Home > Economic policy, Economics - General > Productivity and the Productivity Commission (updated)

Productivity and the Productivity Commission (updated)

May 17th, 2012

For well over a decade, I’ve been debating the claim made by the Productivity Commission that Australia experienced a productivity surge in the 1990s. My claim has been that the apparent high rate of productivity growth in the mid-1990s was the result of measurement error, most importantly the failure to take account of the increase in the pace and intensity of work that was apparent to everyone (except PC economists) at that time. This view led me to conclude that the supposed productivity gains would dissipate as more normal labor market conditions returned, which was exactly what happened.

In most of these debates, one of my chief antagonists was Dean Parham, who worked for the PC at the time, and is now a Guest Researcher there. Today I heard that Parham had written a new paper on the weak productivity growth of the 2000s. So, I was keen to see what response he would have to my latest work and to my arguments about work intensity. The answer, quite literally is “Nothing”. I have, it appears become an un-person at the PC. Parham doesn’t cite any of my work and, more importantly, fails to mention work intensity at all.

Update The original version of the post contained a somewhat snarky suggestion that Parham had been negligent in ignoring my work. He has written to me to say that this is incorrect. The reason he doesn’t mention it is because, in his view, nothing I have written on this topic, at least since 2004, merits a response.

Further update Dean Parham writes that

the reason I did not mention your work or the work intensity thesis in my paper is that I did not consider it central to the focus of the paper (industry contributions) or even to the contextual motivation of the paper.

Since the contextual motivation of the paper is (as the title suggests) the slump in productivity, I can’t see that this differs from my summary. If Parham thinks my work merits a response, he’s welcome to provide that response here or in any other venue that suits him.

I’ve got some urgent commitments over the next few days, so I won’t be able to return to this topic until later. But in the meantime, here are some of the things I’ve written about this in the last few years. Agree or disagree, I think I’ve put forward a serious case that deserves an answer.





  1. kymbos
    May 17th, 2012 at 15:34 | #1


  2. Jim Birch
    May 17th, 2012 at 15:37 | #2

    Fashion failure, again, I’m afraid.

  3. frankis
    May 17th, 2012 at 15:49 | #3


  4. Chris Warren
    May 17th, 2012 at 17:19 | #4

    It would seem that the Productivity Commission is captured by Political Commissars for capitalism.

  5. May 17th, 2012 at 18:23 | #5

    Its important that the PC engage with the wider community of economists – doing so provides a relatively free source of information and feedback. Generally I think they do – they generally listen to my views (I think) but sometimes they don’t -apparently they did not in your case. Its a fairly basic critique you are directing at them. There are costs of interacting with such critiques – its a weak defence of their stance.

    I think John just keep hammering away with your viewpoint. You are a respected Australian economist and eventually they must feel the need not just to ignore you but to try to show you are wrong.

  6. Jim Rose
    May 17th, 2012 at 18:27 | #6

    Jim, I’m serious about this. Please troll some other thread – JQ

  7. Freelander
    May 17th, 2012 at 19:43 | #7

    Very harsh on Mr Parham, who is a nice guy – a very good manager, not really a researcher, but then the organisation doesn’t have an exceptional reputation for research.The organisation writes reports; research is not really their thing.

    Very difficult to conduct serious research when you always know the answer before even the question has been asked. Rumour has it that observing the PC conducting research, first hand, puts you off their product. The IAC/IC/PC has always had an agenda. And with regard to that agenda, pretty well “Mission Accomplished!”

  8. John Quiggin
    May 17th, 2012 at 20:20 | #8

    I’ve always found him to be a nice guy also. But there are rules in research and this piece breaks them in a big way.

  9. Ikonoclast
    May 17th, 2012 at 21:04 | #9


    Interesting… how can one write a report without researching?

  10. Freelander
    May 17th, 2012 at 21:06 | #10

    No responding to anyone…

    Science Fiction.

  11. Jim Rose
    May 17th, 2012 at 21:17 | #11

    John, my point was that in addition to your criticisms about a poor Australian literature review – and at your expense; and Freelander’s point that government report writing agencies are not well geared to write technical research; their international literature review was also poor.

    This is turn led to poor hypothesis construction about the static and dynamic gains from deregulation – measurement without theory.

    Your criticisms of the size of the gains from economic reform are shared by Tullock, Tollison and other members of the Virginia school of political economy.

  12. PeterM
    May 18th, 2012 at 15:21 | #12

    John, there may be a drop in productivity but the real causes may not be the workers.

    I understand the finance sector was appropriating something like 40% of all corporate returns prior to the GFC. It has probably dropped back a little since then but this it sector is still over blown. (I suspect a fee for 5% or so is what a free market would be allocating to the sector. )This seems a fair return for the sector’s role in reallocating capital to the most productive use. Also management overheads in the form of excessive executive salaries have taken off in the last twenty or so years. It is not too hard to find a company paying over 20% its profit in exec salaries.

    This is all draining capital that should be invested in improving this country’s productivity. Over the years this misallocation of resources must have an effect on productivity. If it does not actually cause it to drop, it certain will reduce the growth rate from where it should be.

    You never see any mention of these market failures in discussions on productivity.

  13. Freelander
    May 19th, 2012 at 10:06 | #13

    The critique is harsh, it’s perhaps fair. But there is a wider issue with the hallowed organisation. If one looks at the resources provided to the PC, it’s difficult to conclude other than that there is a high level of inputs for their average output. In addition to the tens of millions allocated each year (see for example, the recent budget papers), for much of their ‘research’ at least a similar input amount, and often far greater, is provided in inputs by state and federal government departments, and the wider community, including business and the not for profit sector.

    Maybe someone, sometime, ought to conduct a productivity or efficiency study on Australia’s premier source of policy advice to government?

  14. Jim Rose
    May 19th, 2012 at 11:02 | #14

    On government report writing agencies are not well geared to write technical research, the difference between academic and public sector economists is in their degree of specialisation and their extent of continuous training:
    - Academics tend to have a specialisation or two or three.
    - Public sector economists are generalist with changing areas of focus.

    The need to publish means that academics continuously update skills and keep up with literatures. Teaching also leads to learning and refining of knowledge and problem solving.

  15. Freelander
    May 19th, 2012 at 12:28 | #15

    Maybe it’s time for government to outsource for their source(s) of policy advice? Perhaps a tender process?

    Maybe, not only would they get better advice, but that advice would be provided cheaper and more efficiently by those who have developed real expertise.

  16. Ikonoclast
    May 19th, 2012 at 13:02 | #16

    OMG, dont outsource. Outsourcing govt functions is the greatest waste of public money ever known. You can’t trust private enterprise, they take govt contracts to rip off the people with duplicitous contracts and highly over-priced services. I’ve seen it first hand. It’s a disaster.

  17. Ikonoclast
    May 19th, 2012 at 13:07 | #17

    Plus you know in advance what advice any private enterprise corporation would give govt;

    (1) Lower wages and remove the minimum wage.
    (2) Lower taxes.
    (3) Remove welfare from the poor but beef up corporate welfare and business subsidies.
    (4) De-regulate everything.

  18. Alan
    May 19th, 2012 at 14:02 | #18


    You forget Point (5) Pay us a lot more for the same work than you would pay public sector economists

  19. Jim Rose
    May 19th, 2012 at 14:17 | #19

    are consutants every cheaper, and as less paterson would say, less approachable?

  20. Chris Warren
    May 19th, 2012 at 14:29 | #20

    Freelander :Maybe it’s time for government to outsource for their source(s) of policy advice? Perhaps a tender process?
    Maybe, not only would they get better advice, but that advice would be provided cheaper and more efficiently by those who have developed real expertise.

    This sort of vague comment is on par with Jim Rose.

  21. Freelander
    May 19th, 2012 at 16:36 | #21

    Yes. Let the market reign supreme and provide all we might wish for in policy advice. Then the current incumbents can then take their chances in the market (place of ideas).

    Some might claim that the hallowed institution has, in the past, frequently recommended competitive tendering and outsourcing as a universal panacea (at least for everyone else). Not that one might ever hoist a suggestion, tongue in cheek.

  22. Jim Rose
    May 19th, 2012 at 18:50 | #22

    There are a number of reasons for and against make or buy and state ownership. Alfred Marshall argued that “A Government could print a good edition of Shakespeare’s works, but it could not get them written”.

    Issues of make-or-buy relate in important respects to incomplete contracting over quality. That is why private prisons can be dubious.

    When quality and quantity are easier to measure, the make-or buy decision leans towards buy.

    hiring several full-time academics with competing views might have been a better idea on the very technical issues of productivity measurement.

  23. Greg
    May 19th, 2012 at 18:55 | #23

    John, the href (url) is missing from the link “exactly what happened”.

  24. John Quiggin
    May 19th, 2012 at 19:13 | #24

    Thanks Greg, fixed now, I hope. I tried to fix it earlier and obviously made things worse

  25. Freelander
    May 19th, 2012 at 20:21 | #25

    Dean could have a point in having ignored John’s work and the work intensity issue. After all, the latest publication is one more in a very popular and well received by it readership series of productivity adventures with micro-economic reform having a starring role as the economic saviour.

    Addressing JQs work would spoil the narrative and might even require rewriting the ending. If micro-economic reform were not saving the day it would be out of character and the many fans would be heartily disappointed.

    A successful author, like Mr Parham, does know what his audience wants.

  26. Jim Rose
    May 19th, 2012 at 22:26 | #26

    the below from the links is an excellent point by John that invites an answer:

    “In this paper, it will be argued that, given its relatively short duration and high year-to-year variability, the MFP data set does not contain enough information to allow clear statistical discrimination between competing hypotheses.

    As a result of this lack of information, combined with the human predilection for observing patterns, a range of alternative stories, each of which may be supported by an appropriate interpretation of the data, has been produced.”

  27. Freelander
    May 20th, 2012 at 00:39 | #27

    Interpreting the squiggles created by a few years of MFP point estimates, especially given the magnitude of uncertainty surrounding each point estimate, is a bit like reading tea leaves.

    Of course, some do swear by tea leaf readings…

    From a Bayesian perspective, ‘correct’ interpretation can be a whiz if one starts with a tight enough prior. Thus, tea leaf reading can be provided with a sound theoretical foundation.

  28. Ernestine Gross
    May 20th, 2012 at 20:11 | #28

    JQ, I read your 2004 post, most of Dean Parham’s paper, a bit of the ABS material referenced in the Parham paper.

    Please let me know where I am wrong in the following.

    1. Your 2004 material introduces the theoretical concept of ‘productivity’, makes clear what ‘multifactor productivity’ is supposed to mean, and then provides sufficicient hints as to the difficulties in going from the theoretical concept to measurements, particularly when aggregate GDP data is used.

    2. You introduced ‘labour’ or ‘work intensity’ and you commented on the lack of interest in this notion among some or possibly many economists. I do not know of a conceptual definition but I found it relatively easy to come up with one. Here it is.

    Consider a production technology for 1 type of output, denoted by q(i) (physical quantity). The technology requires labour inputs (typically more than 1). Consider onlt 1 type of labour input, measured in time units (ie physical quantities) and denote it by L(j), where j is an index, say j = 1, …, n. Now introduce a time index, such that L(j)[t] denotes the intensity j of (the one type of) labour applied at time t to earn wage W[t] (fixed for the type of labour at t).

    An increase in labour intensity (for the one type of labour) from t=1 to t=2 is representable by two n-dim. vectors such that for t=1 the vector is [L(1), 0, ...,0] and for t=2 the vector is [0, L(2), 0, ..., 0].

    Now we can relate quite a lot of empirical phenomena to the notion of ‘labour intensity’ and productivity.

    a) Those who expect labour productivity to increase continuously seem to imagine that n tends to infinity. This is contradicted by empirical observations such as physical and mental resources of any type of labour being finite (scientific knowledge).

    b) Data on accidents rates during ‘productivity cycles’, workers compensation rates, psychological injury cases can be correlated with survey data on ‘L’s’ subjective evaluation of what is demanded of them to earn W, as well as objective data.

    c) Increases in labour productivity over the biologically feasible range may not be linear.The notion of a technological optimum, as understood in micro-economics, isn’t all that silly. As work intensity pressure is increased on L, the quality of the work changes (cutting corners) such that in the limit only ‘errors’ are produced.

    d) The theoretical time dependent technological optimum isn’t directly observable. Hence it is quite conceivable that ‘managers’ try out to push more work onto L and it may or may not lead to an increase in L-productivity. Sensible people stop doing something which is counterproductive. Not every manager of L is an idiot.

    e) The time index, t, assumes discrete but constant time intervals. In reality the time interval for W(t) is linked to the micro-economic reform invention of enterprise agreements. These ‘instruments’ have an enterprise specific time horizon. This wage time horizon may or may not correspond to the managerially (or ‘voluntary’ market pressure – want to keep my job idea) determined time horizon of work intensification.

    If I were to keep at it a little longer, other examples of complexities even for a single type of labour and a single output would come to mind.

    Now, Parham says his main work relates to multi-factor productivity [MFP](a residual, in your terminology, after ‘capital’ and ‘labour productivity’ adjustments have been made).

    So Parham is concerned with the explanation of an error term, so to speak.

    I seem to recall the ABS talks about MFP statistics being experimental.

    Your argument is immediately plausible. But this does not constitute a critique of Parham’s work.

    Parham’s arguments (analysis) is not plausible on the grounds that it assumes time runs backward, from ‘output’ to ‘inputs’. You don’t believe me? I quote: “Typically, output growth provides the additional income needed to finance additional growth in inputs.”

    The most generous interpretation I can find for Parham’s ‘argument’ is that he implicitly assumes complete Arrow-Debreu future markets. In this case there is no need for the ‘finance industry’, because the value of future state contingent output is realised at the time when inputs are acquired. While there are some futures markets, these markets have different properties to the theoretical future markets.

    Parham aim to disaggregate national accounts data. Setting aside the problem of measurement errors and the problem or revisions, the theoretical conditions for going from the aggregate to its components are severe. Parham has not even touched on this problem. On the contrary, he excludes data.

    Parham seems to be puzzled by the growth in profitability despite the alleged decline in MFP growth. I am not. All that is required to ‘explain’ this, using my simple model above is considering the possibility of a period where, thanks to the micro-economic reform invention of enterprise agreements, the wage rate is fixed over 2 or more episodes of work intensification (ie an implicit reduction in the wage rate).

  29. Jim Rose
    May 20th, 2012 at 20:58 | #29

    EG, John has done a good job since the early 1990s challenging the loose talk about the net gains of economic reform.

    There is a literature dating back to Harberger (1954) puzzling over why the social losses from public policies and monopoly are small. If the welfare loss triangle is small, so are the gains from closing it.

  30. Ernestine Gross
    May 20th, 2012 at 22:17 | #30

    Jim Rose, I am not convinced you read my post because I am not in disagreement with Professor Q but I am asking him to review my critique of Parham’s article.

  31. Jim Rose
    May 20th, 2012 at 23:07 | #31

    EG, my post was not intended to criticise your post.

    The prevailing model of deregulation is essentially a nirvana model in that the gains from deregulation can essentially be had without cost.

    The transitional gains trap are just a subset of a more general phenomenon indicating that deregulation can never replicate the status quo ante. The rent-seeking costs of the original privileges were capitalised and lost forever. They are not regained by economic reform.

    Further rent-seeking costs are incurred in lobbying for and against proposed reforms. Reform is not a free lunch.

    google tollison and romance, realism and economic reform

  32. Freelander
    May 20th, 2012 at 23:51 | #32

    Talking of ‘just so’ stories, fact free, but with a strong narrative and policy message, here is an interesting paper which suggests which side of politics has a predilection for the minimal intellectual effort outlook on life: “Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism”


    Ain’t that remarkable?

  33. John Quiggin
    May 21st, 2012 at 04:34 | #33

    Ernestine – the model you sketch in point (2) looks like a good way of representing the work intensity problem.

    On your critique of Parham, I think you may be reading a theoretical analysis into a passing remark. I doubt that Parham has a fully-developed growth model in mind. Rather, he is making some ad hoc references to Australia’s dependence on imported capital and its implications for medium-term measures of productivity.

  34. Freelander
    May 21st, 2012 at 07:53 | #34

    Yes – a heroically charitable application of the principle of charity.

  35. Freelander
    May 21st, 2012 at 08:11 | #35

    In relation to productivity measurement there is also the issue of capacity utilization. An increase in productivity may be an artifact of higher utilization, which could also be thought of as an increase in intensity and may involve mismeasurement of depreciation if captial stock ‘wears out’ at a faster rate as a consequence. Likewise, more intensive use of humans can wear them out at a faster rate (as slave owners were probably aware). (I suppose that might be an efficiency argument for transferable property rights in labour – on efficiency grounds. )

  36. Ikonoclast
    May 21st, 2012 at 08:54 | #36

    Erneestine says;

    “Parham’s arguments (analysis) is not plausible on the grounds that it assumes time runs backward, from ‘output’ to ‘inputs’. You don’t believe me? I quote: “Typically, output growth provides the additional income needed to finance additional growth in inputs.” ”

    I am not defending Parham overall. However, does Ernestine not consider that positive feedback loops exist? Output growth (from some cause, any cause) creates income growth, some of which can be used to finance growth by re-investment. Referring to positive feedback does not allow us to infer that time runs backwards, surely?

    But back to the main game. I was in the Federal Public service in the Howard era, supposedly the golden age of productivity growth. It was very clear where I was there that computerisation drove most productivity growth plus the removal of some public service “evils” like gold-bricking (bludging, goofing off, going to the pub). However, computerisation was not invented by the Liberals and Hawke / Keating had already removed most of the gold-bricking.

    Howard’s “reforms” were negative and partly offset the computerisation gains by subjecting us to endless and pointless re-structures like turning DSS into Centrelink. Under-staffing and increased pressure did create a decline in work quality and computerisation was (mis)-used to make welfare calculations ever more ridiculously complicated.* In that way, many of the efficiency gains were frittered away to pander to the ideologies of the neo-cons.

    * I always argued that the attempt to measure welfare need too finely (by over-complication of legislation, policy and computer systems) was futile as it was subject to measurement error. Over-complication of data collection confused recipients and led to much data being of very dubious quality or just dwonright wrong.

  37. Dean Parham
    May 21st, 2012 at 13:57 | #37

    I will make one exception to my rule of not participating in blog conservations to address a factual error. John states in his update about the fact that I did not cite him or the work intensity argument:

    ‘The reason he doesn’t mention it is because, in his view, nothing I have written on this topic, at least since 2004, merits a response.’

    That is not correct. What I did say about the reason for not citing him is as John reports in his ‘further update’. I did also say – making it clear that this was not a reason for not citing him – that he has not responded to the criticisms of the work intensity argument that I made in my 2004 Economic Record review article on Australia’s productivity surge in the 1990s http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4932.2004.00175.x/abstract

  38. Freelander
    May 21st, 2012 at 15:15 | #38
  39. John Quiggin
    May 21st, 2012 at 15:55 | #39

    To respond briefly, Parham (2004) asserts

    Increases in work intensity through
    reductions in slack on work time or increases in pace of work would be genuine sources of productivity improvement.

    I have frequently responded to this claim, but will do so at greater length in a subsequent post. For the moment, observe that, on Parham’s definition, increases in productivity, from an initial starting point of labor market equilibrium, will generally reduce welfare.

  40. Freelander
    May 21st, 2012 at 16:58 | #40

    Adam Smith thought that if labour was used more intensively, then, in a competitive market, an employer would have to pay extra in compensation. The so called theory of equalizing differences. And there is some evidence to support this. Hence, there is “no free lunch “” and no real productivity improvement when labor is used more intensively.

  41. Jim Rose
    May 21st, 2012 at 18:40 | #41

    when is a reduction in transaction costs not a productivity improvement? When is less principal-agent slack within a firm (or a bank) not a productivty gain?

    Armen Alchian’s insight was that the set of rules (the distribution of property rights) determined the level of output of the firm (and the economy) because they determined the incentives of each individual.
    - When property rights are perfect, by definition no theft (including shirking on work effort) can take place and as a result, no effort is made to protect these property rights

    - When property rights are incomplete, individuals attempt to increase their ownership in an effort to increase their wealth. This attempt to capture property rights may be dissipating (as in the case of theft), or wealth generating (as in the case of assets brought out of the public domain or common property, all of which can be equilibriums).

    - When property rights are incomplete, individuals are always in the process of maintaining their existing property rights and attempting to establish new ones.

    This leads to the property right definition of transaction costs: the costs of establishing and maintaining property rights.

    Microeconomic reform affects the costs of establishing and maintaining property rights.
    - There is a problem of monitoring of employee and team effort within the firm – collaboration is subject to shirking.
    - The net gain from collaboration depends on the contract governing it.

    The formation and organisation of the firm can be attributed to ways of monitoring team effort. Replacing solo artisans with assembly lines in a large firm is an example.

    Improved property rights definition and enforcement and harder budget constraints, for example, because of microeconomic reforms redirects efforts away from rent dissipation (such as through shirking by employees) towards wealth creation.

    As an example, the abolition of academic tenure is justified in part because the reduction in shirking outweighs the benefits of tenure. Academic tenure is defended on the grounds that any academic shirking that there might be is worth the price of giving strong property rights to academic employees over their jobs. This balance changes with the times.

    HT: encyclo.findlaw.com/0740book.pdf

  42. Ikonoclast
    May 21st, 2012 at 19:45 | #42

    Neoconservative “economic reform” including micro-economic reform and privatisation of publicly owned enterprises has been wholly and solely about the transfer of accumulated wealth from public to private ownership and the transfer of income from labour to capital. The theory and justifictions are the typical right-wing pseudo-evidence; propaganda paid for by the monied classes.

  43. Chris Warren
    May 21st, 2012 at 20:44 | #43


    Is private ownership the real problem? Presumably, a workers cooperative can have private ownership, and in the right legal structure, would not generate problems. If a single operator business, merely makes their own wage, is this private ownership a problem?

    On the other hand a public owned enterprise which engages in capitalist activity, creates huge problems.

  44. Ernestine Gross
    May 21st, 2012 at 23:00 | #44

    @John Quiggin

    Thank you for your reply @33.

  45. Ernestine Gross
    May 21st, 2012 at 23:52 | #45


    “does Ernestine not consider that positive feedback loops exist? Output growth (from some cause, any cause) creates income growth, some of which can be used to finance growth by re-investment. Referring to positive feedback does not allow us to infer that time runs backwards, surely?”

    My preferred economic theories are those which involve robust concepts that can be related to daily life. ‘Production’ and ‘productivity’ are such concepts. And, as I shall try to illustrate, production involves time, my criticism of Parham’s paper stands, and positive feedback loops are irrelevant.

    Fried eggs don’t ‘grow’ but weed grows.

    Fried eggs is the ‘output’ of a production process requiring the following inputs: raw eggs, a heat source, a surface suitable for heat transfer. We call the knowledge of how to produce fried eggs ‘production technology or ‘technological knowledge. Fried eggs sunny side up and fried eggs sunny side down involve 2 production processes. (The number of production techniques can be expanded by considering cooking surfaces that require some fetty substance versus those that don’t, etc). The technological knowledge may be emboddied in machines or it may be in the head of a single person at a particular time and place. Notions such as ‘economies of scale’ crucially depend on a the notion of a production technology. A ‘production’ consists of inputs and at least 1 type of output. Even the fastest production technology for fried eggs, you will agree (because I know you are not averse to reality) requires time. Moreover, it is not possible to retrieve the inputs, in their original state from the output. We call this the irreversibility of production. (‘you can’t unscramble an egg’).

    Now weeds grow in many gardens all by themselves. These weeds by themselves do not require inputs, from the perspective of the concept of ‘a production’ (although they require inputs in a biological sense, namely soil and some water and no weed eating animals). It is only when the owner (public or private or communal) of a garden wants to get rid of the weed that the inputs are required. So the output is a weeded garden. The inputs consist of spontaneously grown weed, labour, compost or other disposal facility. The weeding takes time (even with a weed killing agent, another input).

    No matter how often the ‘fried egg production’ and the ‘weeded garden’ productions are repeated and no matter how large the quantities (as long as they are finite) of these productions grow, inputs preceed outputs in real time.

    Both, the production ‘fried eggs’ and ‘weeded gardens’ may be produced and consumed by the same person (ie within a household) or sold ‘in the market’. Parham uses national accounts data; only market transactions matter.

  46. Ikonoclast
    May 22nd, 2012 at 07:21 | #46

    @Ernestine Gross

    I am sorry Ernestine. Your answer baffles me. I understand it in its own terms but I don’t understand its application to the point of contention. However, you may be arguing a technical point that has eluded me. The key could be your last statement:- “Parham uses national accounts data; only market transactions matter.” The form of Parham’s argument may be susceptible (can’t think of a better word right now) to your argument because of this.

    I was thinking in a more prosaic way. In a diner, outputs (eggs sunny side up or over easy) can be sold for a profit. Profits can be used to buy another stove and more frying pans if customer numbers warrent it. This was the sense in which I was (loosely) using terms like inputs, outputs and feedback loops.

    I still feel reasonably sure this is the sense in which Parham meant “Typically, output growth provides the additional income needed to finance additional growth in inputs.”

    Be that as it may, you will be aware that I am a strong ideological opponent of the pseudo-science of the Productivity Commission. The Commission is largely a tool of neoconservative propaganda.

  47. Freelander
    May 22nd, 2012 at 07:46 | #47

    So, in summary, the Productivity Commission is a taxpayer funded pack of capitalist running dogs (?).

  48. Jim Rose
    May 22nd, 2012 at 09:02 | #48

    Facts, reasoned arguments and anticipated consequences win arguments. Insinuations of malevolence and moral turpitude do not.

  49. Freelander
    May 22nd, 2012 at 09:11 | #49

    But might, might be right? And who could argue with those anticipated consequences?

  50. Tom
    May 22nd, 2012 at 09:45 | #50

    “Increases in work intensity through reductions in slack on work time or increases in pace of work would be genuine sources of productivity improvement.”

    What Parham asserts in 2004 is just playing around with words; especially with the word “genuine”.

    Lets put it this way, hypothetically assuming labour does slack off some time per work hour and assume if labour market work intensity is 0.65/hour using a range between 0 and 1. This implies that the employees work hard for about 39 minute per hour and the rest is slacked off. Even if the work intensity increases by reducing time slacked off, say work intensity of 0.75/hour after productivity gain; this would imply the employees now work hard for 45 minute per hour and the rest is slacked off. Furthermore assume the work hour per business day is 8 hours paid. This would imply that the employee is working 5.2 hour of actual intense work prior to the productivity gain and 6 hour after the gain.

    Then you look at the fact that employers actually do measure how much their labour produces and how much to pay them. This is only simply measurement that every employer have to do to determine how much to pay their employee, how long is the work hour per day and how much should their product cost etc. During this measurement process prior to productivity gain, the employers would assume that they are hiring their employees for 5.2 actual intense work hour per day instead of 8 as offical work hour. From this perspective if the actual intense work hour per day increased to 6, the offical work hour don’t actually have to increase, but technically the work hour for the employees had increased already.

    If productivity gain is purely from this increase in work intensity, this is nothing ‘genuine’ compare to improvements in technology and skills of the employees (or increase in pace of work as suggested by Parham, which any reasonable person knows there is a limit to this increase) that actually increases the output per intense work minute or hour. Also, this increase in work intensity is very finite as well as putting stress in employees.

  51. BilB
    May 22nd, 2012 at 09:51 | #51

    I think that there are two elements to this subject that neither JQ nor Parnham have any perception of.

    One is the massive resturing of manufacturing built on dramtic improvements in Computer Numerically Controlled machinery along with many game changing technology components of these machines. Coupled with this is the dramatic uptake of PC (personal computers) in the 90′s. The consequence of these advances was a massive improvement in manufacturing productivity in the 90′s, as well as office productivity due to the PC’s.

    The other element is “apparent productivity” due to Asian imports. Many will assume that it is the Chinese economy that benefits most from Asian manufactured imports. Not so. For most Asian origin goods bought through the 90′s the cost of those goods was around 10% of the Australian (and American) retail price. The other 90% circulated within the economy driving a shift from local manufacture to an inflated survice sector, and fed a steady program of construction industry and real estate overpricing. This caused a bubble of “productivity” in the 90′s which steadily dissipated in the 2000′s as technologically more savey second generation Chinese businessmen took over from their parents within China and Taiwan increasing the profit content of goods sourced out of Asia. This shift served to squeeze out many of the smaller importers in favour of the corporate sector who are still able to profit heavily within China due to their ability to control the manufacturers of their goods there.

    It is this very flow that is the basis of Europe’s crisis in the GIPSI countries as well.

  52. BilB
    May 22nd, 2012 at 09:54 | #52

    “restructuring” not “resturing” para 2

  53. Jim Rose
    May 22nd, 2012 at 10:31 | #53

    Is the payment of an efficiency wage to exert more effort – work with a greater intensity – inefficient?

    the efficiency wage hypothesis argues that managers to pay their employees more than the market-clearing wage to increase their productivity. This increased labor productivity pays for the higher wages.

    Both parties to employment contract have some discretion, but due to monitoring problems, it is the employee which can have the most discretion.

    Lazear demonstrates the use of seniority wages to solve the incentive problem. Workers are paid less than their marginal productivity, but earnings increase until they exceed marginal productivity.

    The upward tilt in the age-earnings profile provides the incentive to avoid shirking, and the present value of wages can fall to the market-clearing level, eliminating any unemployment.

    HT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency_wage

    both sides of the employment contracts spend a lot of time on ensuring that the promised level of work effort and quality is actually delivered. Less shirking, less work-place theft and less need to monitor employees can be a welfare gain.

  54. BilB
    May 22nd, 2012 at 10:32 | #54

    You’ve also got to take into account the drought of the 2000′s, rising oil prices with in the 2000′s, the GFC, and the increasing toll of Climate related disasters. All of these have taken an unprecedented toll on the Australian economy, and productivity in various sectors.

    The main positive in the midst of this change is the mining “boom”. It would be an interesting exercise to remove the resources sector from the calculation and see how the Australian economy faired without it, to put Aus on an equal footing with NZ for comparison.

  55. Chris Warren
    May 22nd, 2012 at 10:42 | #55

    @Ernestine Gross

    This is mischief:

    No matter how often the ‘fried egg production’ and the ‘weeded garden’ productions are repeated and no matter how large the quantities (as long as they are finite) of these productions grow, inputs preceed outputs in real time.

    when the original topic was:

    Output growth (from some cause, any cause) creates income growth, some of which can be used to finance growth by re-investment.

    Money revenues (or finance) is the feedback – not the physical output- (eggs or weeded gardens does not matter).

    Banner-waving claims to have “robust concepts” does not impress particularly as you have not defined either ‘production’ or ‘productivity’.

  56. Ernestine Gross
    May 22nd, 2012 at 19:14 | #56

    Chris Warren, you are confused.

    Productivity is a technically well defined concept which refers to the quantities of inputs used to produce a given quantity of output. One speaks of an increase in productivity if either a given quantity of output can be produced with a smaller quantity of at least on input or, for given quantities of inputs, the quantity of output is increased.

    Revenue from the sale of output does not necessarily provide ‘finance’ (money) to buy more inputs. It is only if revenue exceeds expenses (profit) that these monies can be used to buy inputs for the next period (ie use profits instead of external finance). This surely is elementary. Unfortunately, much of macro-economics uses the term ‘output’ to refer to market values of transactions.

  57. Chris Warren
    May 22nd, 2012 at 20:35 | #57

    @Ernestine Gross

    What does having “a technically well defined concept” which refers to X or Y or anything, actually represent. This is just replacing one missing concept of another sloppy concept.

    Productivity is a political concept and is a plaything of all manner of interests. A reasonable definition is the ABS, at: abs.gov.au/AusStats/ABS@.nsf/Glossary/5204.0

    Here you will get something demonstrably different to “quantities of input to produce a quantity of output”.

    In fact it would appear to be those who claim productivity is necessarily “quantities” based are the real confused. A simple example will suffice:

    If 10 hours produce a commodity quantity of X which sells for $10 then this establishes a certain productivity.

    Now if the same quantities of labour and commodity X are produced – but it sells for $20, then productivity has changed – quantities remain unchanged.

    If profits are the revenues then still (as I stated):

    Money revenues (or finance) is the feedback

    There is no confusion.

  58. Freelander
    May 22nd, 2012 at 22:46 | #58

    Money to do anything can come from a myriad of places.Therefore, lack of a profit need not constrain buying inputs or investment. Productivity is not easy to measure, especially in aggregate.

  59. Freelander
    May 22nd, 2012 at 22:51 | #59

    Maybe the Productivity Commission should use its guest worker program to import some cheap academic labour with the requisite skills as Jim Rose seemed to suggest.

  60. Ernestine Gross
    May 22nd, 2012 at 23:19 | #60

    @Chris Warren

    Thank you for providing the link to (the well known) ABS website on the national accounting framework. By doing so, you confirm what I have said, namely “Unfortunately, much of macro-economics uses the term ‘output’ to refer to market values of transactions.”

    In contrast to you, the ABS (as well as JQ) is quite candit about the difficulties in arriving at a meaningful ‘productivity measure’ using the the product of quantities and prices (and the aggregation across all reporting enterprises and having taxation and a financial sector and a foreign sector). The ABS talks about ‘experimental productivity measures’. They are professionals. The following quotes convey a bit of the problem:

    “{From the perspective of productivity measurement, the choice of valuation should reflect the price that is most relevant for the producer’s decision making; regarding both inputs and outputs. Therefore, it is suggested that output measures are best valued at basic prices (OECD 2001, p. 77).}

    “This method change has tended to moderate the productivity slowdown, as real output measures valued at basic prices grow slightly stronger than real output measures valued at purchasers’ prices (ie net taxes on products has been declining as a share of GDP).”

    You can also search for further examples of the ABS being fully aware that these national accounts based (experimental) productivity measures are a hotch potch (eg index problems and the distinction between a technologically induced change in productivity and economies of scale is lost and much more).

    You often carry on about ‘the capitalist system’ and that it is wrong. So, I am really surprised that your notion of ‘productivity’ is in money price terms, namely:

    “If 10 hours produce a commodity quantity of X which sells for $10 then this establishes a certain productivity.

    Now if the same quantities of labour and commodity X are produced – but it sells for $20, then productivity has changed – quantities remain unchanged.” [Chris Warren, @7, p2 above]

    My points (plural by now) stand.

    Prof Q has foreshadowed a more extensive piece on work intensity and welfare. Non-dictarorial mainstream economists are still concerned with the welfare of people and not with international comparisons of potentially useless indices. Maybe these indices could be given a different name – national accounting value throughput measures or something like this.

  61. Chris Warren
    May 23rd, 2012 at 09:57 | #61

    @Ernestine Gross

    Thanks for all that additional, but how does this address your claim of “confused”?

    Productvity can be measurable in money terms, provided money retains its value. Under markety socialism this would apply. Under capitalism it cannot.

    There is no reason why productivity should not be a market concept, because you only find out the real (socially necessary) value of a commodity when it is exchanged in a regime of fair competition.

    I feel sorry for the ABS – but, as with their earlier and forlorn Composite Indicator, and now with productivity, they are at least exposing the hidden innanities of the capitalist accounting system.

    Markets, money, concepts are not the problem, nor do they constitute confusion by themselves. The real confusion only comes when you try to run any economy based on capitalist money and capitalist markets. This always trends to a GFC even despite Keynesian Canute-like attempts to resist the inevitable.

    Maybe you should go back and identify exactly what was the point of confusion you were seeking to decry, and with what evidence.

  62. Ernestine Gross
    May 23rd, 2012 at 11:10 | #62

    @Chris Warren

    And what is the mischief in stating that production (which results in consumables) takes time such that output growth cannot proceed input growth? (Monetary illusions are not constrained by physical feasibility constraints.) Isn’t that one way to expose some problems with the work under discussion?

  63. Chris Warren
    May 23rd, 2012 at 11:47 | #63

    @Ernestine Gross

    Obviously if this construction is intended to deny the feedback loop cited earlier. In this case it is high mischief.

    However in a vanilla context, even school-children will agree: production takes time, output growth cannot precede input growth and monetary illusions are not constrained by physical constraints.

    However at a more sophisticated level, things are reversed. If an economy has constant labour input paid at value, then there can never be worries over productivity.

    If in year 1 – workers are paid $100 for making furniture which sells for $100 and then in year 2 – the same workers improve skills and make more furniture which sells for $200 there is no increase in productivity or changes in unit labour costs, provided workers get fair wage increases.

    Year 1 – productivity – output\input = $100 sales\$100 wages
    Year 2 – productivity – ” ” $200 sales\$200 wages.

    You can only get an increase in productivity if inputs become cheaper relative to outputs. In other words if exploitation increases.

    So there is no necessary improvement in productivity going from black and white TV’s to colour plasmas, provided all necessary workers have constant wage justice.

    Productivity growth and all the attendant concepts are capitalist political dogmas. Without capitalism, you can have dramatic increases in utilitywithout any change in money, wages, ewxploitation or productivity.

  64. Jim Rose
    May 23rd, 2012 at 16:06 | #64

    is the increase in work intensity an example of a reduction in employee shirking or is it an example of post-contractual opportunism by employers or was it a bit of both?

    did the new labour laws reforms reduce shirking or did they increase post-contractual opportunism and monopsony?

  65. Ernestine Gross
    May 23rd, 2012 at 16:46 | #65

    @Chris Warren

    How about you search for your feedback loop. Using material for furniture production is an input too. Let me know how you get on selling furniture produced with ‘labour’ alone. I surely wouldn’t buy from your prospectus.

    If you wish to see everything as ‘capitalist politicl dogma’ then this is fine with me. In the meantime I am quite content with the subject matter of this thread.

  66. Chris Warren
    May 23rd, 2012 at 17:45 | #66

    @Ernestine Gross

    The feedback loop is well known M – C – M’. with the M’ becoming the new M (money) in the subsequent circulation. C is labour plus means of production.

    If you do not buy furniture that is produced by labour then you will have to spend your life sitting and eating on the floor.

  67. Jim Rose
  68. Ernestine Gross
    May 27th, 2012 at 22:30 | #68

    The article by Tim Jackson, Professor of Sustainable Development, in today’s NYT seems to me to be spot on regarding contemporary economic thinking.


  69. Chris Warren
    May 27th, 2012 at 23:36 | #69

    @Ernestine Gross

    Jackson also argues that, in general terms there’s a likelihood that the new economy is going to be ‘less capitalistic’. But he misunderstands capitalism as ‘ownership in private hands’ so for him the panacea is more vital involvement by the state and more public ownership including ‘distributed’ and employee ownerships (pg 89 and 200f).

    Maybe a useful starting point, but the real problem is capitalism itself, not private ownership. Privatisation is only the platform for capitalism. Private property pre-existed capitalism.

  70. BilB
    May 28th, 2012 at 05:28 | #70


    It is worthwhile downloading Jacksons work


    as it contains a lot more than the NYT article suggests. He covers what they term “decoupling” fairly extensively.

  71. Chris Warren
    May 28th, 2012 at 09:26 | #71


    This text is a confusing 136 page re-working of his earlier version of his 264 page earlier “Prosperity without growth”.

    He has therefore issued two quite different books with the same title. The 136 page version even has different chapters – originally twelve, now 11 in this pdf version.

    I hope it is obvious that my references to pages 89 and 200 (above) do not relate to this undated pdf version, but to the original 2009 publication.

    In his pdf, Jackson now describes his text as a ‘thinkpiece’. It is very useful in this context.

  72. BilB
    May 31st, 2012 at 09:32 | #72

    A comment on productivity progress in the resources sector.

    Resources industry standard productive equipment early 1900′s


    Resources industry standard productive equipmet early early 2000′s


    Where does productivity go from here? Answer….no workers at all.

    Where to go from there? No executives at all.

    Leaving just the mega billionaire.

Comments are closed.