Skip to main content
Log in

Conditional growth volatility and sectoral comovement in U.S. industrial production, 1828–1915

  • Published:
Empirical Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 05 August 2019

This article has been updated

Abstract

This article investigates conditional growth volatility for industrial production in the U.S. during 1828–1915, taking as a reference sectoral and aggregate indexes constructed in connection to Davis (Quart J Econ 119:1177–1215, 2004). The period includes the major shock represented by the Civil War with the associated resource allocation distortions. The evidence mostly suggests high persistence in conditional volatility as would be found in later studies for the U.S. on GDP growth volatility. However, the evidence of asymmetric volatility appears to be more localized and salient examples of a stronger role of negative shocks on volatility can be identified in the cases of the textile, machinery and metals sectors that might have been more vulnerable to the Civil War. As for interindustry linkages, a complementary factor analysis suggests that the communality changes between the antebellum and postbellum eras. The relative importance of the aggregate shocks increased considerably after the Civil War. This indicates that the Civil War had significant effects in raising the cross-correlation between most sectors, suggesting substantial changes in the basic productive relationships in U.S. 19th century economy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 05 August 2019

    In the original publication of the article, the word “analyzes” should be replaced with “analysis” throughout the article.

Notes

  1. For a comprehensive discussion on this subject, see Davis (2004).

  2. The authors considered disaggregated analysis for anthracite coal, bituminous coal, NY canal traffic, Erie canal traffic, cotton consumption, lead production and pig iron production.

  3. Another prominent work analyzing unconditional volatility for individual production series is the one by Romer (1991), but for a later period that does not include the Civil War.

  4. All intermediate results tests pertaining to unit roots and structural breaks are not reported for conciseness but can be obtained from the authors upon request.

  5. A more complex approach would involve a Markov switching structure in the regime change in GARCH models as exemplified by Bhar and Hamori (2003).

  6. Diagnostic tests pertaining to normality and ARCH structure in residuals of the EGARCH models with dummy variables were employed and do not indicate misspecifications in the models.

References

  • Bai J, Perron P (1998) Estimating and testing linear models with multiple structural changes. Econometrica 66:47–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bai J, Perron P (2003) Computation and analysis of multiple structural change models. J Appl Econom 18:1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bera AK, Higgins ML (1993) ARCH models: properties, estimation and testings. J Econ Surv 7:305–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernanke BS (2004) The great moderation, Lecture at Eastern Economic Association, Washington, February 20

  • Bhar R, Hamori S (2003) Alternative characterization of the volatility in the growth rate of real GDP. Jpn World Econ 15:223–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollerslev T (1986) Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. J Econom 31:307–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollerslev T, Engle RF, Nelson DB (1994) ARCH models. In: Engle RF, McFadden D (eds) Handbook of econometrics, vol 4. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 2959–3038

    Google Scholar 

  • Broadberry SN (1994) Comparative productivity in British and American manufacturing during the nineteenth century. Explor Econ Hist 31:521–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broadberry SN (1998) How did the United States and Germany overtake Britain? A sectoral analysis of comparative productivity levels, 1870–1990. J Econ Hist 58:375–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broadberry SN, Irwin DA (2006) Labor productivity in the United States and the United Kingdom during the nineteenth century. Explor Econ Hist 43:257–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calomiris CW, Hanes C (1994) Consistent output series for the antebellum and postbellum periods: issues and preliminary results. J Econ Hist 54:409–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cecchetti SG, Flores-Lagunes A, Krause S (2006) Assessing the sources of changes in the volatility of real growth, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 11946

  • Davis JH (2004) An annual index of U.S. industrial production, 1790-1915. Quart J Econ 119:1177–1215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis JH, Irwin DA (2008) The antebellum U.S. iron industry: domestic production and foreign competition. Explor Econ Hist 45:254–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis J, Weidenmier MD (2017) America’s first great moderation. J Econ Hist 77:1116–1143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickey DA, Fuller WA (1981) Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica 49:1057–1072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engle RF (1982) Autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity with estimates of the variance of United Kingdom inflation. Econometrica 50:987–1008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang WS, Miller SM (2008) The great moderation and the relationship between output growth and its volatility. South Econ J 74:819–838

    Google Scholar 

  • French MW, Sichel DE (1993) Cyclical patterns in the variance of economic activity. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 11:113–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Frickey E (1947) Production in the United States, 1860–1914. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Glosten LR, Jagannathan R, Runkle DE (1993) On the relation between the expected value and the volatility of the nominal excess return on stocks. J Fin 48:1779–1801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldin CD, Lewis FD (1975) The economic cost of the American civil war: estimates and implications. J Econ Hist 35:299–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamori S (2000) Volatility of real GDP: some evidence from the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan. Jpn World Econ 12:143–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho KY, Tsui AKC (2003) Asymmetric volatility of real GDP: some evidence from Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States. Jpn World Econ 15:437–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho KY, Tsui AKC (2004) Analysis of real GDP growth rates of greater China: an asymmetric conditional volatility approach. China Econ Rev 15:424–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho KY, Tsui AKC, Zhang Z (2013) Conditional volatility asymmetry of business cycles: evidence from four OECD countries. J Econ Dev 38:33–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan BZ (2016) The Impact of war on resource allocation: ‘creative destruction’ and the American civil war. J Interdiscip Hist 46:315–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miron JA, Romer CD (1990) A new monthly index of industrial production, 1884–1940. J Econ Hist 50:321–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson DB (1991) Conditional heteroskedasticity in asset returns: a new approach. Econometrica 59:347–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romer CD (1991) The cyclical behavior of individual production series, 1889–1984. Quart J Econ 106:1–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz GE (1978) Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat 6:461–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiroh KJ (2009) Volatility accounting: a production perspective on increased economic stability. J Eur Econ Assoc 7:671–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tamakoshi G, Hamori S (2014) Greek sovereign bond index, volatility, and structural breaks. J Econ Fin 38:687–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge comments from two anonymous referees and advices from the coordinating editor, but the usual caveats apply. This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcelo Resende.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Authors declare there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original version of this article was revised: The word “analyzes” was replaced with “analysis” throughout the article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Freire, G., Resende, M. Conditional growth volatility and sectoral comovement in U.S. industrial production, 1828–1915. Empir Econ 59, 3063–3084 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-019-01740-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-019-01740-2

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation