates of gross job and worker flows as well as declining rates of entrepreneurship and young firm activity, and the trend is pervasive across industries, regions, and firm size classes. We describe the evidence on these changes in the U.S. economy by reviewing existing research. We then describe new empirical facts about the relationship between establishment-level productivity and employment growth, framing our results in terms of canonical models of firm dynamics and suggesting empirically testable potential explanations.

Partnering with the US Census Bureau, we implement a new survey of “structured” management practices in two waves of 35,000 manufacturing plants in 2010 and 2015. We find an enormous dispersion of management practices across plants, with 40 percent of this variation across plants within the same firm. Management practices account for more than 20 percent of the variation in productivity, a similar, or greater, percentage as that accounted for by R&D, ICT, or human capital. We find evidence of two key drivers to improve management. The business environment, as measured by right-to-work laws, boosts incentive management practices. Learning spillovers, as measured by the arrival of large “Million Dollar Plants” in the county, increases the management scores of incumbents. (JEL D22, D24, L25, L60, M11, M50)

Private equity critics claim that leveraged buyouts bring huge job losses and few gains in operating performance. To evaluate these claims, we construct and analyze a new dataset that covers US buyouts from 1980 to 2005. We track 3,200 target firms and their 150,000 establishments before and after acquisition, comparing to controls defined by industry, size, age, and prior growth. Buyouts lead to modest net job losses but large increases in gross job creation and destruction. Buyouts also bring TFP gains at target firms, mainly through accelerated exit of less productive establishments and greater entry of highly productive ones. (JEL D24, G24, G32, G34, J23, J63, L25)