--- canonical_url: "https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-31/comments-on-daniel-sichels-review-article-on-the-rise-and-fall-of-american-growth/" title: "Comments on Daniel Sichel’s Review Article on The Rise and Fall of American Growth" author: name: "CSLS" url: "https://csls.ca/author/cslc/" date_published: "2026-07-13T07:40:54+00:00" date_modified: "2026-07-13T07:40:54+00:00" post_type: "ipm" summary: "" ipm_issue_period: - "Fall 2016" ipm_keyword: - "digital economy" - "electricity" - "Gordon" - "great inventions" - "historical growth" - "productivity" - "response" - "secular stagnation" - "TFP" - "United States" ipm_research_theme: - "Productivity trends and comparisons" ipm_country_focus: - "United States" featured_image: "https://csls.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/IPM_50_banner.webp" status: "publish" --- # Comments on Daniel Sichel’s Review Article on The Rise and Fall of American Growth Canonical URL: https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-31/comments-on-daniel-sichels-review-article-on-the-rise-and-fall-of-american-growth/ # Comments on Daniel Sichel’s Review Article on The Rise and Fall of American Growth [Download full PDF article](https://csls.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/IPM-Issue-31-5-Gordon.pdf) Cite this article × Cite this article as: Gordon, Robert. 2016. “Comments on Daniel Sichel’s Review Article on The Rise and Fall of American Growth.” International Productivity Monitor, No. 31 (Fall 2016): 63–67. https://www.csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-31/comments-on-daniel-sichels-review-article-on-the-rise-and-fall-of-american-growth/ ## Author: - Robert Gordon Department of Economics, Northwestern University; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) ## IPM Issue 31 Fall 2016 pp. 63–67 ## Related IPM articles [Efficiency Adjustment of Hours Worked: Two Possible Modifications of a Jorgensen Production Model Barbara Fraumeni Fall 2025 | IPM Issue 49 | pp. 103–115](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-49/efficiency-adjustment-of-hours-worked-two-possible-modifications-of-a-jorgensen-production-model/) [The Relationship between Efficiencies Defenses for Mergers and TFP Growth Robin Shaban Fall 2025 | IPM Issue 49 | pp. 82–102](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-49/the-relationship-between-efficiencies-defenses-for-mergers-and-tfp-growth/) [Labour Productivity as a Measure of Technological Change Ulrich Kohli Fall 2025 | IPM Issue 49 | pp. 64–81](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-49/labour-productivity-as-a-measure-of-technological-change/) [Adult Skills and Productivity: New Evidence from PIAAC 2023 Dan Andrews, Balázs Égert, Christine de La Maisonneuve Fall 2025 | IPM Issue 49 | pp. 41–63](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-49/adult-skills-and-productivity-new-evidence-from-piaac-2023/) [The Potential Impact of Pro-competitive Regulatory Reforms on Productivity and Growth in Canada Gilbert Cette, Jimmy Lopez, Giuseppe Nicoletti, Océane Vernerey Fall 2025 | IPM Issue 49 | pp. 3–40](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-49/the-potential-impact-of-pro-competitive-regulatory-reforms-on-productivity-and-growth-in-canada/) [The Challenges of Productivity Measurement — Review Article on The Measure of Economies: Measuring Productivity in an Age of Technological Change Chad Syverson Spring 2025 | IPM Issue 48 | pp. 139–143](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-48/the-challenges-of-productivity-measurement-review-article-on-the-measure-of-economies-measuring-productivity-in-an-age-of-technological-change/) [IPM Issue 49 Editors’ Overview Andrew Sharpe, Bart van Ark, Paul Schreyer Fall 2025 | IPM Issue 49 | pp. 1–2](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-49/) [ONS Response to ‘Are UK Regional Productivity Disparities Really Narrowing?’ Richard Prothero Spring 2025 | IPM Issue 48 | pp. 85–89](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-48/ons-response-to-are-uk-regional-productivity-disparities-really-narrowing/) [De-industrialization and the Great Productivity Slowdown: What Comes Next? Paul Fisher Spring 2025 | IPM Issue 48 | pp. 115–138](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-48/de-industrialization-and-the-great-productivity-slowdown-what-comes-next/) [Appendix: UK Productivity Growth Rates Across Data Vintages and Studies Josh Martin Spring 2025 | IPM Issue 48 | pp. 65–73](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-48/appendix-uk-productivity-growth-rates-across-data-vintages-and-studies/) ## Abstract ## Résumé EN FR Copy link Email LinkedIn Daniel Sichel’s review focusses mainly on the future of innovation and technology. In contrast, my book is mainly about the past, and the reasons why the growth rate of total factor productivity in the years since 1970 has averaged only about one-third the rate registered between 1920 and 1970. My explanation is that a series of “Great Inventions” in the late 19th century, led by electricity and the internal combustion engine, utterly changed methods of production in the business economy and conditions of work on the job and at home. The digital revolution since 1960 has transformed business methods further and led to a temporary recovery of productivity growth between 1995 and 2004, but slow growth since 2004 suggests that the major impacts of the digital revolution are largely over, while technological transformations in the future will be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Daniel Sichel’s thoughtful review article in this issue of the International Productivity Monitor divides my book The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living since the Civil La recension de Daniel Sichel se concentre principalement sur l’avenir de l’innovation et de la technologie. En revanche, mon ouvrage porte principalement sur le passé, et sur les raisons pour lesquelles le taux de croissance de la productivité multifactorielle depuis 1970 a été en moyenne d’environ un tiers seulement du taux enregistré entre 1920 et 1970. Mon explication est qu’une série de « grandes inventions » à la fin du XIXe siècle, portées par l’électricité et le moteur à combustion interne, a complètement transformé les méthodes de production dans l’économie des entreprises et les conditions de travail. La révolution numérique depuis 1960 a transformé davantage les méthodes d’affaires et a conduit à une reprise temporaire de la croissance de la productivité entre 1995 et 2004, mais la faible croissance depuis 2004 suggère que les principaux impacts de la révolution numérique sont largement achevés. [Download full PDF](https://csls.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/IPM-Issue-31-5-Gordon.pdf)