Productivity accounts
Key indicators
Selected geographical area: Canada
-
0.4%
(quarterly change) -
$57.60 per hour-1.5%
(annual change)
Filter results by
Search HelpKeyword(s)
Type
Results
All (8)
All (8) ((8 results))
- Articles and reports: 15-206-X2008022Description:
Many historical comparisons of international productivity use measures of labour productivity (output per worker). Differences in labour productivity can be caused by differences in technical efficiency or differences in capital intensity. Moving to measures of total factor productivity allows international comparisons to ascertain whether differences in labour productivity arise from differences in efficiency or differences in factors utilized in the production process.
This paper examines differences in output per worker in the manufacturing sectors of Canada and the United States in 1929 and the extent to which it arises from efficiency differences. It makes corrections for differences in capital and materials intensity per worker in order to derive a measure of total factor efficiency of Canada relative to the United States, using detailed industry data. It finds that while output per worker in Canada was only about 75% of the United States productivity level, the total factor productivity measure of Canada was about the same as the United States level - that is, there was very little difference in technical efficiency in the two countries. Canada's lower output per worker was the result of the use of less capital and materials per worker than the United States.
Release date: 2008-12-23 - Articles and reports: 15-206-X2008020Description:
This paper compares the productivity growth of a set of Canadian and U.S. regulated industries. Using data from Statistics Canada's KLEMS database and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the paper examines productivity growth in transportation services (which includes air and rail), broadcasting and telecommunications, and financial services (which includes financial intermediation and insurance), over the period from 1977 to 2003. The majority of these provide the foundational networks on which other industries rely. These sectors were quite heavily regulated in Canada at the beginning of the period of study (1977), experienced partial deregulation during the period and still faced various types of regulation at the end (2003). Deregulation also occurred in the United States, but regulation has generally been less restrictive there over most of the period.
The evidence shows that many of the Canadian industries that underwent deregulation experienced faster labour productivity growth and multifactor productivity growth than did the aggregate Canadian business sector and had similar or higher productivity growth than did their counterparts in the United States over the 1977-to-2003 period. Those industries include rail transportation, broadcasting and telecommunications, financial intermediation and insurance carriers. The airline industry had slower productivity growth in Canada than in the United States over the 1977-to-2003 period.
Release date: 2008-11-26 - 3. Relative Multifactor Productivity Levels in Canada and the United States: A Sectoral Analysis ArchivedArticles and reports: 15-206-X2008019Description:
This paper has three main objectives. First, it examines the level of multifactor productivity (MFP) in Canada relative to that of the United States for the 1994-to-2003 period. Second, it examines the relative importance of differences in capital intensity and MFP in accounting for the labour productivity differences between the two countries. Third, it traces the overall MFP difference between Canada and the United States to its industry origins and estimates the contributions of the goods, services and engineering sectors to the overall MFP gap.
Our main findings are as follows. First, the overall capital intensity is as high in Canada as in the United States; but there are considerable differences in Canada's capital intensity across asset classes. Canada has considerably less machinery and equipment, about the same amount of buildings and considerably more engineering construction. Second, most of the differences in labour productivity between Canada and the United States are due to the differences in MFP. Third, our industry results show that the levels of labour productivity and MFP in the goods and the engineering sectors are closer to those of the United States. But, the level of labour and multifactor productivity in the services sector is much lower in Canada. The lower levels of labour productivity and MFP in the Canadian services sector account for most of the overall productivity level difference between the two countries.
Release date: 2008-07-21 - Surveys and statistical programs – Documentation: 15-206-X2008018Description:
Official data from statistical agencies are not always ideal for cross-country comparisons because of differences in data sources and methodology. Analysts who engage in cross-country comparisons need to carefully choose among alternatives and sometimes adapt data especially for their purposes. This paper develops comparable capital stock estimates to examine the relative capital intensity of Canada and the United States.
To do so, the paper applies common depreciation rates to Canadian and U.S. assets to come up with comparable capital stock estimates by assets and by industry between the two countries. Based on common depreciation rates, it finds that capital intensity is higher in the Canadian business sector than in the U.S. business sector. This is the net result of quite different ratios at the individual asset level. Canada has as higher intensity of engineering infrastructure assets per dollar of gross domestic product produced. Canada has a lower intensity of information and communications technology (ICT) machinery and equipment (M&E). Non-ICT M&E and building assets intensities are more alike in the two countries.
However, these results do not control for the fact that different asset-specific capital intensities between Canada and the United States may be the result of a different industrial structure. When both assets and industry structure are taken into account, the overall picture changes somewhat. Canada's business sector continues to have a higher intensity of engineering infrastructure and about the same intensity of building assets; however, it has a deficit in M&E that goes beyond ICT assets.
Release date: 2008-07-10 - Articles and reports: 11F0027M2008050Geography: CanadaDescription:
This paper examines whether or not the long-term government bond rate could reasonably be employed as the rate of return on public capital when calculating public sector gross domestic product. It finds that the rate of return on public capital is lower than often reported and is roughly consistent with the rate of return on private capital. Given that there is a range of estimates that are plausible, the paper concludes that the long-run government bond rate could be used as a conservative estimate for the rate of return for public infrastructure.
Previous studies have shown that production function estimates tend to find rates of return that are implausibly large, while cost function estimates appear more reasonable. This paper shows that public capital and total factor productivity (TFP) growth behave similarly, and argues that production function estimates for the impact of public capital overstate its impact as a result, catching part of what belongs in estimates of TFP. It also shows that the similarity between the growth in public capital and TFP leads to a large confidence interval around public capital elasticity estimates derived from the production function framework. The paper then proceeds by generating a confidence interval from the production function estimated first with and then without TFP growth. It then uses a cost function to pinpoint more precisely estimates for the marginal cost savings from public capital. Importantly, the estimate derived from the cost function is found in the lower part of the confidence interval derived from the production function. The rate of return associated with the overlapping estimates is then shown to cover a range that extends from the average long-run government bond rate to the rate of return on private capital.
Release date: 2008-04-15 - Surveys and statistical programs – Documentation: 15-206-X2008017Description:
This paper provides an overview of the productivity program at Statistics Canada and a brief description of Canada's productivity performance. The paper defines productivity and the various measures that are used to investigate different aspects of productivity growth. It describes the difference between partial productivity measures (such as labour productivity) and a more complete measure (multifactor productivity) and the advantages and disadvantages of each. The paper explains why productivity is important. It outlines how productivity growth fits into the growth accounting framework and how this framework is used to examine the various sources of economic growth. The paper briefly discusses the challenges that face statisticians in measuring productivity growth. It also provides an overview of Canada's long-term productivity performance and compares Canada to the United States - both in terms of productivity levels and productivity growth rates.
Release date: 2008-02-25 - Articles and reports: 11F0027M2008049Geography: CanadaDescription:
Productivity and wages tend to be higher in cities. This is typically explained by agglomeration economies, which increase the returns associated with urban locations. Competing arguments of specialization and diversity undergird these claims. Empirical research has long sought to confirm the existence of agglomeration economies and to adjudicate between the models of Marshall, Arrow and Romer (MAR) that suggest the benefits of proximity are largely confined to individual industries, and the claims of Jacobs (1969) that such benefits derive from a general increase in the density of economic activity in a particular place and are shared by all occupants of that location. The primary goal of this paper is to identify the main sources of urban increasing returns, after Marshall (1920). A secondary goal is to examine the geographical distance across which externalities flow between businesses in the same industry. We bring to bear on these questions plant-level data organized in the form of a panel across the years 1989 and 1999. The panel data overcome selection bias resulting from unobserved plant-level heterogeneity that is constant over time. Plant-level production functions are estimated across the Canadian manufacturing sector as a whole and for five broad industry groups, each characterized by the nature of their output. Results provide strong support for Marshall's (1920) claims about the importance of buyer-supplier networks, labour market pooling and spillovers. The data show spillovers enhance plant productivity within industries rather than between them and that these spillovers tend to be more spatially extensive than previous studies have found.
Release date: 2008-02-05 - 8. Cities and Growth: Knowledge Spillovers in the Adoption of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies ArchivedArticles and reports: 11-622-M2008018Geography: CanadaDescription:
This paper examines the presence of knowledge spillovers that affect the adoption of advanced technologies in the Canadian manufacturing sector. It examines whether plants that adopt advanced technologies are more likely to do so when there are other nearby plants that do so within a model of technology adoption.
Release date: 2008-02-05
Data (0)
Data (0) (0 results)
No content available at this time.
Analysis (6)
Analysis (6) ((6 results))
- Articles and reports: 15-206-X2008022Description:
Many historical comparisons of international productivity use measures of labour productivity (output per worker). Differences in labour productivity can be caused by differences in technical efficiency or differences in capital intensity. Moving to measures of total factor productivity allows international comparisons to ascertain whether differences in labour productivity arise from differences in efficiency or differences in factors utilized in the production process.
This paper examines differences in output per worker in the manufacturing sectors of Canada and the United States in 1929 and the extent to which it arises from efficiency differences. It makes corrections for differences in capital and materials intensity per worker in order to derive a measure of total factor efficiency of Canada relative to the United States, using detailed industry data. It finds that while output per worker in Canada was only about 75% of the United States productivity level, the total factor productivity measure of Canada was about the same as the United States level - that is, there was very little difference in technical efficiency in the two countries. Canada's lower output per worker was the result of the use of less capital and materials per worker than the United States.
Release date: 2008-12-23 - Articles and reports: 15-206-X2008020Description:
This paper compares the productivity growth of a set of Canadian and U.S. regulated industries. Using data from Statistics Canada's KLEMS database and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the paper examines productivity growth in transportation services (which includes air and rail), broadcasting and telecommunications, and financial services (which includes financial intermediation and insurance), over the period from 1977 to 2003. The majority of these provide the foundational networks on which other industries rely. These sectors were quite heavily regulated in Canada at the beginning of the period of study (1977), experienced partial deregulation during the period and still faced various types of regulation at the end (2003). Deregulation also occurred in the United States, but regulation has generally been less restrictive there over most of the period.
The evidence shows that many of the Canadian industries that underwent deregulation experienced faster labour productivity growth and multifactor productivity growth than did the aggregate Canadian business sector and had similar or higher productivity growth than did their counterparts in the United States over the 1977-to-2003 period. Those industries include rail transportation, broadcasting and telecommunications, financial intermediation and insurance carriers. The airline industry had slower productivity growth in Canada than in the United States over the 1977-to-2003 period.
Release date: 2008-11-26 - 3. Relative Multifactor Productivity Levels in Canada and the United States: A Sectoral Analysis ArchivedArticles and reports: 15-206-X2008019Description:
This paper has three main objectives. First, it examines the level of multifactor productivity (MFP) in Canada relative to that of the United States for the 1994-to-2003 period. Second, it examines the relative importance of differences in capital intensity and MFP in accounting for the labour productivity differences between the two countries. Third, it traces the overall MFP difference between Canada and the United States to its industry origins and estimates the contributions of the goods, services and engineering sectors to the overall MFP gap.
Our main findings are as follows. First, the overall capital intensity is as high in Canada as in the United States; but there are considerable differences in Canada's capital intensity across asset classes. Canada has considerably less machinery and equipment, about the same amount of buildings and considerably more engineering construction. Second, most of the differences in labour productivity between Canada and the United States are due to the differences in MFP. Third, our industry results show that the levels of labour productivity and MFP in the goods and the engineering sectors are closer to those of the United States. But, the level of labour and multifactor productivity in the services sector is much lower in Canada. The lower levels of labour productivity and MFP in the Canadian services sector account for most of the overall productivity level difference between the two countries.
Release date: 2008-07-21 - Articles and reports: 11F0027M2008050Geography: CanadaDescription:
This paper examines whether or not the long-term government bond rate could reasonably be employed as the rate of return on public capital when calculating public sector gross domestic product. It finds that the rate of return on public capital is lower than often reported and is roughly consistent with the rate of return on private capital. Given that there is a range of estimates that are plausible, the paper concludes that the long-run government bond rate could be used as a conservative estimate for the rate of return for public infrastructure.
Previous studies have shown that production function estimates tend to find rates of return that are implausibly large, while cost function estimates appear more reasonable. This paper shows that public capital and total factor productivity (TFP) growth behave similarly, and argues that production function estimates for the impact of public capital overstate its impact as a result, catching part of what belongs in estimates of TFP. It also shows that the similarity between the growth in public capital and TFP leads to a large confidence interval around public capital elasticity estimates derived from the production function framework. The paper then proceeds by generating a confidence interval from the production function estimated first with and then without TFP growth. It then uses a cost function to pinpoint more precisely estimates for the marginal cost savings from public capital. Importantly, the estimate derived from the cost function is found in the lower part of the confidence interval derived from the production function. The rate of return associated with the overlapping estimates is then shown to cover a range that extends from the average long-run government bond rate to the rate of return on private capital.
Release date: 2008-04-15 - Articles and reports: 11F0027M2008049Geography: CanadaDescription:
Productivity and wages tend to be higher in cities. This is typically explained by agglomeration economies, which increase the returns associated with urban locations. Competing arguments of specialization and diversity undergird these claims. Empirical research has long sought to confirm the existence of agglomeration economies and to adjudicate between the models of Marshall, Arrow and Romer (MAR) that suggest the benefits of proximity are largely confined to individual industries, and the claims of Jacobs (1969) that such benefits derive from a general increase in the density of economic activity in a particular place and are shared by all occupants of that location. The primary goal of this paper is to identify the main sources of urban increasing returns, after Marshall (1920). A secondary goal is to examine the geographical distance across which externalities flow between businesses in the same industry. We bring to bear on these questions plant-level data organized in the form of a panel across the years 1989 and 1999. The panel data overcome selection bias resulting from unobserved plant-level heterogeneity that is constant over time. Plant-level production functions are estimated across the Canadian manufacturing sector as a whole and for five broad industry groups, each characterized by the nature of their output. Results provide strong support for Marshall's (1920) claims about the importance of buyer-supplier networks, labour market pooling and spillovers. The data show spillovers enhance plant productivity within industries rather than between them and that these spillovers tend to be more spatially extensive than previous studies have found.
Release date: 2008-02-05 - 6. Cities and Growth: Knowledge Spillovers in the Adoption of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies ArchivedArticles and reports: 11-622-M2008018Geography: CanadaDescription:
This paper examines the presence of knowledge spillovers that affect the adoption of advanced technologies in the Canadian manufacturing sector. It examines whether plants that adopt advanced technologies are more likely to do so when there are other nearby plants that do so within a model of technology adoption.
Release date: 2008-02-05
Reference (2)
Reference (2) ((2 results))
- Surveys and statistical programs – Documentation: 15-206-X2008018Description:
Official data from statistical agencies are not always ideal for cross-country comparisons because of differences in data sources and methodology. Analysts who engage in cross-country comparisons need to carefully choose among alternatives and sometimes adapt data especially for their purposes. This paper develops comparable capital stock estimates to examine the relative capital intensity of Canada and the United States.
To do so, the paper applies common depreciation rates to Canadian and U.S. assets to come up with comparable capital stock estimates by assets and by industry between the two countries. Based on common depreciation rates, it finds that capital intensity is higher in the Canadian business sector than in the U.S. business sector. This is the net result of quite different ratios at the individual asset level. Canada has as higher intensity of engineering infrastructure assets per dollar of gross domestic product produced. Canada has a lower intensity of information and communications technology (ICT) machinery and equipment (M&E). Non-ICT M&E and building assets intensities are more alike in the two countries.
However, these results do not control for the fact that different asset-specific capital intensities between Canada and the United States may be the result of a different industrial structure. When both assets and industry structure are taken into account, the overall picture changes somewhat. Canada's business sector continues to have a higher intensity of engineering infrastructure and about the same intensity of building assets; however, it has a deficit in M&E that goes beyond ICT assets.
Release date: 2008-07-10 - Surveys and statistical programs – Documentation: 15-206-X2008017Description:
This paper provides an overview of the productivity program at Statistics Canada and a brief description of Canada's productivity performance. The paper defines productivity and the various measures that are used to investigate different aspects of productivity growth. It describes the difference between partial productivity measures (such as labour productivity) and a more complete measure (multifactor productivity) and the advantages and disadvantages of each. The paper explains why productivity is important. It outlines how productivity growth fits into the growth accounting framework and how this framework is used to examine the various sources of economic growth. The paper briefly discusses the challenges that face statisticians in measuring productivity growth. It also provides an overview of Canada's long-term productivity performance and compares Canada to the United States - both in terms of productivity levels and productivity growth rates.
Release date: 2008-02-25
- Date modified: