Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
on that data is as follows:

  • number of hours is similar
  • French productivity per hour worked is supposed to be quite higher than in the UK (by 20-30%)
  • total GDP is slightly higher in the UK?

How is that possible??

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 10:00:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you look at the table on page 8 of the OECD report on labour productivity linked to by Laurent, the number of hours worked is 23% higher in the UK than in France, and 8% higher per employed person.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 10:30:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
From the links on my blog:


The annual hours worked indicator is one of the most widely cited indicators provided by the OECD. The Factbook's comparability note says that "The data are intended for comparisons of trends over time and not yet suitable for inter-country comparisons." This warning is usually ignored. In its original form in the data annex to the annual OECD Employment Outlook, this table includes a warning about comparing levels as well as a great deal of country-by-country notes that assist the data user in assessing comparability among different countries. For example, data for the Netherlands exclude overtime hours--helping to explain the relatively low annual hours for this country. These notes could be attached to the tables in the Internet version of this table. An alternative to the chart for this indicator that is more consistent with the comparability note in the Factbook would be to chart the change in hours worked from 1990 to 2003 for each country rather than the 2003 level for each country."
by Laurent GUERBY on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 03:36:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But if the annual hours indicator is not comparable, neither is the productivity indicator which is based on it.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 03:47:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I haven't found yet use of a productivity number together with its definition and measurement methodology (and I've read thousands of economist papers by now).
by Laurent GUERBY on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 05:09:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In fact there's a fight over how to count hours actually worked. The OECD certainly adopts a system that shows a very clear difference between UK and France, but doesn't get its data from equivalent sources in each country, if I understand a methodology article I haven't finished reading:

INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS OF LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY LEVELS (pdf).

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 11:39:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It depends on what economists use when they compute productivity.

If they take officially paid hours it can change the picture.

Also GDP is price-based, whereas some productivity numbers you see might be based on physical output (in the manufacturing sector for example).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_productivity

No economist will admit that total hours really worked is similar in France and in the UK to start with: that's contrary to orthodox economics since UK is liberal with a flexible labour market and France is full of rigidity and must be reformed, so the only way to make number match is to say that french worker are more productive per hour.

And I'm pretty sure 99.999% of economists haven't the slightest idea on how the productivity numbers they cite all day long are really compute and what they really mean.

by Laurent GUERBY on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 03:45:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series