Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2006
Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14 December 1960, and which came th into force on 30 September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: To achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy. To contribute to sound economic expansion in member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and To contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations.
th
The original member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countries th became members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan (28 April th th th 1964), Finland (28 January 1969), Australia (7 June 1971), New Zealand (29 May 1973), Mexico th st th (18 May 1994), the Czech Republic (21 December 1995), Hungary (7 May 1996), Poland nd th th (22 November 1996), Korea (12 December 1996) and the Slovak Republic (14 December 2000). The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD (Article 13 of the OECD Convention).
OECD 2006
FOREWORD
Over the past few years, productivity and economic growth have been an important focus of OECD work. This work has included both efforts to improve the measurement of productivity growth, as shown in the development of the OECD Productivity Manual, published in 2001, as well as work to enhance the understanding of the drivers of productivity performance. In the course of this work, questions about data choices and the measurement of productivity were examined at several occasions. At the same time, OECD was confronted with a growing interest in internationally comparable data on productivity growth. The continued interest of many OECD member countries in productivity led to a decision to develop an OECD Productivity Database, based on data that were considered to be as comparable and consistent across countries as possible. This database and related information on methods and sources is available through the OECD Internet site and free of charge at: www.oecd.org/statistics/productivity In 2005, a large number of indicators on productivity were being combined in one document for the first time to coincide with an OECD workshop on productivity measurement, held in Madrid. The present document constitutes the 2006 update of the productivity compendium. Its primary source is the OECD Productivity Database, although indicators are drawn from other sources, such as the OECD STAN database, which enables productivity calculations for individual industries. The compendium includes indicators as well as methodological notes and describes the measurement challenges and data choices that were made as well as the remaining measurement problems. Further detail is available in a number of specific annexes. The compendium was prepared for an OECD workshop on productivity measurement and analysis, held in Bern from 16-18 October 2006. Agnes Cimper, Julien Dupont, Paul Schreyer and Colin Webb prepared the text and tables in the compendium. Additional contributions to text and tables from Nadim Ahmad and Pascal Marianna are gratefully acknowledged.
OECD 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
7 11 13 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 29 30 32 34 36 38 41 42 44 46 48 51 52 54 56 58 60 62 68 73 76
B) Productivity levels
B.1. Income and productivity levels B.2. Levels of GDP per capita and GDP per hour worked, 1950-2005 B.3. Alternative measures of output B.4. Differences in labour productivity by economic activity B.5. Labour productivity and heterogeneity
Annex 1 OECD productivity database Annex 2 OECD estimates of labour productivity levels Annex 3 OECD databases relevant to productivity analysis References
OECD 2006
HIGHLIGHTS
This compendium presents productivity indicators in four broad areas. The first section presents economy-wide indicators of productivity growth. It shows that: Over 1995-2005, growth in GDP per hour worked was highest in Ireland, Korea and the Slovak Republic. In the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary and Iceland, labour productivity grew much faster during 2000-2005 compared with the period 1995-2000. Over the same period, labour productivity growth slowed down in many other OECD countries. Alternative measures of labour productivity growth, based on net domestic product or gross domestic income, show a very similar picture, with some exceptions. Capital productivity has declined in most OECD countries over the last fifteen years. The fall in capital productivity since 1990 has been very pronounced in Japan but also in Spain, Canada, Portugal and Denmark. Notable exceptions to the decline in output per unit of capital input are Ireland and Finland where capital productivity grew over most of the last decade. Stronger growth in the major seven countries in the second half of the 1990s was due to several factors, including higher labour utilisation, capital deepening, notably due to investment in information and communications technology (ICT), and more rapid multi-factor productivity (MFP) growth. In France, Germany and in the United States, the contribution of labour input to growth was positive for the period 1995-2000 but negative for the period 2000-2005. The fall in the contribution of labour input to growth has also been most pronounced in the United Kingdom. The decline in the contribution of labour input to growth slowed markedly in Japan. In Canada, France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom, MFP growth fell between the period 1995-2000 and 2000-2005, but it rose in Japan and in the United States. Investment in ICT accounted for between 0.3 and 0.6 percentage points of growth in GDP over the period 1995-2005. Australia, Denmark, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States received the largest boost from ICT capital; Japan and Canada a more modest one; and Austria, France and Germany a much smaller one. In several countries, ICT accounts for the bulk of capitals contribution to GDP growth.
The second section presents indicators of productivity levels. It shows that: Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland and the United States had the highest levels of per capita income in 2005, while Belgium, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and the United States had the highest levels of GDP per hour worked. The different ranking of certain countries on these two measures is due to labour utilisation; many European countries have lower levels of labour utilisation than the United States. This implies that they have fewer people contributing to GDP; levels of GDP per capita are therefore lower than levels of GDP per hour worked. These rankings change little when alternative measures of output, such as net domestic product or gross national income, are used. Exceptions are Ireland and Luxembourg that have a lower ranking on gross national income per hour worked than on GDP per hour worked. Since the 1950s, cross-country differences in income and productivity levels have eroded considerably. Japan and Korea have experienced the highest rates of catch-up since 1950, while many European countries experienced strong catch-up with the United States until 1980, but have fallen back since, Ireland and Korea being among the most notable exceptions.
OECD 2006
Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom already had relatively high income levels in 1950 and have done little catching up since. Eastern European countries, Mexico and Turkey started with low income levels in the 1950s and have only caught up a little. Industries predominantly involved in the extraction, processing and supply of fuel and energy goods produced the highest value added per labour unit. These industries were more than twice as productive as the average industry. Besides the energy-producing industries, those that yield the most value added per labour unit are industries considered more technology and/or knowledge intensive. In manufacturing, the chemical industry has the highest relative labour productivity level, while in services, finance, insurance and telecommunications lead the way. The focus on labour productivity growth generally assumes that homogeneity exists within the predefined industry groups, in other words that the productivity growth observed at the aggregate level is representative of the growth at the business level. However, comprehensive estimates of productivity are dependent on business level data. The comparison of the coefficient of variation at the 2 digit industry level for 6 large OECD countries show that there is considerable business size class heterogeneity in labour productivity across countries and industries.
The third section presents indicators of productivity growth by industry, and also includes indicators on the contribution of multinationals to productivity performance. It shows that: In many OECD countries, notably in Spain, Greece, Czech Republic, Sweden, Hungary, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia, business sector services have accounted for the bulk of labour productivity growth over 2000-2005. However, the manufacturing sector remains important in the Korea, Sweden, Hungary, Finland and Czech Republic. Within manufacturing, large differences in the rate of productivity growth can be observed. Electrical and optical equipment is often the industry with the highest rate of productivity growth, over 15% annually in 1995-2000 for some OECD countries such as Finland, Hungary, Korea, Sweden and the United States. The variation in labour productivity growth across services sectors is also considerable. Industries such as wholesale and retail trade, post and telecommunications are typically the services sectors with the highest rate of productivity growth, while business services, hotels and restaurants, and transport and storage often have lower rate of labour productivity growth. Labour productivity of foreign affiliates in manufacturing in the United Kingdom is more than two times higher than the average labour productivity of domestic firms in the manufacturing sector. Foreign affiliates made an important contribution to labour productivity growth in the United States, accounting for almost a quarter of manufacturing productivity growth over 1995-2001. In the Czech Republic, France, Sweden and the United Kingdom, the bulk of productivity growth in manufacturing was due to foreign affiliates. In Japan, foreign affiliates made only a minor contribution to productivity growth.
The fourth and last section presents the methodology used for the calculation of official multi-factor productivity statistics published by some OECD countries and how MFP measures differ from those computed by the OECD. It shows that: The Australian Bureau of Statistics has computed and published time series of multi-factor productivity indices for several years. The ABS MFP measures differ in several aspects from the MFP measures computed by the OECD. First, national data is based on more detailed source data than the international data. Second, ABS adjusts labour input measures to reflect the composition of the labour force e.g., by age, education and experience whereas the OECD labour input data is a simple aggregate of hours worked. Thirdly, capital input as computed by ABS is based on a
OECD 2005
broader scope of capital assets than used by the OECD. In particular, the national data includes agricultural land and inventories, two assets that are absent from the OECD capital computations. Statistics Canada has computed and published time series of multi-factor productivity indices for a number of years. The MFP measures published by the Statistics Canada differ in several aspects from the MFP measures computed by the OECD. First, the national data is significantly more detailed and also more timely than the international data. Second, labour input measures have been adjusted by Statistics Canada to reflect the composition of the labour force e.g., by age, education and experience whereas the OECD labour input data is a simple aggregate of hours. Thirdly, capital input as computed by Statistics Canada is based on a broader scope of capital assets than used by the OECD. In particular, the national data includes land and inventories, two assets that are absent from the OECD capital computations In 2006, Statistics New Zealand released for the first time an official time series of multi-factor productivity growth. This first dataset relates to the measured sector, consisting of industries for which estimates of inputs and outputs are independently derived in constant prices. Excluded are those industries mainly government non-market industries whose services such as administration, health and education, are provided for free or at nominal charge whose real value-added is measured in the national accounts largely using input methods, such as number of employees. Labour input is measured as the total number of hours paid, the number of ordinary and overtime hours for which an employee is paid. The elements of capital input are compiled at a detailed and broader level than the OECDs own estimates of capital services (which exclude for example, residential buildings). The basic methodology behind the New Zealand MFP estimates closely follows the methods presented in international documents such as the OECD Productivity Manual. In some specific aspects, the national measures differ from MFP measures computed by the OECD (scope of capital assets, sector coverage). In 2006, The Swiss Federal Statistical Office published a first set of MFP estimates for Switzerland. The basic methodology behind the Switzerland MFP estimates closely follows the methods presented in international documents such as the OECD Productivity Manual. In some specific aspects, however, the national measures differ from MFP measures computed by the OECD. The national data is based on more detailed source than the six-way asset classification used by the OECD. There is also important difference in the scope of capital measures; in particular the estimates by the Swiss Federal Office include residential assets which are excluded from the OECD data. The United States Bureau of Labour Statistics has computed and published time series of multifactor productivity for a number of years. BLS MFP measures differ in several aspects from the MFP measures computed by the OECD. First, the national data is significantly more detailed and also more timely than the international data. Second, labour input measures have been adjusted by BLS to reflect the composition of the labour force e.g., by age, education and experience whereas the OECD labour input data is a simple aggregate of hours worked.
As a general rule, the national source is to be preferred over the international source for analyses that relate to the country only whereas the international source is often better suited for comparisons between countries.
OECD 2006
Productivity isnt everything, but in the long run it is almost everything. A countrys ability to improve its standard of living over time depends almost entirely on its ability to raise its output per worker. Paul Krugman, The Age of Diminishing Expectations (1994) Productivity is commonly defined as a ratio of a volume measure of output to a volume measure of inputs and measures how efficiently production inputs are being used in the economy to produce outputs. While there is no disagreement on this general notion, a look at the productivity literature and its various applications reveals very quickly that there is neither a unique purpose for, nor a single measure of, productivity. There is also a general understanding that productivity matters for the standard of living and economic growth but to answer more specific analytical questions, different measures of productivity are required. This Compendium has as one of its objectives to show various productivity measures that are available at the OECD, along with brief information on their interpretation and methodology. In one way or another, the various measures relate to the broader objectives of productivity measurement, tracing technology, technical change and efficiency in the economy, in an industry or in a sector. More specific analytical reasons why the OECD is interested in the measurement of productivity include: Productivity growth is considered a key source of economic growth and competitiveness and as such forms a basic statistic for many international comparisons and country assessments; Productivity data are also used in the analysis of labour and product markets of OECD countries. For example, Conway et al. (2006) investigate the link between productivity and product market regulation across OECD countries; Productivity change constitutes an important element in modelling the productive capacity of OECD economies. This permits computation of capacity utilisation measures, themselves important to gauge the position of economies in the business cycle and to forecast economic growth. In addition, the degree to which an economys capacity is used informs analysts about the pressures from economic demand and thereby about the risk of inflationary developments.
The international perspective typically embraced by the OECD gives rise to some additional possibilities for analysis but poses also additional difficulties for measurement. Some of these analytical possibilities as well as the associated measurement issues are indicated in the text accompanying the productivity indicators.
OECD 2006
11
OECD 2006
13
A.1.
of a dismissal (or failure to employ) low-productivity workers. Compared with the second half of the 1990s, in the early 2000s, many European countries have experienced a decrease in their rate of labour utilisation. This slowdown in labour utilisation growth was also accompanied by a sharp decline in labour productivity growth in many European countries. Only Greece and Japan experienced a pick-up in both labour utilisation and labour productivity growth from 1995-2000 to 2000-2005, showing that there need not be a trade-off between labour productivity growth and increased labour use.
Sources OECD Productivity Database, September www.oecd.org/statistics/productivity 2006: