💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 5596.gmi captured on 2021-12-05 at 23:47:19. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

⬅️ Previous capture (2021-12-03)

➡️ Next capture (2023-01-29)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

What Economists Get Wrong About Measuring Productivity

Roger Martin

September 14, 2015

I find it interesting to listen to economists talk about U.S. productivity

growth or the lack thereof. It has been a source of much fretting over the

years. The 3+%/year labor productivity growth rates of the 1950s and 1960s

slowed to under 2% in the 1970s and then to 1.5% in the 1980-1995 period. There

was a heartening rally between 1996 and 2004, when growth returned to its 1950s

/1960s levels of 3% a performance almost universally attributed to the

efficiency gains from information technology.

But just as the economists and IT enthusiasts were completing their victory

lap, productivity growth headed into the doldrums for a decade growing at an

anemic 1.4%/year from 2005-2014, with the slowdown starting well before the

global financial crisis. When the first quarter of 2015 revealed a 3.1% decline

on the back of a flat 2013 and +0.7% 2014, it precipitated much wailing and

gnashing of teeth. Thankfully, the just-released revisions to the second

quarter 2015 growth of 3.3% wiped out the first quarter decline and helped

economists breathe a collective sigh of relief that we aren t necessarily going

into a hell in a productivity hand basket.

As I read all the productivity analyses and commentary, including the recent

one on these pages by the clever folks at the OECD, I am struck that in trying

to understand productivity, economists exclusively look at only one half of the

productivity equation literally not figuratively. That impedes their ability

to understand what is really going on with productivity in the modern economy.

Most people instinctively think of productivity as a quotient: a physical

output (e.g., a ton of coal) divided by a physical input (e.g., labor hours).

They wouldn t be wrong; that is where productivity measurement started.

But to say something useful about the comparative productivity of different

kinds of enterprises, you can t compare the output one ton of coal with one

automobile to judge the one that used fewer labor hours to be more productive

. It is, of course, apples and oranges. To make the comparison you need to

convert the numerator from a physical measure to a financial one

conventionally the dollar value added (essentially a product s selling price

less purchased inputs), which is also how economists measure a country s Gross

Domestic Product. Once you have a dollar figure for the numerator you can

compare the productivity of labor across industries and jurisdictions in terms

of dollar value-added created per hour worked.

So far, so reasonable, but when figuring out how to improve productivity,

researchers almost always focus on the direct determinants of the denominator

they think about how to use technology, training, re-engineering of work

processes, and automation in order to reduce the number of labor hours required

to produce a given product or service.

The numerator is entirely ignored as if the value of the output was fixed and

immutable. However, as any student of strategy knows very well, the dollar

value-added that a firm generates is directly proportional to what it can

charge in the marketplace for its products or services. And that price is, in

turn, highly sensitive to the competitive dynamics of the firm s industry and

the strategic decisions it makes. Given the basic dynamics of a quotient,

changes to the numerator are equally important to results as changes to the

denominator.

An example of the impact of changes in competitive dynamics can be seen from

our experience with globalization. After China joined the WTO in 1997, the

effect of its exports on many U.S. markets was to systematically reduce

prevailing price levels. While ignored by economists, this has created massive

downwards pressure on U.S. labor productivity as Chinese exporting ramped up

after 2000. Many US firms in many U.S. industries had no chance to reduce their

denominator (labor hours) as fast as the market-driven numerator (prevailing

price levels) fell. While on a physical basis, many were reducing the labor

hours per unit (of whatever they were producing), their efforts were swamped by

the reduction in the value those units generated. That shows up in an

economy-wide reduction in the pace of productivity growth in the past decade.

That notwithstanding, there is little discussion among economists of the mixed

impact of globalization on US productivity growth numbers. Most consider

globalization an unalloyed good for productivity because it reduces

denominators. While it almost certainly increases the efficiency of the

economy, there is no reason to expect that it will result in an observed

increase in productivity.

Economists do try to account for this kind of effect by making what they call

hedonic adjustments. Literally, they take the price of a good (let s say a PC)

and adjust it (in this case upward because over time the consumer has gotten

more for less in their PCs) to take into account quality changes. But I

struggle to take seriously the notion that any economist can accurately or even

usefully re-price goods across the entire economy based on their true value

rather than their prevailing price.

What about the second factor: strategic decisions? These also have a direct

impact on the numerator. If, thanks to choices around, say, product design,

brand-building or selection of distribution channels, your product or service

is hugely attractive to customers, you will automatically have high

productivity, almost regardless of what you do to the denominator.

Take Apple. An iPhone 6, with largely the same physical properties, sells for

two times a HTC Desire because Apple has created a user experience and brand

that causes consumers to pay whatever it decides to charge. As a result, Apple

has sky-high productivity versus HTC which is struggling to make ends meet in

the smartphone business. It is simply and clearly a function of a strategic

choices influencing the numerator, not the size of the denominator.

Yet the impact of these kinds of decisions seems to be almost completely

ignored by productivity economists. It is a shame. All of the economists and

policy wonks obsessing about low U.S. productivity growth focus, at best, on

half the problem, which is like going into a fist-fight with one arm tied

behind your back. When productivity recommendations are made, they never point

out the need for smarter strategic decisions on the part of U.S. company

executives except for smarter decisions on adoption of labor-saving

technologies.

Roger Martin is a professor at and former dean of the Rotman School of

Management. He is the coauthor of Getting Beyond Better (Harvard Business

Review Press, forthcoming) and Playing to Win (Harvard Business Review Press,

2013).