The Contribution of Information Technology to Consumer Welfare

Over the past decade, American businesses have invested heavily in information technology (IT) hardware. Unfortunately, it has been difficult to assess the benefits that have resulted. One reason is that managers often buy IT to enhance customer value in ways that are largely ignored in conventional output statistics. Furthermore, because of competition, firms may be unable to capture the full benefits of the value they create. This undermines researchers' attempts to determine IT value by estimating its contribution to industry productivity or to company profits and revenues. An alternative approach is to estimate the consumer surplus from IT investments by integrating the area under the demand curve for IT. This methodology does not directly address the question of whether managers and consumers are purchasing the optimal quantity of IT, but rather assumes their revealed willingness-to-pay for IT is an accurate indicator of their preferences. Using data from the US. Bureau of Economic Analysis, we estimate four measures of consumer welfare, including Marshallian surplus, exact surplus based on compensated (Hicksian) demand curves, a non-parametric estimate, and a value based on the theory of index numbers. Interestingly, all four estimates indicate that in our base year of 1987, IT spending generated approximately $50 billion to $70 billion in net value in the US. Our estimates imply that the value created for consumers from spending on IT is about three times as large as the amount paid to producers of IT equipment, providing a new perspective on the IT value debate.

[1]  Marion G. Sobol,et al.  The relationship between computerization and performance: A strategy for maximizing the economic benefits of computerization , 1983, Inf. Manag..

[2]  Lorin M. Hitt,et al.  Is Information Systems Spending Productive? New Evidence and New Results , 1993, ICIS.

[3]  L. R. Christensen,et al.  THE ECONOMIC THEORY OF INDEX NUMBERS AND THE MEASUREMENT OF INPUT, OUTPUT, AND PRODUCTIVITY , 1982 .

[4]  Robert D. Willig,et al.  Consumer's Surplus Without Apology , 1976 .

[5]  Peter Weill,et al.  The Relationship Between Investment in Information Technology and Firm Performance: A Study of the Valve Manufacturing Sector , 1992, Inf. Syst. Res..

[6]  Tae Hoon Oum ALTERNATIVE DEMAND MODELS AND THEIR ELASTICITY ESTIMATES , 1989 .

[7]  Richard Schmalensee,et al.  Another Look at the Social Valuation of Input Price Changes , 1976 .

[8]  Vijay Gurbaxani,et al.  The demand for information technology capital An empirical analysis , 1992, Decis. Support Syst..

[9]  T. Bresnahan Measuring the Spillovers from Technical Advance: Mainframe Computers inFinancial Services , 1986 .

[10]  Vijay Gurbaxani,et al.  An Integrative Model of Information Systems Spending Growth , 1990, Inf. Syst. Res..

[11]  Eric K. Clemons,et al.  Evaluation of strategic investments in information technology , 1991, CACM.

[12]  M. Baily,et al.  The Productivity Slowdown, Measurement Issues, and the Explosion of Computer Power , 1989 .

[13]  Ken Peffers,et al.  The Impact of Information Technology Investment Announcements on the Market Value of the Firm , 1993, Inf. Syst. Res..

[14]  S. E. Harris,et al.  Predicting organizational performance using information technology managerial control ratios , 1989, [1989] Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Volume IV: Emerging Technologies and Applications Track.

[15]  L. Summers,et al.  Equipment Investment and Economic Growth , 1990 .

[16]  Jean-Paul Chavas,et al.  On the demand for information , 1993 .