Download Productivity and unit labour cost comparisons: a data base

EMPLOYMENT PAPER
2000/5
Productivity and unit labour
cost comparisons:
a data base
Bart van Ark
Erik Monnikhof
Employment Sector
International Labour Office Geneva
Copyright © International Labour Organization 2000
ISBN 92-2-112176-3
Publications of the International Labour Office enjoy copyright under Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright
Convention. Nevertheless, short excerpts from them may be reproduced without authorization, on condition
that the source is indicated. For rights or reproduction, or translation, application should be made to the ILO
Publications Bureau (Rights and Permissions), International Labour Office, CH-1211 Geneva 22,
Switzerland. The International Labour Office welcomes such applications.
Libraries, institutions and other users registered in the United Kingdom with the Copyright Licensing
Agency, 90 Tottenham Court road, London W1P 9HE (Fax:+44 171 436 3986), in the United States with
the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 (Fax:+ 1 508 750 4470), or in
other countries with associated Reproduction Rights Organizations, may make photocopies in accordance
with the licences issued to them for this purpose.
The designations employed in ILO publications, which are in conformity with United Nations practice, and
the presentation of material therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the
International Labour Office concerning the legal status of any country, area or territory or of its authorities,
or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers.
The responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles, studies and other contributions rests solely with
their authors, and publication does not constitute an endorsement by the International Labour Office of the
opinions expressed in them.
Reference to names of firms and commercial products and processes does not imply their endorsement by
the International Labour Office, and any failure to mention a particular firm, commercial product or process
is not a sign of disapproval.
ILO publications can be obtained through major booksellers or ILO local offices in many countries, or direct
from ILO Publications, International Labour Office, CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland. Catalogues or lists
of new publications are available free of charge from the above address.
Contents
Foreword..........................................................................................................................................1
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................1
2. Measures of output, labour inputs and labour compensation.......................................................2
3. Currency conversion factors ........................................................................................................8
4. Groningen Growth and Development Centre DataBase ............................................................13
5. Some comparisons of productivity and unit labour cost............................................................14
6. Research agenda ........................................................................................................................21
Appendix I .....................................................................................................................................22
References......................................................................................................................................31
Foreword
In 1997, a collaborative effort involving the ILO, experts from the Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and several national statistical offices was
undertaken to complete the selection and refinement of indicators for a 1999 Key Indicators of
the Labour Market (KILM) project. The KILM project was designed with two objectives: (1)
to develop a set of labour market indicators; and (2) to widen the availability of the indicators
to monitor new employment trends so as to arm policy-makers with the proper tools for
decision-making in labour market policies. The indicators were chosen based on three criteria:
conceptual relevance, data availability and comparability across countries and regions. The
resulting set of 18 indicators was designed to satisfy the ever-increasing demands of
governments and the social partners for timely, accurate and accessible information on the
world’s labour markets.
One measure that generates continual interest world-wide is the measure of labour
productivity. Economic growth in a country or a sector can be linked either to increased
employment or to more effective work of those who are employed, the latter of which can be
captured in the measurement of labour productivity. The understanding of what drives labour
productivity, be it the accumulation of machinery, improvements in physical and institutional
infrastructures, streamlining of human capital, the generation of new technologies, etc., is
important for formulating policies to support economic growth. The obvious first criterion of
policy formulation, however, is accurate and comparable data.
The KILM database includes data series for both labour productivity and unit labour
costs. The second measure, unit labour costs, represents a direct link between productivity and
the cost of labour used in generating output. This paper, prepared by researchers of the
Groningen Growth and Development Centre at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands,
presents the background information on data sources and methodologies used for the KILM
measures. Some discussion focussed on the data estimates for the 31 countries included in the
total economy series and the 23 countries included in the manufacturing series. Finally, the
paper sets out the research agenda for future work on KILM productivity measures.
Werner Sengenberger
Director
Employment Strategy Department
1. Introduction
This paper presents background information on data sources and methodologies on
measures of labour productivity and unit labour cost, as presented in Chapter 6 of the Key
Indicators of the Labour Market (KILM) database of the International Labour Office as KILM
17.1 The KILM database is meant to provide timely and accurate information on labour
markets developments across the world. The first KILM publication covers labour market
indicators, including labour force participation rates, unemployment, working hours,
educational attainment, wages and productivity for a wide range of countries since 1980. A
separate CD-ROM was released with data for intermediate years and underlying basic data.
The KILM database will be updated on a regular basis through the KILM website and future
publications.2
The two major variables in KILM 17 are labour productivity and unit labour cost. The
estimates include 31 countries for the total economy (see Table 1) and 23 countries for
manufacturing (see Table 2). The measures mostly cover the period 1980-1997, even though in
some cases date only run to 1995 or 1996. Labour productivity is defined as the gross domestic
product or value added per person employed or, when data on working hours were available,
per hour worked. The measures are provided as indices (based on 1980=100) which only
measures changes from the reference year, but in most cases also in US dollars. The US dollarbased estimates of labour productivity are obtained on the basis of purchasing power parities
for the total economy and unit value ratios for manufacturing. Labour cost per unit of output
(in short, unit labour cost) is defined as nominal labour compensation divided by real value
added. Total labour compensation includes wage compensation and other labour costs such as
employers’ contributions to social security and pension schemes and labour cost of the selfemployed. Unit labour costs are provided as indices (based on 1980=100) and in US dollars. In
the latter case labour compensation is converted to US dollars on the basis of the official
market exchange rates. The actual construction of the output, labour input and compensation
measures and the way these are combined into our key measures of labour productivity and
unit labour cost is discussed in more detail in Section 2.
A unique feature of KILM 17 is that the indicators are provided not only in terms of
indices but also as levels expressed in US dollars. This adds substantially to the usefulness of
these indicators for international comparisons. The labour productivity measure in US dollars
is corrected for differences in relative prices between countries using purchasing power parities
(for the total economy) or unit value ratios (for manufacturing). Section 3 deals specifically
with the estimates of purchasing power parities and unit value ratios.
Section 4 of the paper gives a brief discussion of the underlying data sources for KILM
17. Data are largely derived from the Groningen Growth and Development Centre (GGDC)
Database, which contains internationally comparable information on growth and levels of
output, population and labour input.3 In addition the GGDC Database employs the purchasing
power parities and unit value ratios to convert output to a common currency. For KILM 17, we
separately developed measures of total labour compensation, mostly derived from national
1
ILO (1999), Key Indicators of the Labour Market 1999, Chapter 6: Labour productivity and unit labour costs
indicator, Geneva.
2
The KILM website is located at http://www.ilo.org/kilm.
3
In a limited number of cases the GGDC database also provides estimates of capital stock. The GGDC database is
regularly updated and extended and can be consulted at: http://www.eco.rug.nl/ggdc/homeggdc.html
2
accounts, which are consistent with the output and labour input data from the GGDC
Database.4 Sources are provided on a country-by-country basis in the Appendix of this paper.
Finally, in Section 5 we discuss some of the results on labour productivity and unit labour
cost. In the concluding section we set the research agenda for future work on KILM 17.
2. Measures of output, labour inputs and labour
compensation
Chart 1 provides an overview of the major inputs to obtain internationally comparable
measures of labour productivity and unit labour cost. The variables in the grey-shaded boxes
are derived from the other variables that in turn are obtained from sources described below and
in the appendix. The key variables that are briefly discussed here are output, labour inputs and
labour compensation.
Output is defined as “gross value added” (or, in national accounts terms, “gross domestic
product”), which is the total domestic production value minus the value of purchased
intermediate inputs. These variables are primarily obtained from national accounts statistics
which are calculated according to a common conceptual framework, the System of National
Accounts. The extent to which this can compensate for differences in the nature and quality of
available statistics, in particular for developing countries, is unclear. In particular, international
comparisons of real GDP have become more troublesome during recent years. Firstly, as the
share of services in output has increased, distinguishing between price and quantity
components of the value of output has become increasingly difficult. This is partly because of
the lack of primary statistics for services, such as censuses and price surveys. In addition, it is
conceptually more difficult to define the quantity of a particular service delivered than the
quantity of a tangible good (Griliches, 1992). This problem of increasing proportions of poorly
measured services is common to all countries. It is of particular concern in international
comparisons because individual countries tend to follow their own procedures in estimating
services output. Moreover, because the shares of services vary across national economies, the
impact of the problem is not uniform.
A second problem is that the weighting systems used to aggregate individual goods and
services into GDP measures at constant prices are not fully harmonized. Several advanced
countries - including, most recently, the United States - are now producing annually chained
series for GDP. Because this procedure relies on very recent component weights, it is preferred
for statistical as well theoretical reasons. On the other hand, there are still a substantial number
of countries that use 5- or even 10-year base weights in developing their national accounts.
These differences strongly affect the comparability of the time series of real GDP, as longer
base periods lead to an overstatement of growth rates when (as is usual) observations for the
first year of the period are used as GDP component weights.
A third problem, one that becomes particularly important when low-income countries are
included in the analysis, is undercoverage of output measures due to neglect of large parts of
the informal economy. Even in advanced countries, adjustments for the underground economy
can differ substantially, and the effect on GDP estimates can be as much as 15 to 20 per cent.
(Maddison, 1996).
4
For an earlier study of unit labour cost comparisons using this type of data for the G-5 (France, Germany, Japan,
the United Kingdom vis-à-vis the United States), see van Ark (1995, 1996).
3
Chart 1 - Stylized Structure of Data Base for Comparisons of Labour Productivity and Unit Labour Cost
Imputed Total Labour
Compensation per Unit
of Gross Value Added in
US Dollars
Gross Value
Added per
Employee-Hour
Annual Hours
per Employee
Gross Value
Added per
Employee
Employees
(wage and salary
earners)
Employee
Compensation per Unit
of Gross Value Added in
US Dollars
Gross Value Added
in US dollars
(constant prices)
Gross Value
Added per
Person Employed
All persons
Employed
Gross Value
Added per Person
Employed-Hour
Annual Hours
per Person
Employed
Purchasing
Power Parity
Gross Value Added
in National Currency
(constant prices)
Total Employee
Compensation in
US Dollars
Exchange
Rates
Total Employee
Compensation in
National Currency
Employee
Compensation per Unit
of Gross Value Added in
National Currency
Imputed Total Labour
Compensation per Unit
of Gross Value Added in
National Currency
Note: Unshaded boxes are basic variables; shaded boxes are derivatives.
4
The estimates in this paper are still based on guidelines laid down in the old United
Nations System of National Accounts (SNA) of 1968. Since 1999 many countries have begun
to apply guidelines from the new 1993 System of National Accounts. The new SNA implies
substantial changes, including strong recommendations to switch to chain-linked volume
series, the introduction of a broader concept on investment, including expenditure on software,
changes in the treatment of taxes and subsidies, and increased coverage of the “grey” economy.
However, countries are still at different stages in implementing the 1993 SNA. In some cases
the introduction of the 1993 SNA has caused very substantial adjustments to GDP levels in
OECD countries, ranging from between 0.3 per cent for Belgium to 7.4 per cent for the
Republic of Korea (OECD, 1999 and 2000). The impact on growth rates is still unclear as the
periods over which the changes have been implemented differ across countries, with most
countries, not going further back than the late 1980s. Many non-OECD countries have not yet
implemented the SNA 1993 guidelines at all.
Labour input in KILM 17 refers to the number of persons employed and where possible
also to annual working hours. Estimates of employment are for the average number of persons
with one or more paid jobs during the year. Unfortunately, even conceptually, labour accounts
are not as well harmonized as are national accounts, although a small number of countries
provide employment estimates within the national accounts framework. For most countries
employment estimates are derived from labour force or population surveys. Using these
sources in combination with those from the national accounts assumes that the same population
of establishments is covered in both countries. With an adjustment for self-employed persons,
which may introduce part of the “grey” economy into the labour measures, this assumption
may not hold, in particular not for developing countries.
Comprehensive estimates of annual working hours are difficult to obtain and their
international comparability is limited. For example, hours often refer to paid hours rather than
hours actually worked. For a small number of countries in KILM 17, including Canada, the
United Kingdom and the United States, estimates of hours actually worked (as opposed to
hours paid) could be directly obtained on the basis of labour force survey information.
However, the international comparability of these estimates is questionable. For most other
countries we therefore made use of some variant of the “component method” to arrive at hours
actually worked.5 This method begins with a measure of paid hours or “usual” hours, which is
supplemented with estimates of “unusual” working hours (such as overtime) and various types
of hours not worked, including vacation and holidays, absences due to sickness and part-time
work. Estimates for use with the component method generally are obtained by combining
information on paid employee hours from establishment surveys and information on working
hours of self-employed and unpaid family workers from labour force surveys.
We followed Maddison (1980, 1991) by using as much as possible hours estimates based
on the component method. This has particularly large consequences for the estimates of annual
working hours in the United States, for which our estimate of 1,615 hours per person employed
in 1996, which is updated from Maddison’s 1992-estimate of 1,589 hours (Maddison, 1995), is
about 340 hours below the US estimate reported by OECD (1998), and which is derived from
the Current Population Survey in the United States (and subsequently reproduced in KILM 6.
Hours of work). This large difference requires further investigation, but for this moment we use
the lower “component method” estimate because of its greater international comparability.6
5
See, for example, OECD (1998, p. 185) for OECD countries. See Maddison (1980) and van Ark (1993) for a
detailed description of this method.
6
For further discussion, see van Ark and McGuckin (1999)
5
As Chart 1 shows the measures of output and labour input in principle provide us with
four possible measures of labour productivity, namely gross value added per person employed
(in 1990 US $), per hour worked (in 1990 US $), per person employed (1980 = 100), and per
hour worked (1980 = 100). In practice we were mostly able to obtain measures of value added
per hour worked, although in some cases no measure of working hours could be obtained for
manufacturing. In other cases, in particular for non-OECD countries, the measure of working
hours mostly only covers employees. In those cases we often assumed working hours per
employee were representative for those of a self-employed person, so that we could still
provide a measure of gross value added per person-employed hour.
Total labour compensation is also derived from national accounts statistics. The
advantage of using the national accounts is that the definition of compensation is the most
comprehensive. It is meant to include not only gross wages and salaries of employees, but also
labour costs paid by employers. However, national accounts measures of labour costs refer to
employee compensation only, and therefore do not include the compensation of self-employed
persons which is by definition part of other income, including income on capital, etc. Hence, as
Chart 1 shows the unit labour cost measure is in first instance expressed as employee
compensation per unit of output. To obtain a measure of total labour compensation per unit of
output, we needed to impute the labour income for self-employed persons assuming the same
labour compensation per employee and per self-employed person. The latter estimate could be
obtained when measures of employees as well as total persons employed were available.
In contrast to the productivity measures, the labour compensation measures were
expressed in current prices and not adjusted for relative price differences between country. As
a result the unit labour cost measure is constructed from a numerator (labour compensation) in
nominal terms and a denominator (output) in real terms. This apparent contrast can be
understood when interpreting the unit labour cost measure as an indicator of cost
competitiveness. It then adequately represents the current cost of labour per “quantity unit” of
output produced. Similarly for comparisons across countries, labour compensation was
converted to US dollars on the basis of exchange rates. For this purpose the unit labour cost
equation can be written as the ratio of nominal labour compensation per hour worked and real
labour productivity per hour worked:
ULC
X (U )
X(X)
/ ER XU
LCH
=
X(X)
/ PPP XU
OH
(1)
where ERXU is the exchange rate between country X and the United States, PPPXU is the
purchasing power parity (or unit value ratio) between country X and the United States, LCHX(X)
are the labour cost per hour in country X in prices of X and OHX(X) is output (value added) per
hour in country X in prices of country X. Equation (1) can be rewritten to decompose the
difference in unit labour cost between country X and country U into three components, i.e., the
difference in nominal labour cost per person, the difference in nominal labour productivity (that
is unadjusted for differences in price levels) and the differences in relative price levels:
X
log( ULCX(U) - ULCU ) = log(
X
LCH
OH
- LCHU ) - log( XU - OHU ) - log( ERXU - PPPXU )
XU
ER
ER
(2)
All these three measures contribute in their own way to differences in cost
competitiveness between the two countries. The measure of PPPs and unit value ratios are
discussed in more detail in the next section.
Tables 1 and 2 show the availability of the underlying data on output in US dollars,
labour input (persons employed or working hours) and labour compensation for the countries
6
included in KILM 17. In most cases the key variables were available to calculate output per
hour worked in US$ and total labour compensation per unit of output in US$ were available.
However, in a limited number of cases we had to rely on alternative measures. For example,
for some countries (Philippines, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Venezuela) only labour
compensation for employees could be obtained and no adjustment to total labour compensation
was possible. Secondly, in some cases (Austria, Denmark, Greece, Portugal, Philippines,
Thailand and Mexico) manufacturing value added could not be converted to US dollars due to
a lack of a currency conversion factor, so that we can only provide estimates on productivity
and unit labour cost on the basis of national currency estimates. Finally, for the manufacturing
estimates of Korea, Taiwan-China, Philippines and Mexico and for the total economy-estimate
of Hong Kong-China, a wage index instead of full compensation was used. This latter type of
measure is less useful for the purpose of constructing unit labour cost estimates than the figures
based on compensation obtained from national accounts for several reasons. Firstly, wage or
earnings indices do not cover all labour cost, as these exclude employers’ contributions.
Secondly, these indices often refer to particular types of workers or particular economic
activities. In particular, the agricultural sector is usually not covered by wage statistics. For this
reason, this proxy measure is usually not applied beyond the manufacturing sector.7
7
As an exception, a proxy wage measure was also used for the total economy in the case of Hong Kong, China,
given the negligible size of its agricultural sector.
7
Table 1:
Country
Availability of underlying data for KILM 17 (1999), total economy
GDP in
Persons
Hours per
Total labour
Employee Wage
1990 US$
employed
person compensation compensation index
employed
in US$
in US$
Major Europe
Austria
X
X
X
X
Belgium
X
X
X
X
Denmark
X
X
X
X
Finland
X
X
X
X
France
X
X
X
X
Germany (West)
X
X
X
X
Greece
X
X
X
X
Ireland
X
X
X
X
Italy
X
X
X
X
Netherlands
X
X
X
X
Portugal
X
X
X
X
Spain
X
X
X
X
Sweden
X
X
X
X
United Kingdom
X
X
X
X
Major non-Europe
Australia
X
X
X
X
Canada
X
X
X
X
Japan
X
X
X
X
United States
X
X
X
X
Asia and the Pacific
Eastern Asia
Hong
Kong,
X
X
X
X
China
Korea, Republic
X
X
X
X
of
Taiwan, China
X
X
X
South-central Asia
India
X
X
Sri Lanka
X
X
South-eastern
Asia
Indonesia
X
X
Philippines
X
X
X
Thailand
X
X
Latin America and The Caribbean
Brazil
X
X
X
X
Chile
X
X
X
X
Colombia
X
X
X
X
Mexico
X
X
X
X
Venezuela
X
X
X
X
Source: See ILO ( 1999), table 17a)
8
Table 2 – Availability of underlying data for KILM 17 (1999), manufacturing
Country
GDP in
1990 US$
Major Europe
Austria
Belgium
X
Denmark
Finland
X
France
X
Germany (West)
X
Greece
Netherlands
X
Portugal
Spain
X
Sweden
X
United Kingdom
X
Major non-Europe
Australia
X
Canada
X
Japan
X
United States
X
Asia and the Pacific
Eastern Asia
Korea, Republic of
X
Taiwan, China
X
South-central Asia
India
X
South-eastern Asia
Indonesia
X
Philippines
Thailand
Latin America and the Caribbean
Mexico
See ILO (1999), table 17b
Persons
employed
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hours per
person
employed
Total labour
compensation
in US$
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
GDP in
own currency
(constant prices)
Wage
index
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3. Currency conversion factors
Much of the work on international comparisons is based on comparisons of growth
rates across countries. This reduces measurement errors from methodological differences
between countries because many of these errors remain relatively constant over time and
therefore drop out when the growth rate is calculated.8 An important element of the work for
KILM 17 is the use of currency conversion factors to express all indicators in US dollars. In
this way comparisons can be made not only over time but also across space. For output
comparisons, use of market exchange rates does not take account of differences in relative
price levels across countries. Hence the use of purchasing power-adjusted exchange rates is a
fundamental component of the level comparisons pursued for this project. Purchasing power
parities (PPPs) are the amount of a country’s currency that is required to purchase a standard
set of goods and services worth one unit of the currency of another (base) country. When
converting output measured in one currency into the currency of another country, PPPs take
account of the price differences between the countries.
8
Maddison (1996) suggests that over the past 40 to 50 years differences between growth measures of OECD
countries are due to non-comparability of the measure and “…less than 0.2% a year should probably not be
regarded as significant.” p. 30.
9
For comparisons of total economy output, purchasing power parities for GDP can be
used. The use of purchasing power parities has a long history going back to work done at the
OECD during the 1950s (Gilbert and Kravis, 1954; Gilbert and Associates, 1958). Since 1975,
the construction of PPPs has been a regular aspect of the statistical programs of international
agencies such as Eurostat, OECD, the United Nations and the World Bank.9 PPPs are estimated
for 251 expenditure categories and aggregated to total GDP. An important feature of the PPP
estimates since the 1970s is that the aggregation procedures are such that multilateral
comparisons between groups of countries can be made. Hence the results are transitive, so that,
for example, a comparison of the US/Germany PPP with the Germany/France PPP gives the
same result as the U.S/France PPP.
For European countries, purchasing power parities are now estimated on an annual
basis, and for the non-European OECD countries estimates are provided on a three-year basis
(1990, 1993, 1996, etc.).10 For non-OECD countries, benchmark estimates are provided on a
more irregular basis. For most Asian countries, PPP estimates can be obtained for 1975 (from
Kravis, Heston and Summer, 1982), 1980 (from United Nations, 1986) and 1985 (from United
Nations, 1994), whereas for Latin American countries the 1975-round was the latest from
which PPP estimates can be obtained. Maddison implicitly obtained 1990 PPPs by updating the
GDP in US$ for the benchmark year to 1990 using the real GDP trend in the given country and
the GDP deflator for the United States:
GDPX(U)90 = GDPX(U)t * REALGDPX90/t * DEFLU90/t
(3)
where GDPX(U)t represents GDP of country X in US dollars in year t, REALGDPX90/t represents
the real GDP index of country X between year t and 1990, and DEFLU90/t the GDP deflator of
the United States between year t and 1990. By dividing 1990 GDP in US dollars through the
1990 GDP in national currencies of country, the implicit 1990 PPP is obtained. For KILM 17
we applied Maddison’s 1990 PPPs for total GDP that made it possible to cover the widest
possible sample of countries in a consistent way for a most recent year.11
The total economy PPPs are all aggregated using the Geary-Khamis method. This
implies that purchasing power parities are simultaneously developed with so-called
international prices. The Geary-Khamis PPPs give weights to countries according to their size
measured in terms of gross national product (GNP). For example, in application of this method,
the GDP of the United States counts for approximately 5 times as much in the determination of
international prices as that of India and about 7.5 times as much as that of Brazil.12 (See table
3)
9
See, for example, Kravis, Heston and Summers (1982), Eurostat (1983, 1988), OECD (1996, 1999), United
Nations (1986, 1994).
10
The latest PPP estimates for OECD countries are now benchmarked on 1996 (OECD, 1999). See the GGDC
website for regular updates of GDP estimates on the basis of the latest PPP estimates
(http://www.eco.rug.nl/ggdcc/homeggdc.html). van Ark and McGuckin (1999) provide comparisons of PPPadjusted estimates of per capita income and labour productivity for OECD and non-OECD countries.
11
See Heston and Summers (1991) for a review of the PPP-adjusted estimates of the Penn World Tables, which
are converted at 1985 PPPs.
12
An alternative method that is nowadays mostly used in the OECD countries aggregates PPPs on the basis of the
EKS (Eltetö, Köves and Sculz) method. EKS PPPs are basically geometric averages of binary PPPs (which are not
individually transitive). This means that they represent averages that do not account for differences in country
size. For a review of PPP methods, see Hill (1982). For updates, recent development and references to
10
PPP estimates have been criticized for many reasons, as set out in recent reports by
Castles (1997) and Ryten (1999). Indeed the precise nature of the price surveys can differ
across countries. The pricing procedures have been criticized for lack of comparability and
reflection of the specified items between countries. Furthermore, the multilateral character of
the estimates is affected by the fact that the PPPs are, in fact, estimated for six different
regions, which are “globalized” with particular interregional (binary) links. Finally, within each
of the regions the aggregation procedures of the PPPs differ. For example, within the European
Union, country PPPs are unweighted for size of GDP, whereas the PPPs for non-European
OECD countries are combined with those for the European Union by weighting for size of
GDP.
For manufacturing, appropriate currency conversion factors are more difficult to obtain
than for the total economy, as there are no specific international surveys of producer prices. For
a limited number of countries in Europe, North America and Asia, measures of manufacturing
unit value ratios are obtained on the basis of industry of origin method by the ICOP
(International Comparisons of Output and Productivity) research group at the Groningen
Growth and Development Centre (GGDC) at the University of Groningen.13 With this method,
industry-specific purchasing power parities are obtained from ratios of unit values. The unit
values represent sales values divided by quantities for similar products or product groups,
derived from national production censuses or industry surveys, which are matched between
countries. The unit value ratios are weighted at product and industry output values and then
used to convert manufacturing output to US dollars. In contrast to the total economy PPPs the
unit value ratios for manufacturing are of a bilateral nature. The ICOP project now covers
about 30 countries in Asia, East and West Europe, and North and South America. Comparisons
of manufacturing output and productivity are disaggregated into 16 manufacturing branches
and are available for almost all of these countries.14
The manufacturing unit value ratios (UVRs) used for KILM 17 were obtained for 1987
and updated to 1990 on the basis of the ratio of the 1990/1987 deflators of each country
relative to the United States (see table 3). With the exception of Spain and the United
Kingdom, the differences between the total economy PPPs and the manufacturing UVRs are
rather small for the OECD economies. However, for the non-OECD countries, manufacturing
UVRs are substantially higher than those for the total economy, confirming the stylized fact
that relative prices of non-manufacturing goods are much lower than those of manufactured
goods in low-income countries.
methodological
studies,
see
the
(http://www.oecd.org/std/ppp/pps.htm).
OECD
website
on
purchasing
power
parities
13
An earlier pioneering industry-of-origin study of comparative output and productivity is Paige and Bombach
(1959).
14
In addition, ICOP estimates are available for agriculture and (for a limited number of countries) for particular
service sectors. See the ICOP website at http://www.eco.rug.nl/ggdc/icop.html, which also includes a list of ICOP
and ICOP-related publications and reports since 1983.
11
Table 3. Purchasing power parities for total economy unit value ratios for
manufacturing, national currency to US dollar, 1990.
Purchasing Power Unit Value Ratio
Parity (1990)
(1990)
Major Europe
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany (West)
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Major non-Europe
Australia
Canada
Japan
United States
Asia and the Pacific Eastern Asia
Hong Kong, China
Korea, Republic of
Taiwan, China
South-central Asia
India
Sri Lanka
South-eastern Asia
Indonesia
Philippines
Thailand
Latin America and the Caribbean
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Mexico
Venezuela
13.90
38.36
8.70
6.22
6.45
2.05
129.55
0.688
1384
2.08
91.7
105.7
8.98
0.587
Exchange Rate
(1990)
139.0
8.39
0.720
11.37
33.42
6.19
3.82
5.45
1.62
158.51
0.605
1198
1.82
142.6
101.9
5.92
0.563
1.35
1.27
185.3
1.00
1.51
1.29
152.8
1.00
1.28
1.17
144.8
1.00
5.84
481.1
21.5
631.15
28.2
7.79
707.8
26.9
42.05
5.67
6.99
2.10
2.21
4.88
7.55
11.66
17.50
40.06
468
7.53
8.54
1599
1843
24.31
25.59
40.3
110.0
127.2
1.43
14.2
68.3
305.1
502.3
2.80
46.9
Source: Total economy PPPs for OECD countries are obtained from Maddison (1995), Table C-6. For nonOECD countries PPPs are implicitly obtained from updated GDP in US$ for earlier benchmark (see text and
Maddison, 1995) and are kindly provided by Maddison. Manufacturing unit value ratios are from various ICOP
studies: Belgium from Soete (1984); Finland and Sweden from Maliranta (1994); France from van Ark and
Kouwenhoven (1994); Germany from van Ark and Pilat (1993); Netherlands from Kouwenhoven (1993); Spain/UK
(1984) from van Ark (1995a), linked to UK/USA (1987) from van Ark (1992); Australia from Pilat, Rao and
Shepherd (1993); Canada from de Jong (1996); Korea and Japan from Pilat (1994); India, Indonesia and Taiwan
from Timmer (1999). In most cases the PPPs are updated to 1990 using manufacturing price deflators from national
accounts.
12
The UVR-method for manufacturing faces three major problems that affect the
comparability of the estimates across countries:15
1) Unit value ratios are based on a limited sample of items, and rather far-reaching
assumptions are employed concerning their representativity for non-measured price
relatives. For example, in manufacturing where the average percentage of output
covered by unit value ratios is between 15 and 45 per cent, it is usually assumed that
UVRs for matched items within a manufacturing branch are representative for nonmatched items.
2) Comparisons of unit values are affected by differences in product mix, because
production censuses often include output values for product groups rather than for
specified products. In international comparisons the problem aggravates because of
the lack of a harmonized product coding system, so that items need to be further
aggregated in order to obtain a correct match between countries.
3) UVRs need to be adjusted for differences in product quality across countries. This
problem can be particularly serious for international comparisons, as the frequency of
so-called "unique products" (which are products which are only observed in one case)
is higher than for comparisons over time.
It has been suggested that pricing of narrowly specified items, which is, for example,
applied in the GDP PPP approach, is superior to the use of unit values and that expenditure PPPs
should therefore also be used for industry of origin comparisons. In some cases, GDP PPPs have
been applied to individual sectors or industries which assumes that differences in price levels are
equal across industries.16 A more sophisticated method is to select expenditure PPPs for
representative items that are allocated to specific industries. One problem with this so-called
"proxy PPP method" is that it is based on market prices for final products. In a comparison
between Japan and the United States, Jorgenson and Kuroda (1990) applied PPPs that were
"peeled off" for indirect taxes and transport and trade margins. Hooper (1996) went a step further
and adjusted the expenditure PPPs for import and export prices: "output PPPs" should of course
include prices of exported goods but exclude those of imported goods. As Hooper acknowledges,
the latter step is difficult and, in particular in open economies, might introduce a lot of noise in
the estimates. The most important problem of the “proxy PPP” approach for industry of origin
comparisons is that it does not cover intermediate products, which in manufacturing account for
at least one third of output.
Whichever concept of PPP or UVR is chosen, the main problem in industry of origin
comparisons is that ideally one requires a currency conversion factor not only for output but also
for inputs. Preferably industry productivity should be measured as gross output per unit of input.
In contrast ICOP comparisons apply output-weighted unit value ratios to value added. This may
be referred to as the “single deflation” method, which implicitly uses one and the same UVR for
output and for intermediate inputs. The reason why this relatively simple method still has useful
application in international comparisons is due to measurement problems related to the prices
of intermediate inputs. Earlier attempts to change ICOP studies from “single deflation” to
“double deflation” (i.e., deducting UVR-deflated intermediate inputs from UVR-deflated gross
output) led to volatile results because the estimates were sensitive to the weights used in the
index. Moreover, adequate measurement of the value and quantities of intermediate inputs
15
For more detail on how these problems are dealt with see van Ark (1993, 1996a). van Ark (1993) can also be
downloaded in full from http://www.eco.rug.nl/ggdc/icop.html.
16
See, for example, Dollar and Wolff (1993).
13
requires larger coverage percentages for inputs than for output, as in one and the same industry
the output is more homogeneous than inputs. In particular, when intermediate inputs make up a
large part of gross output, small measurement errors show up strongly in the end results of value
added (in the ICOP case) or in the contribution of intermediate inputs to gross output in case
double deflation is applied. Hence the deflation problem is not any less serious in using the proxy
PPP approach for productivity measures than in a "double deflation" procedure. In practice,
therefore, the single deflation method still provides more robust results for international
comparisons than the double deflation method when applied to either value added or to the
separate estimation of intermediate input PPPs or UVRs.
4. Groningen Growth and Development Centre
DataBase
The data for KILM 17 are largely derived from the Groningen Growth and Development
Centre (GGDC) Database at the University of Groningen (the Netherlands). The GGDC has
long-standing expertise in development and analysis of data on productivity performance, in
particular on comparisons of levels of productivity by sector and industry. The GGDC
Database consists of three subsets of data, namely the GGDC Total Economy Database, the
GGDC Sectoral Database and the ICOP Industry Database. All three databases have been used
for KILM 17 with KILM 17 consisting of an additional measure of labour compensation to
obtain unit labour cost.17
Real GDP and labour input data for the total economy are derived from the GGDC Total
Economy Database. The GGDC Total Economy Database is strongly rooted in the work of
Angus Maddison. For most countries movements in GDP and population before 1990, as well
benchmark year estimates on employment and hours, are derived from Maddison (1995) as
well as some of Maddison’s other publications. Maddison’s estimates of Geary-Khamis
purchasing power parities for 1990 were used to convert output to US dollars.18 Maddison’s
own series often go back well into the 19th century, so that one can link these historical series
to the series presented in the GGDC Total Economy Database.
Manufacturing output and labour input is taken from the GGDC Sectoral Database, which
consists of series on real GDP in national currencies, employment and, in some cases, annual
working hours for ten sectors of the economy and 20 countries in Asia and the OECD area
from 1950 onwards.19 The unit value ratios are taken from the ICOP database which is
described in more detail in the previous section.
The basic sources used are best described by making a distinction between countries that
are members of the OECD and those that are not.20 For OECD countries, indicated in KILM 17
17
Underlying data on KILM 17 from 1980 onwards can be derived from the KILM CD-ROM. Data further
backwards to 1950 are available on the GGDC website: http://www.eco.rug.nl/ggdc/Dseries/dataseries.html. Both
datasets are updated on a regular basis.
18
See the GGDC website (http:/www.eco.rug.nl/ggdc/Dseries/dataseries.html) for GDP estimates of OECD
countries using more recent purchasing power parities, based on the benchmark year, 1993.
19
The ten sectors of the economy are: agriculture, mining, manufacturing, construction, public utilities, retail and
wholesale trade, transport and communication, finance and business services, other market services and
government services. See van Ark (1996b) for a description and discussion of OECD data.
20
A full overview of data sources is provided in appendix A.
14
in the “major Europe” and "major non-Europe" categories, value added and labour
compensation is mostly obtained from the OECD, National Accounts, Volumes I and II (annual
issues). Employment is mostly taken from OECD, Labour Force Statistics (annual issues).
These data, originally obtained from national statistical offices and, where possible,
harmonized for differences in concepts and industry classification, have been supplemented,
where necessary, with national accounts and labour force statistics obtained directly from the
individual countries. For some countries, the database of the US Bureau of Labour Statistics
(BLS) was used, in particular on employment and on data for manufacturing.21 The estimates
of working hours were obtained from various sources. Maddison (1995) provides benchmark
estimates of annual working hours for most OECD countries and a significant number of nonOECD countries. These were complemented with movements on hours derived from the
OECD Employment Outlook (annual issues) and the BLS database.22
For the non-OECD countries, the national accounts and labour statistics publications of
individual countries were often taken as the point of departure. The statistics from these
sources were supplemented with statistics from international organizations such as the World
Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the United Nations Statistical Office and the International
Labour Organization.23 Furthermore, estimates on GDP and employment from Maddison
(1995) were used to obtain consistent benchmark estimates in 1990 US dollars.
Where possible, labour compensation is obtained from the national accounts so that value
added (GDP) and labour cost are compatible. However, the national accounts of many
developing countries do not provide estimates of labour compensation. In a limited number of
cases, a separate measure of unit labour costs is provided which is based on wage or earnings
indices derived from the ILO Yearbook of Labour Statistics.
5. Some comparisons of productivity and unit
labour cost24
The results on productivity and unit labour cost are presented in the 1999 Key Indicators
fo the Labour Market for 1980 and 1990 to 1996 or 1997. The KILM CD-ROM provides data
on an annual basis since 1980 as well as underlying data on output, labour input and labour
compensation. It is also possible to link these data with those from the GGDC Database going
back to 1960 for most non-OECD countries and to 1950 for many OECD countries.
Table 4 provides the growth rates of labour productivity for the total economy and
manufacturing back to 1960 divided into three sub-periods. The growth estimates show,
amongst other things, the relatively rapid growth of labour productivity during the period 1960
21
BLS databases on Foreign labor statistics and Manufacturing unit labor cost can be accessed through
http://stats.bls.gov/datahome.htm.
22
While it is not possible to fully assess which working hours estimates are “best,” the data produced by
Maddison are largely based on the component method, as described in Section 2, and have been adjusted where
possible to improve international comparability. However, a final judgment cannot be made before more detailed
work in this field is carried out. For a more detailed assessment of the impact of working hours estimates on
international comparisons of output and productivity, see van Ark and McGuckin (1999).
23
World Bank: World Development Indicators (various issues); Asian Development Bank: Key Indicators of
Developing Asian and Pacific Countries (annual issues); United Nations: National Accounts Statistics (annual
issues); and ILO: Yearbook of Labour Statistics (annual issues).
24
See also ILO (1999), Chapter 6.
15
to 1973, and the even more rapid productivity growth in manufacturing. This period is
nowadays characterised as the “Golden Era” of the twentieth century. During these days many
countries in the OECD league (in particular those in Europe and Japan) were realizing much of
the “catch up” potential which arose following the two World Wars and were benefiting from
rapid technological diffusion from the United States (Maddison, 1991; Crafts and Toniolo,
1996). The Japanese economy, which started from a relatively low level of productivity (see
table 5) showed the fastest productivity growth, running into 2-digit annual growth rates for the
period 1960 to 1973. The growth performance during this period was slower for most countries
in Asia and Latin America. Most of these countries remained either relatively closed to
international trade or faced unfavourable terms of trade, particularly when exports were
dominated by primary products. In the present country sample only the Republic of Korea and
Taiwan-China entered a phase of industrialization which was accompanied by productivity
growth. Industrialization in these countries was characterized by a mix of export-orientation
towards labour intensive goods accompanied by import substitution of more capital-intensive
commodities.
Between 1973 and 1987 growth in OECD countries slowed down substantially. In most
cases the growth rates were half or even less that of the “Golden Era”. The breakdown of the
international monetary arrangements of Bretton Woods, which had provided much stability to
international macroeconomic relations during the 1950s and 1960s, and the oil crises of the
1970s, were responsible for part of the growth slowdown. However, the continued slowdown
during the much of the 1980s must be attributed to underperformance of OECD economies
because of orthodox economic policies characterized by tight monetary policies and large
government budget cuts and a painful industrial restructuring with a large rise in
unemployment. The period 1973 to 1987 is characterized by much diversity across the
countries in Asia and Latin America. The Republic of Korea and Taiwan-China continued to
show rapid productivity growth, and some Southeast Asian countries followed the same
industrialization path. In contrast, Latin America was hit by one of the worst debt crises in their
history, causing zero or negative growth in productivity for most of the 1980s.
Since the mid 1980s growth performance of the OECD countries has been characterized
by more diversity than before. Indeed the coefficient of variation (i.e., the standard deviation of
the growth rates divided by the mean) of the labour productivity growth rates for the OECD
countries increased from 0.34 for 1973 to 1987 to 0.41 for 1987 to 1997. Some countries such
as Denmark, France, Ireland and Portugal have shown an accelerated productivity growth since
1987, but other countries such as Austria, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the
United Kingdom have experienced a substantive slowdown. There are indications of different
success rates in structural reform policies that may account for varying success rates of these
countries. Manufacturing productivity growth has mostly been faster during this period than for
the total economy. One reason for this is probably the greater effect of new technologies on
manufacturing productivity growth. The other reason is that the increasing share of service
sector in the economies of OECD countries accounts for much of the slower growth at the total
economy level. Both reasons also play a role in accounting for the relatively large growth
differential between manufacturing and the total economy for the United States compared to
OECD economies.
Among the lower income countries, productivity growth rates remained high among East
Asian countries and accelerated substantially in other Asian countries including India,
Indonesia and Thailand. The performance among Latin American countries was much more
mixed, partly depending on the success of structural market reforms since the 1980s and the
degree of isolation from financial crises.
Table 5 shows the relative levels of labour productivity and unit labour cost in 1980,
1987 and 1997 for the total economy. Productivity gaps narrowed among OECD countries, as
the coefficient of variation declined from 0.225 in 1980 to 0.182 in 1997. Indeed most
16
countries improved labour productivity relative to the United States, in particular Finland,
Ireland and the East Asian countries. In 1987, the United States was still the productivity
leader, but by 1997 two countries in the present sample, France and the Netherlands, showed
higher levels of output per hour than the United States in 1997. Some countries in Latin
America (Mexico and Venezuela) experienced a widening of the productivity gap with the
United States.
In manufacturing, less productivity convergence among OECD countries took place (table
6).25 Some countries (Belgium and Finland) overtook the US productivity level in
manufacturing by several percentage points, but others even showed some divergence (for
example, Australia and Canada). East Asian industrializing countries, like Korea and Taiwan,
showed considerable catching up to the US level of manufacturing productivity but still were at
not more than one third of the US productivity level by 199726.
The unit labour cost data, which are presented in the last columns of tables 5 and 6
show substantially more variation that the productivity estimates. This is due to the fact that the
unit labour cost indicators are influenced by diverse factors like hourly compensation,
productivity and the US dollar exchange rate. Except for the poorest OECD economies (for
example, Greece and Portugal) and for Japan, unit labour costs levels were higher for most
OECD countries relative to the United States. However, the unit labour cost gap relative to the
United States was smallest in 1987, when the dollar-exchange rate was relatively high and
therefore labour in other countries relative to US was cheap. For manufacturing, one of the
most striking observations is the rapid rise in unit labour cost in Japan, from 70 per cent of the
US level to over 120 per cent in 1996, which was also higher than in most European countries
except Germany (West), Sweden and the United Kingdom. The high Japanese level of unit
labour costs is related to the comparatively low productivity level for the total economy and the
rapid appreciation of the yen since 1990.
25
This table substitutes for figures published in KILM 17b (ILO, 1999). For that publication manufacturing UVRs
were accidentally updated to 1990 on the basis of the current value index of each country relative to the United
States. In this table we correctly carried out the updating of the UVRs on the basis of the manufacturing deflator
relative to the United States. In most cases this implied that the correct UVRs came out lower and therefore the
relative productivity levels are higher than those published in ILO (1999). The corrected Table 17b is also shown
in the appendix to this paper.
26
It should be emphasized that these estimates of relative productivity levels differ, in some cases, substantially
from those directly be obtained for the ICOP Industry Database. This is due to the fact that the ICOP comparisons
are originally based on output and employment information from production censuses or industrial surveys. These
sources often provide more disaggregated information than the national accounts and ensure that output and input
information are derived from the same primary source. However, production censuses and industrial surveys often
provide no full coverage of all manufacturing activities, including those of the smallest firms (see, e.g., van Ark,
1993; Timmer, 1999). Another difference between the estimates of manufacturing productivity presented in KILM
17b and those in the ICOP Industry Database is that we updated the UVRs for KILM 17b to 1990, whereas they
were left at the benchmark year in ICOP.
17
Table 4. Annual growth rates of labour productivity, total economy and manufacturing, 1960-1997
Country
Total economy
GDP per person
employed
1960- 1973- 19871973
1987
1997
Major Europe
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany (West)
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Major non-Europe
Australia
Canada
Japan
United States
Asia and the Pacific
Eastern Asia
Hong
Kong,
China
Korea, Republic
of
Taiwan, China
South-central Asia
India
Sri Lanka
South-eastern Asia
GDP per person
hour worked
1960- 1973- 19871973
1987
1997
19601973
5.2
4.3
3.4
4.7
4.3
4.0
6.6
5.0
5.8
3.2
6.5
8.0
3.5
2.8
1.8
2.0
1.3
2.0
2.1
1.8
1.6
3.0
2.2
1.2
0.9
3.0
1.1
1.7
1.4
1.9
1.9
2.7
1.4
2.0
1.2
4.0
2.2
1.1
1.8
1.5
2.2
1.3
2.3
2.5
8.1
2.3
1.4
0.9
2.7
0.7
1.7
0.8
1.9
1.1
1.5
4.7
3.8
(a)
4.1
(a)
4.8
5.3
5.1
(a)
5.6
(a)
6.6
5.2
5.0
(a)
6.1
(b)
2.0
0.3
1.6
3.6
4.0
3.8
(b)
(b)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
Manufacturing
Value added per
person employed
1973- 198719601987
1997
1973
5.9
5.5
5.0
6.1
5.0
5.2
7.1
5.5
7.8
4.5
7.2
8.1
4.7
3.8
2.6
3.0
1.6
2.2
3.1
2.6
2.4
3.9
2.6
2.9
1.5
3.7
1.6
2.3
1.3
1.8
2.1
2.8
1.6
2.7
1.6
4.5
2.3
1.7
2.1
1.8
1.4
1.7
3.7
2.9
2.1
5.8
3.2
2.2
15.5
(b)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(b)
5.5
6.3
5.1
4.9
2.0
2.2
6.5
7.7
9.7
6.4
1.9
1.8
2.0
4.0
4.5
0.1
2.1
1.4
0.9
4.9
3.1
(a)
(b)
(a)
(a)
(a)
2.5
2.9
9.1
2.7
1.7
1.4
2.9
1.2
1.7
0.8
2.5
1.0
2.5
3.5
12.8
2.0
0.9
2.5
7.1
4.0
1.8
1.9
2.8
2.9
(a)
12.3
9.8
7.8
(a)
5.8
(a)
4.6
(b)
4.3
2.8
2.3
-1.9
Value added per
person hour worked
1973- 19871987
1997
(a)
(a)
(a)
6.9
5.4
2.8
5.3
6.2
5.8
4.3
3.5
2.6
3.2
3.2
(a)
(a)
7.8
3.6
2.6
(a)
8.4
7.1
4.7
7.8
2.7
3.2
4.1
3.6
(a)
(a)
3.2
4.8
11.3
3.6
2.8
1.9
4.5
2.4
1.4
1.8
4.1
2.7
(a)
6.3
8.6
(a)
6.3
(b)
2.4
3.8
(a)
(a)
18
Indonesia
2.2
0.6
5.3
(b)
2.7
Philippines
2.3
0.2
0.6
(b)
Thailand
4.8
3.1
7.9
(a)
Latin America and the Caribbean
Brazil
4.0
1.1
0.5
(a)
0.7
(a)
5.2
1.9
Chile
1.7
0.1
3.5
(a)
3.3
(a)
Colombia
2.5
1.3
1.8
(a)
1.8
(a)
Mexico
3.7
1.1
-3.1
-2.7
(a)
6.0
4.4
Venezuela
0.5
-1.8
-1.9
(a)
-1.8
(a)
(a) 1987-1996; (b) 1987-1995
Source: GGDC Total Economy Database, Sectoral Database and ICOP Industry Database. See Appendix for
http://www.eco.rug.nl/ggdc/Dseries/dataseries.html.
3.9
0.9
4.3
3.2
(b)
(b)
(a)
(a)
3.1
1.5
4.2
-0.3
3.0
-0.1
1980-1997. Pre-1980 see source descriptions on
19
Table 5.
Labour productivity and unit labour cost, total economy, 1960-1977, 1990, US$
GDP per person employed
Country
1980
1987
1997
GDP per person hour worked
1980
1987
1997
Unit labour cost per unit of
output
1980
1987
1996
Major Europe
32,154
34,866
40,020
23.00
25.70
28.90
0.478
0.644
0.938
Austria
36,849
40,737
49,187
22.70
25.00
29.90
0.622
0.644
0.954
Belgium
30,009
33,183
40,214
17.50
19.90
24.60
0.596
0.733
1.031
Denmark
25,719
30,314
39,722
14.50
18.20
24.00
0.573
0.784
0.919
Finland
36,850
42,194
47,958
22.20
27.40
32.20
0.570
0.627
0.858
France
35,073
38,458
46,100
20.30
23.20
30.30
0.567
0.674
0.938
Germany
(West)
26,257
26,477
29,868
13.90
14.80
17.40
0.347
0.384
0.683
Greece
24,290
29,808
44,253
12.90
16.80
26.00
0.550
0.660
0.730
Ireland
30,200
33,038
41,010
19.00
21.60
27.10
0.419
0.591
0.736
Italy
35,276
37,725
41,453
22.30
27.20
32.20
0.586
0.609
0.805
Netherlands
20,123
21,852
26,203
11.00
12.50
15.40
0.266
0.297
0.490
Portugal
29,711
35,439
41,138
14.40
18.00
21.60
0.458
0.476
0.708
Spain
29,331
32,910
40,741
20.20
22.40
25.70
0.717
0.747
1.058
Sweden
29,166
34,747
38,890
18.30
22.30
26.40
0.478
0.499
0.712
United
Kingdom
Major non-Europe
32,283
35,582
42,263
19.90
21.80
25.70
0.498
0.487
0.689
Australia
35,361
39,142
42,384
20.50
23.40
25.30
0.415
0.509
0.623
Canada
27,666
33,256
39,434
13.80
16.50
21.20
0.523
0.882
1.225
Japan
41,034
44,610
49,905
25.50
27.70
30.70
0.453
0.601
0.776
United States
Asia and the Pacific
Eastern Asia
9.80
13.70
19.60
Hong Kong, 23,220 31,800 44,412
China
11,430
18,066
28,166
4.50
6.90
11.30
0.336
0.331
0.632
Korea,
Republic of
15,176
21,499
33,438
5.90
8.50
13.70
Taiwan,
China
South-central Asia
2,638
3,156
4,325
India
7,223
8,441
11,384
Sri Lanka
South-eastern Asia
5,350
5,266
7,961
Indonesia
7,364
5,910
6,192
Philippines
4,943
6,028
9,103
Thailand
Latin America and the Caribbean
14,427
13,765
14,366
7.27
7.20
7.72
(a)
(a)
(a)
Brazil
19,184
17,681
24,143
9.90
9.00
12.06
(a)
(a)
(a)
Chile
13,476
14,711
17,232
6.50
7.40
8.73
(a)
(a)
(a)
Colombia
17,099
18,096
13,169
8.34
8.80
6.88
0.500
0.186
0.350
Mexico
32,368
29,406
24,795
16.21
15.30
12.98
(a)
(a)
(a)
Venezuela
(a) Unit labour cost levels for these countries are only provided in terms of employee cost per unit of
output and therefore are not comparable to the other figures, which represent total labour
compensation per unit of output.
Source: GGDC Total Economy Database. See Appendix.
20
Table 6. Labour productivity and unit labour cost, manufacturing,
1960-1996, 1990 US$
GDP per person employed
GDP per person hour worked
Unit labour cost per unit of
output
1980
1987
1996
Country
1980
1987
1996
1980
1987
1996
Major Europe
Belgium
30,581
41,657
55,600
20.1
27.7
36.5
0.83
0.71
0.84
Finland
24,353
34,491
57,430
14.1
20.4
35.2
0.60
0.70
0.70
France
33,373
38,407
50,926
19.5
23.8
31.5
0.64
0.71
0.85
Germany
33,680
36,577
44,471
19.6
22.3
29.4
0.62
0.78
1.14
(West)
Netherlands
27,678
34,428
41,569
17.7
23.6
29.6
0.68
0.70
0.82
Spain
19,916
28,367
30,703
Sweden
25,283
32,054
49,398
17.6
21.5
30.9
0.82
0.79
0.93
United
17,793
25,718
33,753
10.3
14.6
20.1
0.84
0.81
0.96
Kingdom
Major non-Europe
Australia
26,109
30,842
36,070
13.6
15.8
18.0
0.63
0.57
0.85
Canada
30,469
37,524
45,428
16.0
19.4
23.1
0.51
0.59
0.67
Japan
32,613
43,668
56,127
15.0
19.9
28.5
0.40
0.62
0.84
United States
37,714
50,844
65,966
20.3
26.6
33.7
0.57
0.62
0.69
Asia and the Pacific
Eastern Asia
Korea,
8,994
14,436
28,437
3.3
5.2
10.9
0.32
0.33
0.45
Republic of
Taiwan, China
11,644
16,764
27,850
4.4
6.7
10.9
South-central Asia
India
1,675
2,333
3,342
South-eastern Asia
Indonesia
2,233
3,358
4,547
Note: This table substitutes for figures published in KILM 17b (ILO, 1999). For that publication manufacturing
UVRs were accidentally updated to 1990 on the basis of the current value index of each country relative to the
United States. In this table we correctly carried out the updating of the UVRs on the basis of the manufacturing
deflator relative to the United States. In most cases this implied that the correct UVRs came out lower and
therefore the relative productivity levels are higher than those published in 1999 KILM. The corrected table 17b
is also shown in the appendix to this paper.
Source: GGDC Sectoral Database and ICOP Industry Database. See Appendix
Similar data on productivity and unit labour cost were recently made available by other
scholars including the World Bank (1999) and Golub (1999). The World Development
Indicators 1999 include wages and productivity measures for manufacturing for a wide range
of countries. However, the measures are all converted to US dollars on the basis of the average
exchange rate for each year (World Bank, 1999, Table 2.6).
Golub (1999) provides productivity and unit labour cost data for a smaller set of 14
countries, including the G-5 (France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, United States), 7
major Asian countries (India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and
Thailand) and 2 Latin American countries (Chile and Mexico), most of which are also in KILM
17. Golub’s results largely confirm those of KILM 17. In particular, he emphasizes that relative
levels of unit labour cost are much closer between countries than those of labour productivity
and compensation separately, as differences in the relative levels of both indicators more or
less offset each other. Despite similar outcomes, however, Golub’s dataset differs in many
respects from KILM. Firstly, Golub’s estimates are only for manufacturing. Secondly, he does
not provide estimates of output per hour worked but only output per person employed. Thirdly,
21
in converting manufacturing output, Golub makes use of purchasing power parity for producer
durables obtained from the Penn World Tables (see Summers and Heston, 1991). Fourthly,
Golub makes use of “real product wages” which are earnings deflated by the value-added
deflator for manufacturing and converted to US dollar at the market exchange rate in the base
year. This is, therefore, not exactly a nominal index as used in KILM. Finally, labour
compensation, obtained from UNIDO, does not include employer contributions to social
insurance.
6. Research agenda
For future versions of the productivity and unit labour cost database for KILM, priority
will be given to expanding the estimates to more countries than the current sample of 66
countries in the Groningen Growth and Development Database, of which 31 countries are
included in KILM 17 so far. Estimates of total labour compensation and manufacturing unit
value ratios are the current bottlenecks in extending the database.
Secondly, presently research activity in this field focuses on extending estimates to
service sectors of the economy. ICOP-type studies for services have been carried out by Pilat
(1994) for Japan and Korea and by Mulder (1999) for Brazil and Mexico. Productivity level
estimates for transport and communication and for wholesale and retail trade are compiled by
van Ark, Monnikhof and Mulder (1999) for Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the
United States and are currently extended to another ten to 15 countries.
Finally, estimation of total factor productivity growth and levels is also needed. Among
other things this requires internationally consistent series of capital stock and capital flows and
of human capital. Lack of reliable data in combination with the sensitivity of the procedures
seriously limits the number of countries for which one can derive reliable estimates of the
capital stock (Nehru and Dhareshwar, 1993). Many studies, in particular those that made use of
cross-country regressions, have used investment-output ratios as a proxy for the change in the
capital stock.27 Scholars that constructed capital stock estimates either reverted to wealth
surveys that value the capital stock in place at user value or construct estimates based on the
perpetual inventory method (PIM) which are obtained by cumulating investment data using
assumptions concerning the life time of assets and the depreciation pattern. Such series are still
available for a limited number of countries and need to be further extended.28 Moreover, for
sectoral estimation of total factor productivity levels a detailed input-output framework is
required to measure substitution effects between inputs and flows between sectors,29 as well as
the adoption of a growth accounting framework.
27
This procedure assumes that marginal and average capital-output ratios are the same, which is a particularly
unrealistic assumption for rapidly industrializing economies which are often characterised by relatively low
capital-output ratios in combination with high rates of capital accumulation (Fukuda and Toya, 1999).
28
The PIM approach has been applied in two international datasets that aimed to include as many countries as
possible, namely the World Bank dataset on physical capital (Nehru and Dhareshwar, 1993) and the Penn World
Tables (Summers and Heston, 1991). The series from both datasets involve very substantial measurement
problems, as the estimates are either based on indirect procedures, such as using investment/GDP ratios (Penn
World Tables) or rough methods to derive a reliable benchmark estimates for the stock (World Bank dataset).
Maddison (1995a) provided PIM estimates for six advanced countries, which is extended by O’Mahony (1996,
1999) for sectoral estimates. Timmer and van Ark (2000) provide comparable PIM estimates of the capital stock
for Taiwan, China and the Republic of Korea.
29
See, for example, Jorgenson (1995).
22
Appendix I
Detailed source descriptions
The full reference is given only the first time it is mentioned.
Total Economy Data (KILM 17a)
Austria: GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from A. Maddison (1995), Monitoring the World Economy,
1980-1992 (OECD Development Centre); 1991-1996 extrapolated from 1990 with GDP trend from
OECD, National Accounts Vol. I; 1997 from OECD Online website. Persons employed: 1984-1994
from OECD, Labour Force Statistics; 1995-1997 extrapolated from 1990 with employment trend from
OECD, Economic Outlook; 1980-1983 linearly interpolated between 1979 (from A. Maddison (1982),
Phases of Capitalist Development, Oxford University Press) and 1984 figure. Hours worked: 1979 from
Maddison (1982); 1987 from A. Maddison (1991), Dynamic Forces in Capitalist Development (Oxford
University Press); 1992 from Maddison (1995); years in between are linearly interpolated; 1992-1997
kept constant at 1992 level. Labour compensation: 1980-1996 from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. I.
Belgium: GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from Maddison (1995); 1991-1996 extrapolated from 1990
with GDP trend from OECD, National Accounts Vol. I; 1997 from OECD Online website). Persons
employed: 1980-1993 from OECD, Labour Force Statistics; 1994-1997 extrapolated from 1993 with
employment trend from OECD, Economic Outlook. Hours worked: 1979 from Maddison (1982); 1987
from Maddison (1991); 1990 from A. Maddison (1996), "Macroeconomic Accounts for European
Countries", in B. van Ark and N.F.R. Crafts, eds., Quantitative Aspects of Postwar European Economic
Growth (Cambridge University Press); 1992 from Maddison (1995); years in between are linearly
interpolated; 1992-1997 kept constant at 1992 level. Labour compensation: 1980-1996 from OECD,
National Accounts, Vol. I.
Denmark: GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from Maddison (1995); 1991-1996 extrapolated from 1990
with GDP trend from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. I; 1997 from OECD Online website. Persons
employed: 1980-1996 from OECD, Labour Force Statistics; 1997 extrapolated from 1996 with
employment trend from OECD, Economic Outlook. Hours worked: 1979 from Maddison (1982); 1987
from Maddison (1991); 1990 from A. Maddison (1996); 1992 from Maddison (1995); years in between
are linearly interpolated; 1992-1997 kept constant at 1992 level. Labour compensation: 1980-1996 from
OECD, National Accounts, Vol. I.
Finland: GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from Maddison (1995); 1991-1996 extrapolated from 1990 with
GDP trend from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. I; 1997 from OECD Online website. Persons
employed: 1980-1996 from OECD, Labour Force Statistics; 1997 extrapolated from 1996 with
employment trend from OECD, Economic Outlook. Hours worked: 1979 from Maddison (1982); 1987
from Maddison (1991); 1992 from Maddison (1995); years in between are linearly interpolated; 19921997 based on trend in OECD, Employment Outlook. Labour compensation: 1980-1996 from OECD,
National Accounts, Vol. I.
France: GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from Maddison (1995); 1991-1996 extrapolated from 1990 with
GDP trend from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. I; 1997 from OECD Online website. Persons
employed: 1980-1996 from OECD, Labour Force Statistics; 1997 extrapolated from 1995 with
employment trend from OECD, Economic Outlook. Hours worked: 1980-1996 from INSEE, Comptes et
Indicateurs Économiques. Rapport sur les comptes de la Nation; 1997 based on trend in OECD,
Employment Outlook. Labour compensation: 1980-1992 from INSEE, Comptes et Indicateurs
Économiques; 1992-1996 from OECD, Economic Outlook.
23
Germany, Federal Republic of (Western): GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from Maddison (1995); 19911997 extrapolated from 1990 with GDP trend from Statistisches Bundesamt, Volkswirtschaftliches
Gesamtrechnungen.
Persons
employed:
Statistisches
Bundesamt,
Volkswirtschaftliches
Gesamtrechnungen. Hours worked: Institut fuer Arbeidsmarkt und Berufsforschung, Arbeitszeit und
Arbeitsvolumen in Deutschland. Labour compensation: Statistisches Bundesamt, Volkswirtschaftliches
Gesamtrechnungen.
Greece: GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from Maddison (1995); 1991-1996 extrapolated from 1990 with
GDP trend from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. I; 1997 from OECD Online website. Persons
employed: 1980-1995 from OECD, Labour Force Statistics; 1996-1997 extrapolated from 1996 with
employment trend from OECD, Economic Outlook. Hours worked: 1980-1992 based on linear
interpolation between 1973 and 1992 from Maddison (1995); 1992-1997 kept constant at 1992 level.
Labour compensation: 1980-1996 from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. I.
Ireland: GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from Maddison (1995); 1991-1996 extrapolated from 1990 with
GDP trend from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. I; 1997 from OECD Online website. Persons
employed: 1980-1996 from OECD, Labour Force Statistics; 1997 extrapolated from 1996 with
employment trend from OECD, Economic Outlook. Hours worked: 1980-1992 based on linear
interpolation between 1973 and 1992 from Maddison (1995); 1992-1997 kept constant at 1992 level.
Labour compensation: 1980-1996 from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. I.
Italy: GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from Maddison (1995); 1991-1996 extrapolated from 1990 with
GDP trend from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. I; 1997 from OECD Online website. Persons
employed: 1987-1996 from OECD, Labour Force Statistics, but increased by 17.6% to match the
upward adjustment in the Italian national accounts in 1982 to allow for “underground employment” (see
Maddison, 1996); 1980-1986 backwardly extrapolated from 1987 on the basis of civilian employment
(US concept) from Bureau of Labor Statistics website; 1997 extrapolated from 1996 with employment
trend from OECD, Economic Outlook. Hours worked: 1979 from Maddison (1982); 1987 from
Maddison (1991); 1990 from Maddison (1996); 1992 from Maddison (1995); years in between are
linearly interpolated; 1992-1994 based upon trend in OECD, Employment Outlook; 1994-1997 kept
constant at 1994 level. Labour compensation: 1980-1996 from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. I.
Netherlands: GDP in 1990 US$: 1990 from Maddison (1995); 1980-1996 extrapolated from 1990 with
GDP trend from Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Nationale Rekeningen. Persons employed: Centraal
Bureau voor de Statistiek, Arbeidsrekeningen. Hours worked: 1980-1987 on the basis of linear
interpolation between 1979 and 1987; 1979 obtained from 1973-1979 according to Maddison (1982)
linked to 1973 from Maddison (1995); 1987-1997 from Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek,
Arbeidsrekeningen. Labour compensation: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Nationale Rekeningen.
Portugal: GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from Maddison (1995); 1991-1996 extrapolated from 1990
with GDP trend from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. I; 1997 from OECD Online website. Persons
employed: 1980-1996 from OECD, Labour Force Statistics; 1997 extrapolated from 1996 with
employment trend from OECD, Economic Outlook. Hours worked: 1980-1992 based on linear
interpolation between 1973 and 1992 from Maddison (1995); 1992-1994 based upon trend in OECD,
Employment Outlook; 1994-1997 kept constant at 1994 level. Labour compensation: 1980-1996 from
OECD, National Accounts, Vol. I.
Spain: GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from Maddison (1995); 1991-1996 extrapolated from 1990 with
GDP trend from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. I; 1997 from OECD Online website. Persons
employed: 1980-1996 from OECD, Labour Force Statistics; 1997 extrapolated from 1995 with
employment trend from OECD, Economic Outlook. Hours worked: 1979 from Maddison (1982); 1987
from Maddison (1991); 1990 from Maddison (1996); 1992 from Maddison (1995); years in between are
linearly interpolated; 1992-1997 based upon trend in OECD, Employment Outlook. Labour
compensation: 1980-1996 from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. I.
24
Sweden: GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from Maddison (1995); 1991-1996 extrapolated from 1990 with
GDP trend from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. I; 1997 from OECD Online website. Persons
employed: 1980-1996 from Bureau of Labor Statistics website; 1997 extrapolated from 1996 with
employment trend from OECD, Economic Outlook. Hours worked: 1979 from Maddison (1982); 1987
from Maddison (1991); 1990 from Maddison (1996); 1992 from Maddison (1995); years in between are
linearly interpolated; 1992-1997 based upon trend in OECD, Employment Outlook. Labour
compensation: 1980-1996 from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. I.
United Kingdom: GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from Maddison (1995); 1991-1996 extrapolated from
1990 with GDP trend from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. I; 1997 from OECD Online website.
Persons employed: 1980-1996 from Bureau of Labor Statistics website; 1997 extrapolated from 1995
with employment trend from OECD, Economic Outlook. Hours worked: 1980-1987 on the basis of
linear interpolation between 1979 and 1987; 1979 obtained from 1973-1979 according to Maddison
(1982) linked to 1973 from Maddison (1995); 1987 from Maddison (1991); 1990 from Maddison
(1996); 1992 from Maddison (1995); years in between are linearly interpolated; 1992-1997 based upon
trend in OECD, Employment Outlook. Labour compensation: 1980-1996 from Government Statistical
Service, National Accounts, 1997.
Australia: GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from Maddison (1995); 1991-1996 extrapolated from 1990
with GDP trend from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. I; 1997 from OECD Online website. Persons
employed: 1980-1996 from Bureau of Labor Statistics website; 1997 extrapolated from 1995 with
employment trend from OECD, Economic Outlook. Hours worked: 1979 from Maddison (1982); 1987
from Maddison (1991); 1990 from Maddison (1996); 1992 from Maddison (1995); years in between are
interpolated, from 1983-1987 using trend in man hours from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. II; 19921997 based upon trend in OECD, Employment Outlook. Labour compensation: 1980-1996 from OECD,
National Accounts, Vol. I.
Canada: GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from Maddison (1995); 1991-1996 extrapolated from 1990 with
GDP trend from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. I; 1997 from OECD Online website. Persons
employed: 1980-1996 from Bureau of Labor Statistics website; 1997 extrapolated from 1995 with
employment trend from OECD, Economic Outlook. Hours worked: 1979 from Maddison (1982); 1987
from Maddison (1991); 1990 from Maddison (1996); 1992 from Maddison (1995); years in between are
linearly interpolated; 1981-1996 based upon trend in OECD, Employment Outlook; 1997 kept constant
at 1996 level. Labour compensation: 1980-1996 from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. I.
Japan: GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from Maddison (1995); 1991-1996 extrapolated from 1990 with
GDP trend from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. I; 1997 from OECD Online website. Persons
employed: 1980-1996 from OECD, Labour Force Statistics; 1997 extrapolated from 1996 with
employment trend from OECD, Economic Outlook. Hours worked: 1980-1990 from D. Pilat, (1994),
The Economics of Rapid Growth: the Experience of Japan and Korea, Edward Elgar; 1990-1996 from
Ministry of Labour, Monthly Report on the Labour Force Survey. 1997 kept constant at 1996 level.
Labour compensation: 1980-1995 from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. I; 1996 from OECD, Economic
Outlook.
United States: GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from Maddison (1995); 1991-1996 extrapolated from
1990 with GDP trend from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. I; 1997 from OECD Online website.
Persons employed: 1980-1996 from Bureau of Labor Statistics website; 1997 extrapolated from 1995
with employment trend from OECD, Economic Outlook; Hours worked: 1980-1987 on the basis of
linear interpolation between 1979 and 1987; 1979 obtained from 1973-1979 according to Maddison
(1982) linked to 1973 from Maddison (1995); 1987 from Maddison (1991); 1990 from Maddison
(1996); 1992 from Maddison (1995); years in between are linearly interpolated; 1992-1997 based upon
trend in OECD, Employment Outlook. Labour compensation: 1980-1996 from US Department of
Commerce, National Income and Product Accounts.
25
Hong Kong, China: GDP in 1990 US$: 1990 from Maddison (1995); 1980-1996 extrapolated from
1990 with GDP trend from Asian Development Bank, Key Indicators of Developing Asian and Pacific
Countries. Persons employed: 1980-1996 from Asian Development Bank, Key Indicators of developing
Asian and Pacific Countries. Hours worked: 1973 and 1992 from N. Crafts (1997), "Economic Growth
in East Asia and Western Europe since 1950: Implications for Living Standards", National Institute
Economic Review, No. 4; years in between are linearly interpolated; 1992-1997 based upon the yearly
trend in the earlier series. Wage index: daily wage rate for wage earners in non-agricultural activities
from ILO, Yearbook of Labour Statistics.
Korea, Republic of: GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from Maddison (1995); 1991-1996 extrapolated
from 1990 with GDP trend from Asian Development Bank, Key Indicators of Developing Asian and
Pacific Countries. Persons employed: 1980-1996 from OECD, Labour Force Statistics. Hours worked:
1980-1990 from Pilat (1994); 1991-1996 trend linked to 1990 from Ministry of Labour, Yearbook of
Labour Statistics. Labour compensation: 1980-1982 from Bank of Korea, National Accounts, 1990;
1983-1996 from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. I.
Taiwan, China: GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from Maddison (1995); 1991-1996 extrapolated from
1990 with GDP trend from Asian Development Bank, Key Indicators of Developing Asian and Pacific
Countries. Persons employed: 1980-1996 from Asian Development Bank, Key Indicators of Developing
Asian and Pacific Countries. Hours worked: 1980-1995 from DOBAS, Monthly Bulletin of Earnings
and Productivity Statistics; 1996 kept constant at 1995 level.
India: GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from Maddison (1995); 1991-1996 extrapolated from 1990 with
GDP trend from Asian Development Bank, Key Indicators of Developing Asian and Pacific Countries.
Persons employed: 1980 and 1990 on the basis of labour force figures from the population census.
Interpolated and extrapolated from 1990 with population growth rates.
Sri Lanka: GDP in 1990 US$: 1990 from Maddison (1995); 1980-1996 extrapolated from 1990 with
GDP trend from Asian Development Bank, Key Indicators of Developing Asian and Pacific Countries.
Persons employed: 1980-1996 from Asian Development Bank, Key Indicators of Developing Asian and
Pacific Countries.
Indonesia: GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from Maddison (1995); 1991-1996 extrapolated from 1990
with GDP trend from Asian Development Bank, Key Indicators of Developing Asian and Pacific
Countries. Persons employed: 1980-1996 from Asian Development Bank, Key Indicators of Developing
Asian and Pacific Countries.
Philippines: GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from Maddison (1995); 1991-1996 extrapolated from 1990
with GDP trend from Asian Development Bank, Key Indicators of Developing Asian and Pacific
Countries. Persons employed: 1980-1989 from National Statistical Coordination Board, Philippine
Statistical Yearbook; 1990-1995 from Asian Development Bank, Key Indicators of Developing Asian
and Pacific Countries. Labour compensation: 1980-1989 from National Statistical Coordination Board,
Philippine Statistical Yearbook; 1990-1995 extrapolated from 1990 with United Nations, National
Account Statistics.
Thailand: GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from Maddison (1995); 1991-1995 extrapolated from 1990
with GDP trend from Asian Development Bank, Key Indicators of Developing Asian and Pacific
Countries. Persons employed: 1980-1995 from Asian Development Bank, Key Indicators of Developing
Asian and Pacific Countries.
Brazil: GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from Maddison (1995); 1991-1994 extrapolated from 1990 with
GDP trend from A. Hofman (1998), Latin American Economic Development: A Casual Analysis in
Historical Perspective, Groningen Growth and Development Centre, monograph series no. 3.; 19941996 extrapolated from IBGE, Annuario Estadistico do Brasil. Persons employed: 1980, 1989, 1990
26
and 1994 from Hofman (1998); years in between are interpolated and 1995-1996 is extrapolated from
1994 using trend from N. Mulder, The Economic Performance of Services in Brazil, Mexico and the
USA. in Comparative Perspective, Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Monograph
Series, No. 4. Hours worked: 1980, 1989, 1990 and 1994 from Hofman (1998); years in between are
linearly interpolated; 1994-1996 kept constant at 1994 level. Labour compensation: 1980-1996 from
United Nations ECLAC database.
Chile: GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from Maddison (1995); 1991-1994 extrapolated from 1990 with
GDP trend from Hofman (1998); 1994-1996 from United Nations, Statistical Yearbook of Latin
America. Persons employed: 1980, 1989, 1990 and 1994 from Hofman (1998); years in between are
interpolated and 1995-1996 is extrapolated from 1994 using trend from ILO, Yearbook of Labour
Statistics; 1996 estimated using the average growth rate over the period 1990-1995. Hours worked:
1980, 1989, 1990 and 1994 from Hofman (1998); years in between linearly interpolated; 1994-1996
kept constant at 1994 level. Labour compensation: 1980-1996 from United Nations ECLAC database.
Colombia: GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from Maddison (1995); 1991-1994 extrapolated from 1990
with GDP trend from Hofman (1998); 1994-1996 from United Nations, Statistical Yearbook of Latin
America. Persons employed: 1980, 1989, 1990 and 1994 from Hofman (1998); years in between are
interpolated and 1995-1996 is extrapolated from 1994 using trend from ILO, Yearbook of Labour
Statistics. Hours worked: 1980, 1989, 1990 and 1994 from Hofman (1998); years in between linearly
interpolated; 1994-1996 kept constant at 1994 level. Labour compensation: 1980-1996 from United
Nations, Statistical Yearbook of Latin America.
Mexico: GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from Maddison (1995); 1991-1994 extrapolated from 1990 with
GDP trend from Hofman, (1998); 1995-1996 extrapolated from 1994 from OECD, National Accounts,
Vol. I; 1997 from OECD Online website. Persons employed: 1980 and 1990-1996 from OECD, Labour
Force Statistics; 1981-1989 interpolated using trend for 7 main cities from INEGI, Annuaire Estadistico
de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 1994; 1997 extrapolated from 1996 from OECD, Economic Outlook.
Hours worked: 1980, 1989, 1990 and 1994 from Hofman (1998); years in between linearly interpolated;
1994-1996 kept constant at 1994 level. Labour compensation: 1980-1996 from OECD, National
Accounts, Vol. I.
Venezuela: GDP in 1990 US$: 1980-1990 from Maddison (1995); 1991-1994 extrapolated from 1990
with GDP trend from Hofman (1998); 1995-1996 extrapolated from 1994 from United Nations,
Statistical Yearbook of Latin America. Persons employed: 1980, 1989, 1990 and 1994 from Hofman
(1998); years in between are interpolated and 1995 is extrapolated from 1994 using trend from ILO,
Yearbook of Labour Statistics; 1996 kept constant at 1995 level. Hours worked: 1980, 1989, 1990 and
1994 from Hofman (1998); years in between linearly interpolated; 1994-1996 kept constant at 1994
level. Labour compensation: 1980-1996 from United Nations ECLAC database.
Manufacturing data (KILM 17b)
Austria: Manufacturing GDP in constant national currency: 1980-1996 from OECD, National Accounts,
Vol. II. Persons employed: 1980-1996 from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. II.
Belgium: Manufacturing GDP in constant national currency: 1980-1997 from Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Foreign Labor Statistics (underlying data); conversion to US$ on the basis of ICOP Unit
Value Ratio for 1987, provided by A. Soete, and converted to 1990 level with manufacturing GDP
deflator derived from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. II. Persons employed: 1980-1997 from Bureau of
Labor Statistics, Foreign Labor Statistics (underlying data). Hours worked: 1987 figure provided by A.
Soete; trend in hours from 1980-1997 from Bureau of Labor Statistics, Foreign Labor Statistics
(website). Labour compensation: 1980-1997 from Bureau of Labor Statistics, Foreign Labor Statistics
(underlying data).
27
Denmark: Manufacturing GDP in constant national currency: 1980-1995 from OECD, National
Accounts, Vol. II. Persons employed: 1980-1995 from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. II. Labour
compensation: 1980-1995 from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. II.
Finland: Manufacturing GDP in constant national currency: 1980-1996 from OECD, National
Accounts, Vol. II. Persons employed: 1980-1996 from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. II. Hours
worked: 1987 level estimate from M. Maliranta (1994), Comparative Levels of Labour Productivity in
Swedish, Finnish and American Manufacturing, Helsinki School of Economics, mimeographed and
converted to 1990 level with manufacturing GDP deflator derived from OECD, National Accounts, Vol.
II. Persons employed: 1980-1996 trend from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. II. Labour compensation:
1980-1996 from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. II.
France: Manufacturing GDP in constant national currency: 1980-1996 from OECD, National Accounts,
Vol. II; conversion to US$ on the basis of ICOP Unit Value Ratio for 1987 from B. van Ark and R.
Kouwenhoven (1994), "La productivité du secteur manufacturier français en comparaison
internationale", Économie Internationale, no. 60, CEPII, Paris, and converted to 1990 level with
manufacturing GDP deflator derived from INSEE, Comptes et Indicateurs Economiques, 1998. Persons
employed: 1980-1995 from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. II; 1996 from INSEE, Comptes et
Indicateurs Economiques, 1998. Hours worked: 1980-1996 from INSEE, Comptes et Indicateurs
Economiques, 1998. Labour compensation: 1980-1996 from Bureau of Labor Statistics, Foreign Labor
Statistics (underlying data).
Germany, Federal Republic of (Western): Manufacturing GDP in constant national currency: 19801996 from Statistisches Bundesamt, Volkswirtschaftliches Gesamtrechnungen; conversion to US$ on
the basis of ICOP Unit Value Ratio for 1987 from B. van Ark and D. Pilat (1993), Cross Country
Productivity Levels: Differences and Causes, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity
(Microeconomics 2), 1993, pp. 1-69, and converted to 1990 level with manufacturing GDP deflator
derived from Statistisches Bundesamt, Volkswirtschaftliches Gesamtrechnungen. Persons employed:
1980-1996 from Statistisches Bundesamt, Volkswirtschaftliches Gesamtrechnungen. Hours worked:
1980-1996 from Institut fuer Arbeidsmarkt und Berufsforschung, Arbeitszeit und Arbeitsvolumen in
Deutschland. Labour compensation: 1980-1996 from Bureau of Labor Statistics, Foreign Labor
Statistics (underlying data).
Greece: Manufacturing GDP in constant national currency: 1980-1995 from OECD, National Accounts,
Vol. II. Persons employed: 1980-1995 from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. II.
Netherlands: Manufacturing GDP in constant national currency: 1980-1996 from Centraal Bureau voor
de Statistiek, Nationale Rekeningen; conversion to US$ on the basis of ICOP Unit Value Ratio for 1987
from R. Kouwenhoven, Analysing Dutch Manufacturing Productivity, 1993, and converted to 1990
level with manufacturing GDP deflator derived from Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Nationale
Rekeningen. Persons employed: 1980-1987 trend from adjusted employment series provided by
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, which were linked to estimates for 1987-1994 from Centraal Bureau
voor de Statistiek, Arbeidsrekeningen; 1995-1996 trend linked to 1994 on the basis of Centraal Bureau
voor de Statistiek, Enquete Beroepsbevolking. Hours worked: 1987 benchmark based on Centraal
Bureau voor de Statistiek, Sociaal-Economische Maandstatistiek; 1980-1994 trend on the basis of
contractual hours from Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Arbeidsrekeningen; 1995-1996 linked to
1994 on the basis of series provided by Centraal Plan Bureau. Labour compensation: 1980-1996 from
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Nationale Rekeningen.
Portugal: Manufacturing GDP in constant national currency: 1980-1995 from OECD, National
Accounts, Vol. II. Persons employed: 1980-1995 from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. II.
Spain: Manufacturing GDP in constant national currency: 1980-1996 from OECD, National Accounts,
28
Vol. II; conversion to US$ on the basis of ICOP Unit Value Ratio for 1992 from ICOP/LCRA project
(University of Groningen), and converted to 1990 level with manufacturing GDP deflator derived from
OECD, National Accounts, Vol. II. Persons employed: 1980-1996 from OECD, National Accounts, Vol.
II.
Sweden: Manufacturing GDP in constant national currency: 1980-1996 from OECD, National
Accounts, Vol. II; conversion to US$ on the basis of ICOP Unit Value Ratio for 1987 from M. Maliranta
(1994), converted to 1990 level with manufacturing GDP deflator derived from OECD, National
Accounts, Vol. II. Persons employed: 1980-1994 from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. II; 1995-1996
trend linked to 1994 on the basis of trend from Bureau of Labor Statistics, Foreign Labor Statistics
(underlying data). Hours worked: 1987 benchmark from Maliranta (1994); 1980-1996 trend from
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Foreign Labor Statistics (website). Labour compensation: 1980-1996 from
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Foreign Labor Statistics (underlying data).
United Kingdom: Manufacturing GDP in constant national currency: 1980-1992 from OECD, National
Accounts, Vol. II; 1993-1996 trend linked to 1992 from Government Statistical Office, National
Accounts, 1997; conversion to US$ on the basis of ICOP Unit Value Ratio for 1987 from B. van Ark
(1992). "Comparative Productivity in British and American Manufacturing", National Institute Economic
Review, November, and converted to 1990 level with manufacturing GDP deflator derived from OECD,
National Accounts, Vol. II. Persons employed: 1980-1992 from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. II;
1993-1996 from Government Statistical Office, National Accounts, 1997. Hours worked: 1987
benchmark from van Ark (1992); 1980-1996 trend from Bureau of Labor Statistics, Foreign Labor
Statistics (website). Labour compensation: 1980-1996 from Bureau of Labor Statistics, Foreign Labor
Statistics (underlying data).
Australia: Manufacturing GDP in constant national currency: 1980-1996 from OECD, National
Accounts, Vol. II; conversion to US$ on the basis of ICOP Unit Value Ratio for 1987 from D. Pilat,
D.S. Prasada Rao and W. Shepherd (1993), Comparison of Real Output, Productivity Levels and
Purchasing Power in Australia/US Manufacturing 1970-1989, COPPAA Research Paper, No. 1, Centre
for the Study of Australia-Asia Relations, Griffith University, Brisbane, and converted to 1990 level
with manufacturing GDP deflator derived from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. II. Persons employed:
1980-1996 from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. II. Hours worked: 1980-1983 from Pilat, Rao and
Shepherd (1993); 1984-1996 linked to 1983 based upon trend from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. II.
Labour compensation: 1980-1996 from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. II.
Canada: Manufacturing GDP in constant national currency: 1980-1996 from OECD, National Accounts,
Vol. II; conversion to US$ on the basis of ICOP Unit Value Ratio for 1987 from G. de Jong (1997),
Canada’s Post-war Manufacturing Performance: a Comparison with the United States, Groningen
Growth and Development Centre Research Memorandum, GD-32, and converted to 1990 level with
manufacturing GDP deflator derived from OECD, National Accounts, Vol. II. Persons employed: 19801997 from Bureau of Labor Statistics, Foreign Labor Statistics (underlying data).
Hours worked: 1987 benchmark from De Jong (1996); 1980-1997 trend from Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Foreign Labor Statistics (website). Labour compensation: 1980-1997 from Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Foreign Labor Statistics (underlying data).
Japan: Manufacturing GDP in constant national currency: 1980-1996 from EPA, Annual Report on the
National Accounts; conversion to US$ on the basis of ICOP Unit Value Ratio for 1987 from D. Pilat
(1994), The Economics of Rapid Growth: The Experience of Japan and Korea, Edward Elgar Ltd., and
converted to 1990 level with manufacturing GDP deflator derived from EPA, Annual Report on the
National Accounts. Persons employed: 1980-1996 from EPA, Annual Report on the National Accounts.
Hours worked: 1980-1996 from Ministry of Labour, Monthly Report on the Labour Force Survey.
Labour compensation: 1980-1996 from Bureau of Labor Statistics, Foreign Labor Statistics (underlying
data).
29
United States: Manufacturing GDP in constant national currency: 1980-1996 from US Department of
Commerce, National Income and Product Accounts, with 1980-1987 at fixed 1982 weights, and 19871996 at 1992 chained weights. Persons employed: 1980-1996 from US Department of Commerce,
National Income and Product Accounts. Hours worked: 1987 benchmark from B. van Ark (1993),
International Comparisons of Output and Productivity. Manufacturing Productivity Performance of Ten
Countries from 1950 to 1990, Monograph Series No. 1, Groningen Growth and Development Centre.
1980-1996 trend from US Department of Commerce, National Income and Product Accounts. Labour
compensation: 1980-1997 from Bureau of Labor Statistics, Foreign Labor Statistics (underlying data).
Korea, Republic of: Manufacturing GDP in constant national currency: 1980-1996 from Bank of Korea,
National Accounts; conversion to US$ on the basis of ICOP Unit Value Ratio for 1987 from D. Pilat
(1994), The Economics of Rapid Growth: The Experience of Japan and Korea, Edward Elgar Ltd., and
converted to 1990 level with manufacturing GDP deflator derived from Bank of Korea, National
Accounts. Persons employed: 1980-1990 from EPB, Annual Report on the Economically Active
Population; 1991-1996 trend linked to 1990 from OECD, Labour Force Statistics. Hours worked:
1980-1996 from Ministry of Labor, Report on the Monthly Labor Survey. Labour compensation: 19801982 from Bank of Korea, National Accounts, 1990; 1983-1995 from OECD, National Accounts, Vol.
I1; 1996 linked to 1995 from Bureau of Labor Statistics, Foreign Labor Statistics (underlying data).
Wage trend: 1980-1996 trend in monthly earnings of employees ILO, Yearbook of Labour Statistics.
Taiwan, China: Manufacturing GDP in constant national currency: 1980-1996 from DOBAS, National
Income in Taiwan; conversion to US$ on the basis of ICOP Unit Value Ratio for 1987 from M.
Timmer, (1998), Catch-up Patterns in Newly Industrializing Countries: an International Comparison of
Manufacturing Productivity in Taiwan, 1961-1993, Groningen Growth and Development Centre
Research Memorandum, GD-40, and converted to 1990 level with manufacturing GDP deflator derived
from DOBAS, National Income in Taiwan. Persons employed: 1980-1996 from DOBAS, Monthly
Bulletin of Labour Statistics. Hours worked: 1987 benchmark from Timmer (1998); 1980-1996 trend
from DOBAS, Monthly Bulletin of Earnings and Productivity Statistics. Wage trend: 1980-1996 trend
in monthly earnings from DOBAS, Monthly Bulletin of Earnings and Productivity Statistics.
India: Manufacturing GDP in constant national currency: 1980-1995 from Central Statistical Office,
National Accounts; conversion to US$ on the basis of ICOP Unit Value Ratio for 1983-84 from A.
Szirmai and M. Timmer (1997), Growth and Divergence in Manufacturing Performance in South and
East Asia, Groningen Growth and Development Centre Research Memorandum, GD-37, and converted
to 1990 level with manufacturing GDP deflator derived from Central Statistical Office, National
Accounts. Persons employed: 1980 and 1990 on the basis of labour force in the population census.
Interpolated and extrapolated from 1990 with population growth rates.
Indonesia: Manufacturing GDP in constant national currency: 1980-1995 based on Asian Development
Bank, Key Indicators of Developing Asian and Pacific Countries; conversion to US$ on the basis of
ICOP Unit Value Ratio for 1987 from Szirmai and Timmer (1997), and converted to 1990 level with
manufacturing GDP deflator derived from Asian Development Bank, Key Indicators of Developing
Asian and Pacific Countries. Persons employed: 1980-1995 from Asian Development Bank, Key
Indicators of Developing Asian and Pacific Countries.
Philippines: GDP in constant national currency: 1980-1989 from National Statistical Coordination
Board, Philippine Statistical Yearbook; 1990-1995 from Asian Development Bank, Key Indicators of
Developing Asian and Pacific Countries. Persons employed: 1980-1989 from National Statistical
Coordination Board, Philippine Statistical Yearbook; 1990-1995 from Asian Development Bank, Key
Indicators of Developing Asian and Pacific Countries. Wage trend: 1980-1993 trend in wage rates per
day from ILO, Yearbook of Labour Statistics.
30
Thailand: GDP in constant national currency: 1980-1996 from Asian Development Bank, Key
Indicators of Developing Asian and Pacific Countries. Persons employed: 1980-1985 from N.
Vanderveen (1987), Postwar Economic Growth and Structural Change in Thailand, University of
Groningen (mimeographed); 1986-1996 trend from United Nations, Statistical Yearbook.
Mexico: GDP in constant national currency: 1980-1996 from INEGI, Cuentas Nacionales de Mexico.
Persons employed: 1980-1996 from N. Mulder, The Economic Performance of Services in Brazil,
Mexico and the USA. in Comparative Perspective, Groningen Growth and Development Centre,
Monograph Series, No. 4. Wage trend: 1980-1996 trend in earnings per month from ILO, Yearbook of
Labour Statistics.
31
References
Ark, B. van (1992), "Comparative Productivity in British and American Manufacturing", National Institute
Economic Review, November.
Ark, B. van (1993), International Comparisons of Output and Productivity, Monograph Series No. 1, Groningen
Growth and Development Centre (downloadable from http://www.eco.rug.nl/ggdc/icop.html).
Ark, B. van (1995), B. van Ark (1995), "Manufacturing prices, productivity and labor costs in five economies",
Monthly Labor Review, July, pp. 56-72.
Ark, B. van (1995a), "Producción y productividad en el sector manufacturera español. Un análisis comparativo 19501992", Informacio Comercial Española. Revista de economia, no. 746, October, pp. 67-78.
Ark, B. van (1996), "Productivity and Competitiveness in Manufacturing: A Comparison of Europe, Japan and the
United States", in K. Wagner and B. van Ark, eds. (1996), International Productivity Differences. Measurement
and Explanations, Contributions to Economic Analysis, North Holland.
Ark, B. van (1996a), "Issues in Measurement and International Comparison of Productivity - An Overview", in
OECD, Industry Productivity. International Comparison and Measurement Issues, OECD Proceedings, Paris.
Ark, B. van (1996b), "Sectoral Growth Accounting and Structural Change in Post-War Europe", in B. van Ark and
N.F.R. Crafts, eds., Quantitative Aspects of Post-War European Economic Growth, CEPR/Cambridge
University Press, pp. 84-164.
Ark, B. van and D. Pilat (1993), "Productivity Levels in Germany, Japan and the United States", Brookings Papers on
Economic Activity, Microeconomics 2, Washington D.C., December.
Ark, B. van and Remco D.J. Kouwenhoven (1994), "Productivity in French Manufacturing: An International
Comparative Perspective", Research Memorandum, no. 571 (GD-10), Groningen Growth and Development
Centre.
Ark, B. van, E.J. Monnikhof and N. Mulder (1999), “Productivity in Services: An International Comparative
Perspective”, Canadian Journal of Economics , vol. 32, no. 2, April, pp. 471-499.
Ark. B. van, and R.H. McGuckin (1999), “International Comparisons of Labor Productivity and Per Capita Income”,
Monthly Labor Review, July.
Castles, I. (1997), “Review of the
http://www.oecd.org/std/ppp/pps.htm).
OECD-Eurostat
PPP
Program”
(downloadable
from:
Crafts, N.F.R. and G. Toniolo, eds. (1996), Economic Growth in Europe Since 1945, CEPR/Cambridge University
Press.
Dollar, D. and E.N. Wolff (1993), Competitiveness, Convergence and International Specialization, MIT Press,
Cambridge Mass.
Eurostat (1983), Comparisons in Real Values of the Aggregates of ESA, 1980, Luxembourg.
Eurostat (1988), Purchasing Power Parities and Gross Domestic Product in Real Terms, Results 1985,
Luxembourg.
Fukado, S. and H. Toya (1999), “A New View on the Source of East Asian Economic Growth: What Made
Capital Stock Accumulation So Remarkable in East Asia?”, in OECD, Structural Aspects of the East Asian
Crisis, OECD Conference Proceedings, Paris.
32
Gilbert, M. and I.B. Kravis (1954), An International Comparison of National Products and the Purchasing Power
of Currencies, Organisation of European Economic Co-operation, Paris.
Gilbert, M. and Associates (1958), Comparative National Products and Price Levels, Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, Paris.
Golub, S.S. (1999), Labour Costs and International Trade, AEI Studies on Understanding Economic Inequality,
American Enterprise Institute for Economic Research, Washington D.C.
Griliches, Z. ed. (1992), Output Measurement in the Service Sectors, National Bureau of Economic
Research/University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Hill, P. (1982), Multilateral Measurements of Purchasing Power and Real GDP, Eurostat, Luxembourg.
Hooper, P. (1996), “Comparing Manufacturing Output Levels among the Major Industrial Countries”, in OECD,
Industry Productivity. International Comparison and Measurement Issues, OECD Proceedings, Paris.
Jong, G. de (1996), "Canada's Postwar Manufacturing Performance. A Comparison with the United States", Research
Memorandum GD-32, Groningen Growth and Development Centre.
Jorgenson, D.W. (1995) Productivity. Volume 2, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
Jorgenson, D.W. and M. Kuroda (1990), "Productivity and International Competitiveness in Japan and the United
States, 1960-1985", in C.R. Hulten, ed., Productivity in the US and Japan, University of Chicago Press.
International Labour Office (1999), Key Indicators of the Labour Market 1999, Geneva.
Kouwenhoven, R.D.J. (1993), "Analysing Dutch Manufacturing Productivity", Groningen Growth and Development
Centre, mimeographed.
Kravis, I.B., A. Heston and R. Summers (1982), World Product and Income, John Hopkins, Baltimore.
Maddison, A. (1980) (1980), “Monitoring the Labour Market: A Proposal for a Comprehensive Approach in Official
Statistics”, Review of Income and Wealth, June, pp. 175-217.
Maddison, A. (1991), Dynamic Forces in Capitalist Development, Oxford University Press.
Maddison, A. (1995), Monitoring the World Economy 1820-1992, OECD Development Centre, Paris
Maddison, A. (1995a), “Standardised Estimates of Fixed Capital Stock: A Six Country Comparison”, in
Explaining the Economic Performance of Nations. Essays in Time and Space, Edward Elgar Ltd.
Maddison, A. (1996), “Macroeconomic Accounts for European Countries,” in B. van Ark and N.F.R. Crafts, eds.,
Quantitative Aspects of Post-War European Economic Growth, CEPR/Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
Maliranta, M. (1994), "Comparative Levels of Labour Productivity in Swedish, Finnish and American
Manufacturing", Helsinki School of Economics, mimeographed.
Mulder, N. (1999), The Economic Performance of the Service Sector in Brazil, Mexico and the USA. A Comparative
Historical Perspective, Monograph Series No. 1, Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Groningen.
Nehru, V. and A. Dhareshwar (1993), “A New Database on Physical Capital Stock: Sources, Methodology and
Results”, Revista de Analisis Economico, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 37-59
OECD (1998), Employment Outlook, June, Paris.
OECD (1996), Purchasing Power Parities and Real Expenditures, EKS Results 1993, Paris.
OECD (1999), Purchasing Power Parities and Real Expenditures, EKS Results 1996, Paris.
33
OECD (1999, 2000), National Accounts Main Aggregates, Volume I, Paris.
O’Mahony, M. (1996), ‘Measures of Fixed Capital Stocks in the Post-war Period: a Five Country Study’, in B.
van Ark and N.E.R. Crafts (eds.) Quantitative Aspects of Post war European Growth, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 165-214.
O’Mahony, M. (1999), Britain’s Relative Productivity Performance 1950-1996, National Institute of Economic and
Social Research, London.
Paige, D. and G. Bombach (1959), A Comparison of National Output and Productivity, OEEC, Paris.
Pilat, D. (1994), The Economics of Rapid Growth. The Experience of Japan and Korea, Edward Elgar Publishers,
Aldershot.
Pilat, D., D.S. Prasasa Rao and W.F. Shepherd (1993), "Australia and United States Manufacturing. A Comparison of
Real Output, Productivity Levels and Purchasing Power, 1970-1989", COPPAA Series, no. 1, Centre for the
Study of Australia-Asia Relations, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
Ryten, J. (1998), The evaluation of the International Comparison Project (ICP), Consultant Report for the
International Monetary Fund, United Nations and World Bank (downloadable from
http://www.un.org/Depts/unsd/sna/icp/icprep.htm).
Soete, A. (1994), “The Evolution of the Competitiveness of the Belgian Manufacturing Industry in the Long Run,
1880-1990”, paper presented at the Economics Department of the Catholic University Leuven.
Summers, R. and A. Heston (1991), "The Penn World Table (March 5): An Expanded Set of International
Comparisons, 1950-1988", Quarterly Journal of Economics, May.
Timmer, M.P. (1999), The Dynamics of Asian Manufacturing. A Comparative Perspective, ECIS. Forthcoming with
Edward Elgar Publishers, Aldershot.
Timmer, M.P. and B. van Ark (2000), “Capital Formation and Productivity Growth in South Korea and Taiwan:
Realising the Catch-Up Potential in a World of Diminishing Returns”, University of Groningen,
mimeographed.
United Nations (1986), World Comparisons of Purchasing Power and Real Product for 1980, New York.
United Nations ( 1994), World Comparisons of Real Gross Domestic Product and Purchasing Power 1985, New
York.
World Bank (1999), World Development Indicators 1999, Washington D.C.
Table 17b.
Labour productivity and unit labour costs, manufacturing (revised)
(figures in italics indicate changes compared to publication in KILM 17b)
Year
Labour productivity
Value added Value added Value added Value added
per person
per person
per hour
per hour
employed
employed
worked
worked
(1990 US $) (1980 = 100) (1990 US $) (1980 = 100)
Unit labour costs
Labour
Labour
compensation compensation
per unit of
per unit of
output on US output on US
dollar basis
(1990 US $)
Developed (industrialized) countries
Major Europe
Austria
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Belgium
1980 30581
1990 46583
1991 46812
1992 47248
1993 48425
1994 52575
1995 51736
1996 52543
1997 55600
Denmark
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
100
141
146
149
152
162
165
172
100
152
153
155
158
172
169
172
182
100
105
107
110
116
118
20.13
30.24
30.94
31.23
32.49
34.34
34.16
34.55
36.49
100.0
150.2
153.7
155.1
161.4
170.6
169.7
171.6
181.3
0.83
0.83
0.84
0.93
0.87
0.89
1.04
1.00
0.84
Labour
compensation
per unit of
output on
national
dollar basis currency basis
(1980 = 100) (1980 = 100)
Wages or
earnings
per unit of
output on US
dollar basis
Note
No.
(1980 = 100)
100.0
99.8
101.4
111.9
105.1
107.0
125.6
120.8
101.1
100.0
114.1
118.4
123.0
124.4
122.4
126.6
127.9
123.7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
100.0
155.7
153.4
165.4
147.9
153.6
100.0
171.0
174.1
177.2
170.2
173.4
3
3
3
3
3
3
1995
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
France
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Germany, Federal
1980
Republic of (Western) 1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Finland
Greece
Netherlands
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1980
1990
1991
1992
24353
39113
37627
42413
47836
53525
56113
57430
33373
43747
43635
44247
44992
48399
49946
50926
33680
39565
40462
40048
38979
41945
43202
44471
118
100
161
155
174
196
220
230
236
100
131
131
133
135
145
150
153
100
118
120
119
116
125
128
132
27678
36367
36404
36676
100
336
398
445
613
665
688
100
131
132
133
14.06
23.85
23.86
27.04
30.21
33.05
34.37
35.16
19.45
27.15
27.04
27.30
27.99
30.16
30.97
31.55
19.62
24.92
25.66
25.20
25.30
27.22
28.19
29.44
17.71
25.46
25.58
25.69
100.0
169.6
169.6
192.3
214.8
235.0
244.4
250.0
100.0
139.6
139.0
140.3
143.9
155.0
159.2
162.2
100.0
127.0
130.8
128.4
128.9
138.7
143.6
150.0
100.0
143.7
144.4
145.1
0.60
0.94
0.94
0.78
0.57
0.59
0.74
0.70
0.64
0.79
0.80
0.87
0.83
0.80
0.88
0.85
0.62
0.91
0.92
1.04
1.04
1.03
1.19
1.14
0.68
0.75
0.76
0.85
181.9
100.0
155.5
155.4
129.2
94.6
98.3
121.7
115.4
100.0
123.5
125.5
136.7
129.1
125.3
137.1
133.6
100.0
146.9
147.8
168.3
168.0
167.6
192.3
184.3
100.0
110.3
111.2
124.0
180.8
100.0
159.4
168.5
155.2
144.9
137.7
142.4
142.1
100.0
159.2
167.5
171.2
173.0
164.6
161.9
161.7
100.0
130.6
134.8
144.6
152.8
149.6
151.6
152.6
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
100.0
101.0
104.6
109.7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
9
9
9
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Major non-Europe
Australia
1993
1994
1995
1996
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
36830
40463
41004
41569
25.97
28.59
29.03
29.65
146.6
161.4
163.9
167.4
0.82
0.78
0.86
0.82
119.8
114.2
126.5
120.7
112.0
104.5
102.1
102.3
19916
28877
29609
30639
31337
33394
31125
30703
25283
34291
34534
36661
40110
44778
48022
49398
17793
28187
28623
29659
31162
32604
32878
33753
133
146
148
150
100
110
110
118
117
117
126
100
145
149
154
157
168
156
154
100
136
137
145
159
177
190
195
100
158
161
167
175
183
185
190
17.64
22.81
23.00
24.22
25.83
27.99
29.73
30.87
10.30
16.71
17.26
17.87
18.87
19.60
19.61
20.05
100.0
129.3
130.4
137.3
146.4
158.7
168.6
175.0
100.0
162.3
167.6
173.5
183.2
190.3
190.4
194.7
0.82
1.05
1.11
1.15
0.80
0.78
0.84
0.93
0.84
1.00
1.07
1.08
0.93
0.94
0.98
0.96
100.0
127.3
134.9
139.5
97.6
94.3
101.7
112.7
100.0
119.2
126.8
128.1
110.0
111.1
116.0
114.4
100.0
178.1
192.8
192.0
179.5
172.0
171.5
178.7
100.0
156.0
167.2
169.8
170.4
168.8
171.0
170.5
9
9
10
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
1980
26109
100
13.59
100.0
0.63
100.0
100.0
16
Canada
Japan
United States
Asia and the Pacific
Eastern Asia
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
32282
33110
33625
35153
35735
36282
36070
124
127
129
135
137
139
138
16.39
16.91
17.08
17.52
17.66
18.04
17.96
120.6
124.4
125.7
129.0
130.0
132.8
132.1
0.75
0.76
0.73
0.67
0.73
0.77
0.85
119.2
120.8
116.4
106.7
116.2
123.5
135.5
174.0
176.7
180.6
178.8
181.1
189.7
197.3
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
30469
39220
38862
40886
43087
43926
44985
44188
45428
32613
52438
53177
51578
50099
50658
54706
56127
37714
52614
52514
54249
56111
59952
63481
65966
100
129
128
134
141
144
148
145
149
100
161
163
158
154
155
168
172
100
140
139
144
149
159
168
175
16.04
20.22
20.15
21.16
21.99
22.29
22.93
22.48
23.10
15.00
24.66
25.54
25.54
25.44
25.73
27.66
28.51
20.30
27.40
27.50
28.20
28.80
30.30
32.40
33.70
100.0
126.1
125.6
131.9
137.1
139.0
143.0
140.2
144.0
100.0
164.4
170.2
170.2
169.6
171.5
184.4
190.1
100.0
134.8
135.6
138.6
141.5
149.2
159.5
165.7
0.51
0.75
0.81
0.78
0.70
0.65
0.65
0.69
0.67
0.40
0.59
0.65
0.71
0.85
0.94
0.98
0.84
0.57
0.68
0.71
0.73
0.74
0.72
0.69
0.69
100.0
147.2
159.3
151.7
136.3
128.0
127.9
134.2
131.9
100.0
148.3
162.8
180.2
215.5
236.7
246.4
210.8
100.0
119.5
125.3
128.5
129.4
125.6
121.3
120.1
100.0
147.0
156.1
156.9
150.5
149.5
150.1
156.5
156.3
100.0
94.7
96.6
100.7
105.7
106.7
102.2
101.2
100.0
119.5
125.3
128.5
129.4
125.6
121.3
120.1
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
21
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
Korea, Republic of
Taiwan, China
South-central Asia
India
South-eastern Asia
Indonesia
Philippines
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
8994
17113
18358
19951
21745
23798
25940
28437
11644
19187
20908
21694
23143
24460
26306
27850
100
190
204
222
242
265
288
316
100
165
180
186
199
210
226
239
3.30
6.48
7.02
7.72
8.39
9.20
9.94
10.90
4.40
7.92
8.64
8.96
9.54
10.09
10.88
100.0
196.3
212.8
233.9
254.2
278.8
301.1
330.1
100.0
180.0
196.6
203.9
217.1
229.4
247.4
0.32
0.48
0.49
0.46
0.44
0.43
0.45
0.45
100.0
152.1
153.8
146.0
138.9
137.2
143.4
142.1
100.0
177.2
185.6
187.5
183.5
181.7
182.1
188.1
100.0
211.7
230.6
245.4
249.7
263.4
265.7
271.9
100.0
222.8
227.5
257.6
246.1
247.6
242.8
230.2
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1675
2669
2504
2567
2745
2984
3342
100
159
149
153
164
178
199
28
28
29
29
29
29
29
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1980
1990
1991
1992
2233
3543
3793
4022
4210
3833
4547
100
159
170
180
189
172
204
100
99
90
83
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
31
32
32
32
100.0
502.2
624.6
754.7
23
24
25
25
25
25
25
26
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
Thailand
1993
1994
1995
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
87
87
94
100
125
126
135
137
154
156
148
748.7
32
32
32
33
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
Latin America and the Caribbean
Latin America
Mexico
1980
100
100.0
35
1990
101
8769.9
35
1991
104
10780.3
35
1992
108
12678.5
35
1993
113
13535.3
35
1994
120
12863.6
35
1995
121
14533.3
35
1996
125
17188.4
35
This Table is a revised version of KILM 17b. All level estimates have been changed because of a correction in the updating of Unit Value Rations to 1990 (see Section 3 of
this paper).