º£½ÇÊÓÆµ

Oops.

Our website is temporarily unavailable in your location.

We are working hard to get it back online.

PRIVACY
Opinionopinion

Examining the productivity dilemma

Contained within the Office for Budget Responsibility's analysis of last December's Autumn Statement there is an assumption that productivity will rise steadily to reach 2% by 2019.

Writing in The Independent a week ago former Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee member David (also known as Danny) Blanchflower considered what believed to be the ‘The productivity puzzle’.

Blanchflower believes that despite collectively working more hours and unemployment falling, output divided by the number of workers has risen by about 0.5% per year; an increase being insufficiently impressive as to be problematic.

Blanchflower explains that contained within the Office for Budget Responsibility’s analysis of last December’s Autumn Statement there is an assumption that productivity will rise steadily to reach 2% by 2019.

Indeed, he shows, the OBR does acknowledge that their forecast of the “long-awaited return of sustained productivity growth” is at the heart of their assumptions.

Additionally we are aware that the Autumn Statement is based on the assumption, borne out by analysis conducted by the OBR that real earnings will increase over the next five years (0.8% in 2015, 1.4 % in 2016 and 1.8% in the period 2017-19).

It is pretty normal that the more productive we become the more we earn.

The problem that Blanchflower has identified is that austerity severely undermines earnings growth which has correspondence with productivity.

This is borne out by ONS data for recent years and, as he stresses, “productivity remains about 2 per cent below its level prior to the economic downturn in 2008 […]an astonishing 16 per cent lower than had productivity maintained its pre-downturn trend.”