This paper is the introduction to the Macroeconomic Dynamics Special Issue on Measurement with Theory. The Guest Editors of the special issue are William A. Barnett, W. Erwin Diewert, Shigeru Iwata, and Arnold Zellner. The papers included are part of a larger initiative to promote measurement with theory in economics.

Consistent real income comparisons over time and space are critical for studies on catch-up and convergence. The paper provides an analytical framework for making real income comparisons across countries and over time that satisfy transitivity and at the same time reflect an underlying nonhomothetic utility function for a representative consumer. The concept of reference price comparisons is developed and implemented using nonhomothetic translog and almost ideal demand systems. The paper discusses a direct approach, which uses all the parameters of the demand system to make real income comparisons, and an indirect approach, which adjusts the national price-based comparisons using reduced information only on income elasticities of demand. The proposed approach is empirically implemented using data from the 1980 and 1996 benchmark data from the International Comparison Program, and the empirical results confirm the analytical results discussed in the paper.

Three important current areas of research in the field of international comparisons are the construction of price indexes at the basic heading level, price indexes at higher levels of aggregation, and the linking of comparisons across regions. We consider recent innovations in each of these areas. These innovations have largely arisen out of International Comparisons Program (ICP) 2005, and hence we discuss them in this context. We give particular emphasis to the construction of price indexes at the basic heading level, because we believe it is here that the biggest problems lie. For example, the apparently anomalous results obtained for China and India in ICP 2005 can be traced back to problems at the basic heading level. We also highlight some inconsistencies in current ICP methodology and some promising areas for future research that warrant closer scrutiny in the next round of ICP.

Cross-country studies of economic growth have been hampered by the scarcity of reliable data on productivity at the industry level; see Bernard and Jones [American Economic Review, 91 (4) (2001), 1168–1169] and Rogerson [Journal of Political Economy, 116 (2) (2008), 235–259]. We bring together literature on industry prices, human capital, and capital assets to construct industry-level productivity measures that are well grounded in neoclassical production theory. These theory-based measures differ widely from the crude measures commonly used in the literature. We use these to confirm and strengthen the finding of Bernard and Jones [American Economic Review, 86 (5) (1996), 1216–1238] that for advanced OECD countries, patterns of convergence across sectors have differed since 1970: whereas productivity in market services converged, there is no convergence in manufacturing. More detailed analysis confirms that patterns of convergence are highly industry-specific. There is no dominant convergence trend in sectoral productivity growth across advanced countries.

In this paper I consider the relation between gross output– and value added–based total factor productivity (TFP) measures. It appears that, without any (micro-)economic theory being required, a conditional relationship between TFP indices can be derived, in which the Domar factor plays an important role. At the same time it turns out that gross output– and value added–based TFP indicators (difference-type measures) always coincide. In the Divisia index framework and maintaining the classical assumptions (profit maximization and a production technology that exhibits globally constant returns to scale), it appears that both TFP indices measure technological change, albeit in a dual way. In establishing this result, no separability assumptions are involved. Both indices are in general path-dependent. Path independence of the gross output–based TFP index requires that the technology exhibit Hicks input neutrality, whereas path independence of the value added–based TFP index requires Hicks value-added neutrality. These two concepts of neutrality are, however, not dual.

We study the impact that financial intermediation can have on productivity through the alleviation of credit constraints in occupation choice and/or an improved allocation of risk, using both static and dynamic structural models as well as reduced-form OLS and IV regressions. Our goal in this paper is to bring these two strands of the literature together. Even though, under certain assumptions, IV regressions can accurately recover the true model-generated local average treatment effect, this is quantitatively different, in order of magnitude and even sign, from other policy impact parameters (e.g., ATE and TT). We also show that laying out clearly alternative models can guide the search for instruments. On the other hand, adding more margins of decision, that is, occupation choice and intermediation jointly, or adding more periods with promised utilities as key state variables, as in optimal multiperiod contracts, can cause the misinterpretation of IV as the causal effect of interest.

In aggregation theory, the admissibility condition for clustering components to be aggregated is blockwise weak separability, which also is the condition needed to separate out sectors of the economy. Although weak separability is thereby of central importance in aggregation and index number theory and in econometrics, prior attempts to produce statistical tests of weak separability have performed poorly in Monte Carlo studies. This paper introduces a new class of weak separability tests, which is seminonparametric. Such tests are both based on a necessary and sufficient condition and are fully stochastic, allowing to take into account measurement error. Simulations show that the tests perform well, even for large measurement errors.

The traditional economic approach to index number theory is based on a ratio of cost functions. Diewert defined superlative price and quantity indices as observable indices that were exact for a ratio of unit cost functions or for a ratio of linearly homogeneous utility functions. The present paper looks for counterparts to his results in the difference context, for both flexible homothetic and flexible nonhomothetic preferences. The Bennet indicators of price and quantity change turn out to be superlative for the nonhomothetic case. The underlying preferences are of the translation-homothetic form discussed by Balk, Chambers, Dickenson, Färe, and Grosskopf.

This paper compares the different dynamics of the simple-sum monetary aggregates and the Divisia monetary aggregate indices over time, over the business cycle, and across high and low inflation and interest-rate phases. Although traditional comparisons of the series sometimes suggest that simple-sum and Divisia monetary aggregates share similar dynamics, there are important differences around turning points that cannot be evaluated by their average behavior. We use a factor model with a regime-switching model that separates the common movements underlying the monetary aggregate indices from idiosyncratic variations in each series. We find that the major differences between the simple-sum aggregates and Divisia indices occur around the beginnings and ends of recessions and during some high-interest-rate phases. We note the inferences' policy relevance, which is particularly dramatic at the broadest (M3) level of aggregation. Indeed, as Belongia [Journal of Political Economy, 104 (5) (1996), 1065–1083] has observed in this regard, “measurement matters.”