Multifactor Productivity Growth Estimation in Canada and the United States: Do Different Methodologies Matter?

National statistics offices in different countries, as well as individual researchers, make a range of different assumptions and use different approaches to estimating multifactor productivity (MFP) growth. As a result, MFP growth estimates can vary for methodological reasons across countries and fo...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jiang Li, Larry Shute, Jianmin Tang
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Centre for the Study of Living Standards 2013-09-01
Series:International Productivity Monitor
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.csls.ca/ipm/26/IPM-26-Spiro.pdf
id doaj-c2183bf6e6db4f9f87c7ef7a36629ddc
record_format Article
spelling doaj-c2183bf6e6db4f9f87c7ef7a36629ddc2020-11-25T02:53:13ZengCentre for the Study of Living StandardsInternational Productivity Monitor1492-97591492-97672013-09-01263662Multifactor Productivity Growth Estimation in Canada and the United States: Do Different Methodologies Matter?Jiang Li0Larry Shute1Jianmin Tang2Industry CanadaIndustry CanadaIndustry CanadaNational statistics offices in different countries, as well as individual researchers, make a range of different assumptions and use different approaches to estimating multifactor productivity (MFP) growth. As a result, MFP growth estimates can vary for methodological reasons across countries and for a particular country over a given time period. These methodological choices typically reflect a combination of data availability and the objectives of the study. In this article, we use “reasonably” comparable data for output, labour and capital in Canada and the United States to investigate the sensitivity of MFP growth estimates (by industry and for the business sector in the two countries) to three alternative methodological assumptions. We show that MFP growth estimates for both countries and the Canada-U.S. MFP growth gap are fairly robust to the alternative methodologies and assumptions considered.http://www.csls.ca/ipm/26/IPM-26-Spiro.pdfmultifactor productivitycanadaeconomyunited states
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jiang Li
Larry Shute
Jianmin Tang
spellingShingle Jiang Li
Larry Shute
Jianmin Tang
Multifactor Productivity Growth Estimation in Canada and the United States: Do Different Methodologies Matter?
International Productivity Monitor
multifactor productivity
canada
economy
united states
author_facet Jiang Li
Larry Shute
Jianmin Tang
author_sort Jiang Li
title Multifactor Productivity Growth Estimation in Canada and the United States: Do Different Methodologies Matter?
title_short Multifactor Productivity Growth Estimation in Canada and the United States: Do Different Methodologies Matter?
title_full Multifactor Productivity Growth Estimation in Canada and the United States: Do Different Methodologies Matter?
title_fullStr Multifactor Productivity Growth Estimation in Canada and the United States: Do Different Methodologies Matter?
title_full_unstemmed Multifactor Productivity Growth Estimation in Canada and the United States: Do Different Methodologies Matter?
title_sort multifactor productivity growth estimation in canada and the united states: do different methodologies matter?
publisher Centre for the Study of Living Standards
series International Productivity Monitor
issn 1492-9759
1492-9767
publishDate 2013-09-01
description National statistics offices in different countries, as well as individual researchers, make a range of different assumptions and use different approaches to estimating multifactor productivity (MFP) growth. As a result, MFP growth estimates can vary for methodological reasons across countries and for a particular country over a given time period. These methodological choices typically reflect a combination of data availability and the objectives of the study. In this article, we use “reasonably” comparable data for output, labour and capital in Canada and the United States to investigate the sensitivity of MFP growth estimates (by industry and for the business sector in the two countries) to three alternative methodological assumptions. We show that MFP growth estimates for both countries and the Canada-U.S. MFP growth gap are fairly robust to the alternative methodologies and assumptions considered.
topic multifactor productivity
canada
economy
united states
url http://www.csls.ca/ipm/26/IPM-26-Spiro.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT jiangli multifactorproductivitygrowthestimationincanadaandtheunitedstatesdodifferentmethodologiesmatter
AT larryshute multifactorproductivitygrowthestimationincanadaandtheunitedstatesdodifferentmethodologiesmatter
AT jianmintang multifactorproductivitygrowthestimationincanadaandtheunitedstatesdodifferentmethodologiesmatter
_version_ 1724725931686232064