The Boskin Commission Report: A Retrospective One Decade Later

Robert J. Gordon

54 citations0/0 files storedNational Bureau of Economic Research

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Monetary Policy and Economic Impact Labor market dynamics and wage inequality Income, Poverty, and Inequality

Abstract

This paper provides a retrospective on the 1996 Boskin Commission Report, Toward a More Accurate Measure of the Cost of Living, and its famous estimate that the CPI in 1995-96 was upward biased by 1.1 percent per year.The paper summarizes the report's methods, findings, and recommendations, and then reviews the criticisms that appeared soon after the Report was issued.Post-Boskin changes in the CPI are summarized and assessed, as is recent research on related issues.The paper sharply distinguishes two questions.First, with what we know now, what should the Commission have concluded about CPI bias in 1995-96?Second, what is the bias now after the many improvements introduced into the CPI since the Commission's Report?About the first question, my own recent research on apparel and rental housing indicates a substantial downward bias in the CPI over much of the twentieth century, diminishing in size after 1985.Incorporating these findings into the Boskin matrix would reduce its 0.6 percent annual upward bias due to quality change and new products to a smaller 0.4 percent bias.However, this is more than offset by the stunning discrepancy over 2000-06 in the chain-weighted C-CPI-U compared to the traditional CPI-U, indicating that the Commission greatly understated the magnitude of upper-level substitution bias.This retrospective evaluation suggests that the Boskin bias estimate for 1995-96 should have been 1.2 to 1.3 percent, not 1.1 percent.Current upward bias in the CPI is estimated to have declined from the revised 1.2-1.3percent in the Boskin era to about 0.8 percent today.Yet the Boskin report, like most contemporary studies of quality change, failed to place sufficient value on the value of new products and on increased longevity.Allowing for these, today's bias is at least 1.0 percent per year or perhaps even higher.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 54 citations exist upstream.

References

1991The Measurement of Durable Goods Prices.1940The Valuation of the Social Income 1994Valuation of New Goods under Perfect and Imperfect Competition 1998Consumer Prices, the Consumer Price Index, and the Cost of Living 1996Do Real Output and Real Wage Measures Capture Reality? The History of Lighting Suggests Not 2007Consumer benefits from increased competition in shopping outlets: Measuring the effect of Wal‐Mart 2006Consumer Benefits from Increased Competition in Shopping Outlets: Measuring the Effect of Wal-Mart 1998Index Number Issues in the Consumer Price Index

Cited by

2010Valuing the future: the social discount rate in cost benefit analysis 2014Productivity and Potential Output Before, During, and After the Great Recession 2008Controversies about the Rise of American Inequality: A Survey 2009On Quality Bias and Inflation Targets 2021The Consumption, Income, and Well-Being of Single Mother Headed Families 25 Years After Welfare Reform

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.