International productivity gaps

A. Ward, M. Zinni, Pascal Marianna
{"title":"International productivity gaps","authors":"A. Ward, M. Zinni, Pascal Marianna","doi":"10.1787/5B43C728-EN","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cross-country differences in the measurement of labour input contribute to observed productivity gaps across countries. In most countries, labour force surveys (LFS) form a primary source of information for employment related statistics, such as persons employed, employees and hours worked. However, because the coverage of LFS does not fully align with the coverage of activities used to estimate GDP, additional adjustments relying on complementary sources, such as administrative or business statistics, are often applied to bridge conceptual differences, and in many countries, the use of these sources is often preferred to LFS data. Evidence from the 2018 OECD/Eurostat national accounts labour input survey shows that the adjustments made to align measures of labour input with the corresponding measures of production according to the domestic concept, vary considerably across countries, with many countries making no adjustments, in particular, for the measurement of hours worked. This paper demonstrates that countries making no adjustments to average hours worked measures extracted from the original source, such as self-reported hours actually worked in the LFS, appear to systematically over-estimate labour input and, so, under-estimate labour productivity levels. To illustrate the size of this bias, for this group of countries, the paper adopts a simplified component method that introduces a series of explicit adjustments on working time using information available in LFS and complementary sources. The results point to a reduction in relative productivity gaps of around 10 percentage points in many countries compared to current estimates. Although future releases of OECD productivity (levels) statistics will incorporate these changes, it is important to stress that these estimates will only be used as a stop-gap while countries making no, or minimal adjustments, work to leverage all available data sources to produce average hours worked estimates that align with the national accounts domestic concept and that address self-reporting bias; which is the paper’s principal recommendation for those countries that currently make no or only partial adjustments. Indeed, many EU member states, coordinated by Eurostat, are already moving in this direction, with ESA 2010 derogations set to expire by 2020.","PeriodicalId":196193,"journal":{"name":"OECD Statistics Working Papers","volume":"328 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"OECD Statistics Working Papers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1787/5B43C728-EN","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Cross-country differences in the measurement of labour input contribute to observed productivity gaps across countries. In most countries, labour force surveys (LFS) form a primary source of information for employment related statistics, such as persons employed, employees and hours worked. However, because the coverage of LFS does not fully align with the coverage of activities used to estimate GDP, additional adjustments relying on complementary sources, such as administrative or business statistics, are often applied to bridge conceptual differences, and in many countries, the use of these sources is often preferred to LFS data. Evidence from the 2018 OECD/Eurostat national accounts labour input survey shows that the adjustments made to align measures of labour input with the corresponding measures of production according to the domestic concept, vary considerably across countries, with many countries making no adjustments, in particular, for the measurement of hours worked. This paper demonstrates that countries making no adjustments to average hours worked measures extracted from the original source, such as self-reported hours actually worked in the LFS, appear to systematically over-estimate labour input and, so, under-estimate labour productivity levels. To illustrate the size of this bias, for this group of countries, the paper adopts a simplified component method that introduces a series of explicit adjustments on working time using information available in LFS and complementary sources. The results point to a reduction in relative productivity gaps of around 10 percentage points in many countries compared to current estimates. Although future releases of OECD productivity (levels) statistics will incorporate these changes, it is important to stress that these estimates will only be used as a stop-gap while countries making no, or minimal adjustments, work to leverage all available data sources to produce average hours worked estimates that align with the national accounts domestic concept and that address self-reporting bias; which is the paper’s principal recommendation for those countries that currently make no or only partial adjustments. Indeed, many EU member states, coordinated by Eurostat, are already moving in this direction, with ESA 2010 derogations set to expire by 2020.
国际生产力差距
衡量劳动投入的跨国差异导致了各国之间观察到的生产率差距。在大多数国家,劳动力调查是与就业有关的统计资料的主要来源,例如就业人数、雇员和工作时间。然而,由于LFS的覆盖范围与用于估计国内生产总值的活动的覆盖范围不完全一致,因此经常采用依赖于行政或商业统计等补充来源的额外调整来弥合概念上的差异,在许多国家,使用这些来源往往比LFS数据更受欢迎。来自2018年经合组织/欧盟统计局国民账户劳动力投入调查的证据表明,根据国内概念,为使劳动力投入指标与相应的生产指标保持一致而进行的调整在各国之间差异很大,许多国家没有进行调整,特别是对工作时间的衡量。本文表明,未对从原始来源提取的平均工作时间指标(如LFS中自我报告的实际工作时间)进行调整的国家,似乎系统性地高估了劳动力投入,因此低估了劳动生产率水平。为了说明这种偏差的大小,对于这组国家,本文采用了一种简化的成分方法,利用LFS和补充来源提供的信息,引入了一系列关于工作时间的明确调整。结果表明,与目前的估计相比,许多国家的相对生产率差距缩小了约10个百分点。虽然经合组织生产率(水平)统计数据的未来发布将纳入这些变化,但必须强调的是,这些估计仅作为权宜之计,而没有进行调整或进行最小调整的国家将努力利用所有可用的数据来源来产生与国民核算国内概念一致的平均工作时间估计,并解决自我报告的偏见;这是该报告对那些目前没有或只进行部分调整的国家的主要建议。事实上,在欧盟统计局的协调下,许多欧盟成员国已经在朝着这个方向前进,ESA 2010的减损将于2020年到期。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信