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...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
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 |