The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Productivity: An International Perspective U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Bureau of L a bor S ta tis tic s Bulletin 1811 1974 Productivity: An International Perspective U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Peter J. Brennan, Secretary Bureau of Labor Statistics Julius Shiskin, Commissioner 1974 Bulletin 1811 Prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the National Commission on Productivity For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, GPO Bookstores, or BLS Regional Offices listed on inside back cover. Price $1.25 Stock Number 2901-01333 Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents. Users of this chartbook interested in keeping abreast of current information on U.S. and foreign productivity can find up-to-date statistics on productivity and related subjects in publica tions of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data for the U.S. economy can be found in the Quarterly Review o f Productivity and Costs, as well as in the monthly Chartbook on Prices, Wages, and Productivity. Data for foreign countries are contained in the Handbook o f Labor Statistics and in occasional reports and releases by the Bureau. These reports are free and are available on request from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Many of the U.S. and foreign series are published and analyzed from time to time in the Monthly Labor Review, which is available by subscription from the Superintendent of Documents or from any of the BLS regional offices, listed on the inside back cover. Preface Productivity is a key element influencing many economic variables and the attempt to increase productivity is a major objective of most governments. The differential rates of produc tivity growth experienced by the developed countries in the last two decades have led to major shifts in relative economic strength and have affected living standards, costs, prices, industrial structures, trading patterns, and international monetary arrangements. Information on productivity in the international area and the factors influencing its growth is, therefore, essential for appro priate policy formulation. This chartbook is designed to provide reasonably consistent data that will permit interna tional comparisons of productivity trends and levels along with related factors for selected countries. The first part covers the basic information on productivity trends and levels; the second and third show how differences in productivity affect costs and living standards; the fourth traces trends in various sources of productivity growth. In general, the countries examined are the major developed countries-those with which the United States has the greater part of its trade relationships though a few less developed countries are sometimes included. International comparisons often lack the precision usually associated with comparable U.S. measures. Small differences, therefore, may not be significant; however, broad movements should provide reasonably valid indications. A brief explanation of some of the recurring statistical problems is included in Appendix A. Supplementary information on specific problems has also been included in both the textual material and notes to selected tables. This chartbook was prepared for the National Commission on Productivity. The Commission was established by the President in 1970, and was given a statutory basis by Congress in 1971. Composed of business, labor, government, and public leaders, the Commission develops and pro motes programs and policies designed to improve U.S. productivity. One such program is the dissemination of information about productivity and its implications. The chartbook was prepared in the Office of Productivity and Technology of the Bureau of Labor Statistics under the general direction of Jerome A. Mark, Assistant Commissioner. It was designed and written by Martha Farnsworth Riche under the direction of Chester Myslicki. Arthur Neef and staff, under the direction of John H. Chandler, Chief, Division of Foreign Labor Statis tics, provided basic data and contributed to the analysis. Edgar Weinberg, Assistant to the Executive Director, planned the report on behalf of the National Commission on Productivity. Trends in real GNP per employed civilian ............................................................................................................... 2 Comparative levels of real GNP per employed civilian .......................................................................................... 4 Trends in output per employed civilian by s e c to r.................................................................................................. 6 Levels of food production per person in the farm population ............................................................................ 8 Productivity trends in manufacturing .................................................................................................................... Trends in output per man-hour, output, and man-hours in manufacturing 10 .................................................... 12 ............................................................................................................ 14 Trends in output per man-hour, output, and man-hours in the iron and steel in d u s try ................................. 16 P A R T II. 19 Productivity in the iron and steel industry Im p lic a tio n s o f p ro d u c tiv ity g ro w th fo r costs and prices ......................................... Trends in output per man-hour, compensation per man-hour, and unit labor costs in manufacturing: 1960-72 ............................................................................................................................................................. 20 1960-65 ............................................................................................................................................................. 22 1965-70 ............................................................................................................................................................. 24 1970-72 ............................................................................................................................................................. 26 Levels of output per man-hour, unit labor costs, and hourly labor costs in the iron and steel industry Compensation in manufacturing and selected industries . . 28 .................................................................................... 30 Trends in consumer prices .......................................................................................................................................... 32 Trends in the GNP implicit price deflator ............................................................................................................... 34 Im p lic a tio n s o f p ro d u c tiv ity g ro w th fo r living s t a n d a r d s ......................................... 37 P A R T III. Comparative levels of real GNP per capita Trends in real hourly earnings ............................................................................................................ 38 .................................................................................................................................. 40 The structure of consumer expenditures Trends in unemployment .............................................................................................................. 42 ......................................................................................................................................... 44 School enrollments and education expenditures ................................................................................................. The contribution of productivity to economic growth ...................................................................................... 46 48 PART IV. Factors affecting productivity grow th ................................................................................. 51 Labor Population, labor force, employment, and u n em p lo ym en t................................................................................. 52 Trends in the industrial structure of employment .............................................................................................. 54 ................................................................................................. 56 Capital in v es tm e n t........................................................................................................................................................ 58 Some sources of agricultural p ro d u c tiv ity ............................................................................................................... 60 Trends in the sex composition of the labor force Capital Technology Trends in the diffusion of major technological innovations .............................................................................. 62 Research and development: employment and expenditures .............................................................................. 64 Objectives of government research and development expenditures ................................................................. 66 ............................................................................................................................................. 68 .................................................................................................................................................. 70 A. Supporting tables for charts ............................................................................................................................... 72 B. S o u rc es ..................................................................................................................................................................... 79 Trends in patent activity Energy consumption APPENDIXES Productivity is a concept that expresses the relationship between the quantity of goods PART I. and services produced-output-and the quantity of labor, capital, land, energy, and other resources Productivity output to a single input such as labor or capital, while the other relates output to a composite that produced it-inputs. Basically, productivity can be measured in two ways. One way relates of inputs, combined to reflect their relative importance. The latter type of measure is more Measures comprehensive, but it is almost impossible to obtain, in view of the problem of identifying and measuring all inputs. For this and other reasons, the most commonly used measure of productivity relates output to a single input-labor. One reason for choosing a labor productivity measure is that labor input is more readily measurable than other inputs. In addition, labor is the largest cost factor in the economy. Never theless, measures of output per man-hour or output per employee in no way imply that labor effort is solely or primarily responsible for productivity growth. In a technologically advanced society, productivity growth also reflects technological innovation, changes in capital stock and capac ity utilization, scale of production, materials flow, management skills, the state of labor relations, competitive pressure, and many other factors whose contribution often cannot be measured separately. The output side of the output per man-hour or output per employee ratio refers to the final products and services of an entire national economy (including government) or the amount of value added by an enterprise, industry, or sector. Since few of these entities produce a single homogeneous commodity that can be measured by simply counting the number of units produced, the various units of output must be combined on some common basis-either their unit labor requirements in a base period or their unit value. When the number of units produced is not known, as is often the case, output must be expressed in terms of the appropriate national currency, adjusted for price changes whenever necessary. Official U.S. data on productivity exclude general government. For this report, government has been included in both the output and input side for consistency with the other country measures. Productivity comparisons can be made along two dimensions: the level of productivity in different countries at a given time, or the trend in productivity in different countries over a period of time. Both dimensions provide useful information and illuminate each other when studied simultaneously. For instance, as the charts in this book show, productivity has been growing at a relatively slow rate in the United States in recent years, but the overall level of U.S. productivity still surpasses the level attained in other developed countries. Trends in Real GNP per Employed Civilian At the national level, productivity measures are derived from the gross national product (G N P )expressed in real terms by removing the effect of price changes-and the corresponding civilian em ployment. Although man-hours are a more meaningful measure of labor input than employment, man-hour indexes are not available for most of the countries compared. Consequently, consistent productivity comparisons can only be made on the basis of GNP per employee.1 The rate of change in real GNP per employee between 1950 and 1972 varied substantially among the countries compared. Productivity grew slowly in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom in comparison with the other countries, especially Japan. Growth rates varied within this period. The highest rates for the United States spanned the recession-free years of 1960 through 1965. Japan's rate of productivity growth accelerated over the period. These rates of change are based on each country's own combination of its products by its own set of prices. If the other countries had used U.S. prices to calculate their national output, their rates of growth of real GNP per employee would probably have been slightly lower. Average annual percent change in real GNP per employed civilian Country United States Canada France Germany Italy Japan United Kingdom 1950-72 1950-60 1960-65 1965-72 2.2 2.6 4.8 5.4 5.4 8.0 2.4 2.1 2.8 4.6 6.8 5.2 6.6 2.1 3.2 2.7 5.2 4.3 5.9 8.7 2.4 1.5 2.2 4.7 4.4 5.4 9.4 2.8 ^Output per man-hour changes for the U.S. private economy averaged out at 2.9 percent for the 1950-72 period. The comparable measure for output per employed civilian for the private economy was 2.5 percent. Chart 1 . Real GNP per Employed Civilian, 1950-72 JAPAN IT A L Y G ERM A N Y FRANCE CANADA U N IT E D KINGDOM U N IT E D STATES 1950 1955 1960 1965 70 71 72 Comparative Levels of Real GNP per Higher rates of change in productivity over a limited time span may not signify higher productivity levels in one country compared to others if the more rapidly advancing country starts off at a relatively low level. Productivity levels are difficult to ascertain and ideally require periodic wide-scale investigations of a complex nature. The best available evidence suggests that the United States still has the highest level of productivity, even though the gap between the United Employed Civilian States and many of the countries compared narrowed significantly between 1950 and 1972. Japan gained the most over the period, yet its estimated level of productivity in 1972 was among the lowest of the countries compared. Alternative estimates for the United Kingdom suggest that its productivity level may be understated. As indicated in Appendix A, no use was made of official exchange rates to convert GNP expressed in foreign currencies into U.S. dollars. Such a procedure is inappropriate and would lead to extremely erratic movements from year to year. Chart 2. Real GNP per Employed Civilian, 1950-72 Indexes, United States = 100 Trends in Output per Employed Civilian by In all the countries analyzed, productivity has grown faster in agriculture than in industry (mining, manufacturing, and construction) and faster in industry than in services during the past two decades. The rate of productivity growth for the economy as a whole reflects not only productivity changes in the component sectors, but also shifts of employment between sectors with different levels of productivity. In this sense, the shift of employment into industry from agriculture, where productivity levels are relatively low, has contributed to the rise in the overall rate, and shifts into Sector services have tended to moderate it. Output measures for the services sector-especially for the government component-are admit tedly weak, which seriously affects international comparisons for this sector. This weakness will also affect, though to a lesser extent, comparisons at the level of the total economy as well. Chart 3. Output per Employed Civilian, by Sector, 1950-71 (Average Annual Rate of Change) IN D U S TR Y TO TA L U N IT E D STATES C A NA D A FR AN C E1 G ER M A N Y li.v l.' j.' ii.' ■ r -v - v .v .i. IT A L Y 2 U N IT E D KINGDOM 1 ........... * * M * A G R IC U LTU R E SERVICES ■ *r 2 11955-71 2 1951-71 3 4 Percent 5 6 Levels of Food Production per The average person tends to regard developed countries as leaders in industry and to think of developing countries as suppliers of raw materials and agricultural produce. However, the rough estimates available clearly show the advantages the United States has over other major economic areas in food production per person in the farm population. In 1970, Western Europe was at a level about one-fifth that of the United States. Other developed countries were at less than 10 per Person in the Farm cent of the U.S. level and the developing countries and Communist Asia at about 1 percent. This Population to enjoy a higher standard of Jiving with respect to food than the developing countries, where over differential allowed the United States, where less than 5 percent of the population are on the farm, 60 percent of the population are on the farm. The world level is affected primarily by the data for the less developed countries, as more than 90 percent of the world farm population reside in these areas. Food Production per Person in the Farm Population, 1970 Indexes, United States = 100 U N IT E D STATES WESTERN EUROPE OTHER D EVELO PED COUNTRIES LESS D EVELOPED COUNTRIES CO M M U N IST ASIA W ORLD Productivity Trends in Manufacturing Growth in manufacturing productivity between 1960 and 1972 varied substantially among the countries whose productivity is compared regularly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Between 1960 and 1972, average annual gains in output per man-hour ranged from 3.2 percent in the United States to 10.4 percent in Japan. The largest spread in productivity growth rates among the countries compared existed between 1965 and 1970; during this period, manufacturing productivity grew 2.0 percent a year in the United States and 13.4 percent a year in Japan. The economic recovery that began late in 1970 brought about a substantial improvement in U.S. productivity growth: Though productivity still grew at a faster rate in some of the other countries between 1970 and 1972, the margins by which these rates exceeded the U.S. rate were reduced significantly. Output per man-hour measures for manufacturing in the past were often limited to production worker man-hours. These latter rates tend to be higher than the comparable rates for all persons in the United States and most of the countries studied in this report. Country United States Canada European Economic Community (5 countries) Belgium France Germany Italy Netherlands Japan Sweden United Kingdom Average annual percent change in output per man-hour in manufacturing 1960-72 1960-65 1965-70 1970-72 3.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 2.0 4.4 6.2 5.0 6.0 6.5 5.9 5.8 6.1 7.1 10.4 7.3 4.0 5.9 5.1 4.9 6.4 6.8 5.2 8.5 7.6 4.1 6.1 7.7 6.5 5.6 5.3 8.5 13.4 7.5 3.7 6.0 7.3 6.0 6.0 5.6 6.5 6.8 5.2 5.6 Output per Man-Hour in Manufacturing, 1960-72 Indexes, 1960 = 100 Trends in Output per Man-Hour, Output, _ _ _ and Man-Hours in Manufacturing Output changes in manufacturing among all the industrial countries reviewed were more volatile than productivity movements. For all the countries on the European continent, however, the range within which output rates and productivity rates fell was relatively narrow. Man-hour changes ranged from modest increases where output rates exceeded productivity to modest declines where productivity exceeded output. Chart 6. Output per Man-Hour, Output, and Man-Hours in Manufacturing, 1960-72 (Average Annual Rate of Change) OUTPUT PER MAN-HOUR U N IT E D STATES BELGIUM C A NA D A FRANCE GERMANY IT A L Y JAPAN N ETH ER LA N D S SWEDEN U N IT E D K ING DO M 12 Percent Productivity in the Iron and Steel Industry Productivity growth in the U.S. iron and steel industry lagged behind the rates attained in other major steel-producing countries between 1964 and 1972. In 1964, output per man-hour was about 60 percent of the U.S. level in Germany and about 50 percent in France, Japan, and the United Kingdom. In 1972, though labor productivity in the British steel industry was still only about half the U.S. level, the French industry was up to two-thirds the U.S. level, the German to about four-fifths, and the Japanese appear to have exceeded it. A significant determinant of the variation in productivity rates is the variation in output growth. Japanese iron and steel output more than doubled in 8 years, while U.S. output grew less than 5 percent and United Kingdom output declined. increased more than 20 percent over the period. Iron and steel output in France and Germany Chart 7 . Relative Levels of Output per Man-Hour in the Iron and Steel Industry, 1964-1972 trends in Output per Man-Hour, Output, and Man-Hours in the Iron and Steel Industry Variation among countries in rates of iron and steel output for the 1964-72 period was an important determinant of productivity change. Japan had a substantial lead in rates of output and output per man-hour. Both the United States and the United Kingdom experienced decreasing out put and low productivity gains. Employment levels dropped in 4 out of 5 countries and barely increased in Japan. Chart 8. Output per Man-Hour, Output, and Man-Hours in the Iron and Steel Industry, 1964-72 (Average Annual Rate of Change) OUTPUT PER MAN-HOUR OUTPUT -3 Percent MAN-HOURS -3 Percent 0 Percent 3 Digitized 18 for FRASER PART II. Implications of Productivity Productivity movements have an important influence on cost and price stability. This aspect of productivity change stems from the fact that output per man-hour is a critical link between the cost of labor and the price of goods. In many industries, labor costs, including hourly rates of pay, overtime, and all types of fringe benefits, are the largest element in the value added by the industry. Consequently, the trend of Growth for Costs and Prices labor costs per unit of output plays a major role in determining price changes. If the effect of an increase in hourly compensation can be minimized by a large increase in productivity, pressure to increase prices will be lessened, although increases in profits or materials costs per unit may parti ally or wholly offset this effect. In turn, prices affect costs. Those price increases which are attributed to demand increases tend to boost costs, as producers are now able to compete more vigorously for labor and materials. At the international level, relative cost changes are of great importance. If costs go up more in one country than in others, the resultant impact on exports and imports can worsen that coun try's international reserve position and lead to pressures to devalue its currency. Governments may try to offset the influence of cost differentials by granting subsidies and raising tariffs. Trends in Output per Man-Hour, Unit labor costs in manufacturing, expressed in terms of U.S. dollars, rose about 2 percent a year in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom between 1960 and 1972. Increases in unit labor costs in manufacturing in the other countries ranged from 2.7 percent in France to 5.4 percent in the Netherlands over the same period. The relatively small rise in unit labor costs in the United States and Canada was primarily due to relatively lower rates of increase in hourly com Compensation per Man-Hour, and Unit Labor Costs in Manufacturing, 1960-72 pensation; in the United Kingdom, it also reflected the currency devaluation. Taking the 1960-72 period as a whole tends to obscure divergent movements; therefore, three subperiods are shown in the following charts. Output per Man-Hour, Compensation per Man-Hour, and Unit Labor Costs in Manufacturing, 1960-72 (Average Annual Rate of Change) U N IT LABOR COSTS U N IT E D STATES ^^CO M PENSATIO N PER MAN-HOUR NATIONAL CURRENCY us.' DOLLARS BELGIUM CANADA FRANCE G ERM A N Y IT A L Y JAPAN N ETH ER LA ND S SWEDEN U N IT E D KINGDOM 15 10 Trends in Output per Man-Hour, Compensation per Man-Hour, and Unit Labor Costs in Manufacturing, 1960-65 Between 1960 and 1965, unit labor costs in manufacturing declined in the United States and Canada. Gains in productivity in these countries, though relatively low, were still sufficient to more than offset the relatively small increases in compensation per man-hour. man-hour grew much more in the other countries compared. Compensation per Output per Man-Hour, Compensation per Man-Hour, and Unit Labor Costs in Manufacturing, 1960-65 (Average Annual Rate of Change) U N IT LABOR COSTS IOUTPUT PER MAN-HOUR ICOMPENSATION PER MAN-HOUR ■ n a t io n a l c u r r e n c y E j u .s . d o l l a r s U N IT E D STATES BELGIUM CANADA FRANCE G ERM A N Y IT A L Y JAPAN N ETH ER LA ND S SWEDEN U N IT E D KINGDOM 5 10 Percent 5 -5 10 Trends in Output Unit labor costs in manufacturing, measured in national currencies, rose more in the United States between 1965 and 1970 than in Canada, Japan, or Western Europe. Hourly compensation rose over 6 percent a year in the United States, while output per man-hour increased only 2 percent per Man-Hour, Compensation per countries had larger percentage increases in hourly compensation than the United States, but they Man-Hour, and Unit large as the United States because their currencies were revalued during the period. Similarly, the a year. The result was an average rise in U.S. unit labor costs of 4 percent a year. All of the foreign also had faster rates of productivity growth. On a U.S. dollar basis, Canada and Germany had rates of increase in unit labor costs about as Labor Costs in Manufacturing, 1965-70 United Kingdom had a decline in unit labor costs and France a relatively small increase because they devalued their currencies. Chart 1 1 . Output per Man-Hour, Compensation per Man-Hour, and Unit Labor Costs in Manufacturing, 1965-70 (Average Annual Rate of Change) U N IT LABOR COSTS I U N IT E D STATES BELGIUM CANADA FRANCE G ERM A N Y IT A L Y JAPAN N ETH ER LA N D S SWEDEN U N IT E D KINGDOM -5 0 Percent I NATIONAL CURRENCY U.S. DOLLARS Trends in Output per Man-Hour, Compensation per Beginning in 1970, the position of U.S. unit labor costs relative to other industrial countries improved. This reversal was due to a speedup in output per man-hour in the United States and sharp increases in hourly compensation in most of the other countries. Though productivity continued to grow at a faster rate in most of the foreign countries than in the United States, growth rates in hourly compensation abroad exceeded productivity growth rates by a wider margin than was the case in the United States. The relative cost position of the United States was further improved by the general realignment Man-Hour, and of the world's major currencies that took place in 1971. After taking these changes in currency values Unit Labor Costs percent in Canada to 18 percent in Japan, compared with 0.4 percent in the United States. in Manufacturing, 1970-72 into account, the average 1970-72 rates of increase in unit labor costs abroad ranged from about 5 Chart 1 2 . Output per Man-Hour, Compensation per Man-Hour, and Unit Labor Costs in Manufacturing, 1970-72 (Average Annual Rate of Change) U N IT LABOR COSTS IOUTPUT PER MAIM-HOUR ICOMPENSATION PER MAN-HOUR U N IT E D STATES BELGIUM C A NADA FRANCE G ERM A N Y IT A L Y JAPAN NETH ER LA ND S SWEDEN U N IT E D KINGDOM 20 10 Percent 15 20 Levels of Output per Man-Hour, Unit Labor Costs, and Hourly Labor Costs in the International comparisons are preferably based not only on a knowledge of relative trends in productivity and unit labor costs but also on a knowledge of relative levels. However, the iron and steel industry is the only major industry for which information on relative levels is regularly available. Even here the scarcity of information means that the different products of each country's steel industry must be combined according to their labor requirements in the U.S. industry. Though hourly labor costs in steel remained substantially higher in the United States than in the other countries between 1964 and 1972, the gap between them narrowed over the period. Con sequently, unit labor costs in three of the four foreign iron and steel industries compared were within 60 to 90 percent of U.S. levels. In the fourth country, Japan, unit labor costs declined relative to the United States. The Japanese iron and steel industry was the only one where productivity levels rose to equal or perhaps surpass those recorded for the U.S. industry. Unit labor costs should not be regarded as a direct measure of price competitiveness, since Iron and Steel Industry materials, electricity, and capital costs must be taken into account along with relevant transportation and trade costs. An analysis of trade movements would also require consideration of governmental actions such as subsidies to increase exports or actions to decrease imports by use of tariffs and quotas. Finally, indexes which reflect the total range of industry products do not necessarily apply to each individual product. Chart 1 3 . Relative Output per Man-Hour, Unit Labor Costs, and Hourly Labor Costs in the Iron and Steel Industry, 1964-72 Indexes, United States = 100 O U TPU T PER M AN -H O U R U N IT LABOR COSTS H O U R LY LABOR COSTS 1964 72 1964 72 1964 12 1964 72 Compensation in Manufacturing The preceding charts show how unit labor costs are directly affected by both productivity and hourly compensation. Thus, in the absence of productivity data, a comparison of compensa tion from country to country provides only a partial though still useful insight into relative costs. In manufacturing as a whole, as well as in three industries in which imports to the United States are important, compensation was higher in the United States in 1972 than in the other countries and Selected Industries compared. However, the differences among countries varied according to industry; they were substan tial in the motor vehicles industry, but less pronounced in the apparel and textile industries. Chart 1 4 . Hourly Compensation of Wage Earners in Manufacturing and Selected Industries, 1972 MOTOR VEH IC LES M A N U FA C TU R IN G ^ / .y .y x v ;v A V 'X v > ^ ‘- X * X v v .;..v .v .v • X - X v X .v $ .1.................. J ............ , . . J .................. J ....................1. U N IT E D STATES BELGIUM C A NA D A FRANCE G ER M A N Y IT A L Y JAPAN N ETH ER LA N D S SWEDEN U N IT E D KINGDOM XZI I LZZ pry APPAREL T EX TILES U N IT E D STATES BELGIUM CANA D A FRANCE G ERM A N Y ISRAEL IT A L Y JAPAN KOREA N ETH ER LA ND S U N IT E D KINGDOM 0 1 2 3 4 U.S. Dollars 5 6 7 Trends in Consumer Prices Consumer prices are determined by demand and supply pressures and also by autonomous factors such as taxes, rent controls, and other governmental rulings. Thus, changes in food supplies, import prices, and general monetary and fiscal policies all affect consumer prices. Productivity growth can moderate consumer price increases. For example, when productivity growth keeps pace with hourly labor costs, unit labor costs remain the same. In most countries, prices of services rose more than commodity prices between I960 and 1972. This situation resulted in large part from the faster rates of productivity growth in the industrial and agricultural sectors than in the services sector. Within commodity groupings, prices rose more for food items than for nonfood items. Several reasons make it impossible to relate these differentials to the differences between industrial and agricultural productivity rates. Most consumer food items are processed and final prices include not only payments to farmers but also manufacturing, trade, and transportation costs. In addition, some countries like the United States are primarily exporters of agricultural products, while other countries like Japan are primarily importers. Comparative rates of increase in consumer prices also reflect differences in expenditure patterns. In countries where services are particularly important and where their prices are rising rapidly, as in the United States, the overall rate of consumer prices will be forced up more than in countries where services account for a smaller proportion of consumer expenditures. In countries where food accounts for a larger proportion of consumer expenditures and food prices are increasing faster than the average prices of nonfood items, as in Japan, there will also be greater pressure on the overall rate. Average annual percent change in consumer prices Country 1960-72 United States Canada France Germany Italy Japan United Kingdom 1Not Available All items Services 2.9 2.8 4.3 3.2 4.2 5.8 4.7 4.0 3.6 6.6 5.3 6.1 7.0 1 Commodities Food Nonfood 2.1 2.6 3.0 1.8 3.0 4.8 2.6 2.3 2.9 3.8 6.4 3.6 1 4.8 1960-65 1965-72 All items All items 1.3 1.6 3.8 3.0 4.9 6.2 3.5 4.1 3.8 4.7 3.4 3.6 5.4 5.6 Chart 1 5 . Consumer Prices, 1960-72 Indexes, 1960 = 100 Trends in the GNP Implicit Price The implicit price deflator is the overall price index for a national economy; it is implied when the gross national product (GNP) is estimated in terms of constant as well as current values. estimation is necessary to separate real growth from apparent growth due to price inflation. Trends in the GNP implicit price deflator between-1960 and 1972 by and large paralleled trends in the consumer price index for the countries compared: Deflator Such least in the United States and Canada. The deflator rose most in Japan, However, consumer prices in Japan rose much more than the GNP deflator did, because the prices of capital investment goods, which make up a large proportion of the Japanese deflator, rose only moderately. In Germany, on the other hand, the GNP deflator rose faster than the consumer price index because of a rapid rise in the price of government consump tion expenditures, supplemented by a faster rise in the prices of capital investment goods than of consumption goods. To a large extent the same disparity occured for the same reasons in France and Italy. The GNP deflators for the United States and Canada were much lower than for other countries during 1960-65. However, sharp increases occurred for the two countries from 1965 to 1972. The GNP deflator differs from the consumer price index for several reasons. It is more compre hensive in its inclusion of government expenditures, capital investment, and the net foreign balance, and often covers a wider population base for consumer expenditures. The GNP deflator is also influenced by shifts in expenditures. Average annual percent change in GNP implicit price deflator Country United States Canada France Germany Italy Japan United Kingdom 1960-72 1960-65 1965-72 2.9 3.1 4.5 4.0 4.8 4.8 4.7 1.4 1.8 4.1 3.6 5.5 5.0 3.4 4.0 4.1 4.8 4.3 4.3 4.7 5.9 Chart 1 6 . Implicit Price Deflator for GNP, 1960-72 Indexes, 1960 = 100 36 PART ill. Implications of Productivity Growth Productivity growth means essentially that resources are being used more efficiently to produce a nation's goods and services-an achievement which is a key factor in obtaining higher levels of economic well-being and national strength. What a nation produces or obtains through trade allows it to consume or invest that much more. As productivity goes up, a country can obtain more output for the same labor input and consequently can offer its citizens more to consume. This increase in real purchasing power, whether measured for the population as a whole-real GNP per capita-or for 1 man-hour-real hourly compensation-shows up in the structure of consumer for Living Standards expenditures. In countries with higher standards of living, consumers need to devote a smaller pro portion of their income to essentials such as food and clothing. Productivity increases may also improve living standards by increasing the leisure time granted the work force. Thus, two potential benefits of productivity are alternatives: An increase in output per man-hour means either that a given amount of labor time can produce more output, or that a given amount of output can be produced with less labor time. Less labor time may be realized through shorter work weeks, reductions in employment-often by means of longer schooling and earlier retirement-or increased vacation time. The prospect of reducing labor time through reduc tions in employment is a matter of concern to workers when unemployment is already high, but experience has shown that productivity growth often goes hand in hand with increased employment. Comparative Levels of Real GNP per Capita Probably the most important consequence of productivity growth is the effect it has on real product per capita. The degree of productivity improvement determines in large part the increase in the amount of goods produced and thus available for purchase by each member of the population. Under the influence of high rates of productivity growth, real product per person rose rapidly relative to the United States in Germany, France, Japan, and Italy between 1950 and 1972. By 1972, real product per person had reached at least four-fifths of the U.S. level in three countries: Canada, Germany, and France. Though productivity growth is the major factor influencing trends in product per capita, it is not the only one. The proportion of the population in the labor force, the proportion of the labor force that is employed, and average hours per worker all interact with productivity to determine product per capita. Chart 1 7 . Real GNP per Capita, 1950-72 Indexes, United States = 100 Trends in Real Hourly Earnings Although GNP per capita is considered the most relevant measure of real purchasing power, the growth in real hourly earnings for manufacturing employees - hourly compensation adjusted to take account of changes in purchasing power - is also of interest. Differences between GNP per capita and real hourly earnings may reflect changes in factors such as the proportion of workers in the population, hours of work, the distribution of income between labor and nonlabor services, shifts of GNP towards or from such items as national defense, and investment expenditures which do not show up in the consumer market basket used to adjust hourly earnings. The fastest growth in real hourly earnings in manufacturing between I960 and 1972 took place in the countries where manufac turing productivity grew the fastest. Average annual percent change in real hourly earnings Country United States Canada France Germany Italy Japan United Kingdom 1960-72 1960-65 1.4 2.8 4.5 5.4 6.9 7.8 3.3 1.6 1.8 3.3 6.4 6.6 5.3 2.4 1965-72 1.4 3.6 5.4 4.7 7.2 9.6 4.0 Chart 1 8 , Real Hourly Earnings of Manufacturing Wage Earners, 1960-72 JAPAN IT A L Y G ERM A N Y FRANCE U N IT E D KINGDOM C A NADA U N IT E D STATES I9 6 0 62 64 66 68 70 72 The Structure of Consumer Expenditures Levels of productivity combine with other economic and social factors to shape the structure of consumer expenditures. The proportion of consumer expenditures going to food is often cited as reflecting the influence of productivity differentials. In the United States, where productivity levels were the highest, consumers devoted proportionally half as much to food expenditures in 1971 as they did in Italy, where productivity levels were among the lowest of the countries compared. Differences in the proportion of expenditures on housing and transportation and communication were also great, but factors such as personal preferences, geography, and government policy were probably more important than productivity in causing these differentials. Distribution of Consumer Expenditures, 1971 Percent Distribution 11970 U N ITED STATES FRANCE G ERM A N Y IT A L Y JAPAN1 U N IT E D KINGDOM HOUSING EDUCATION AND RECREATION TRANSPORTATION AND COMM UNICATION OTHER EXPENDITURES Trends in Unemployment Productivity growth has sometimes been associated with worker displacement, and sometimes with increases in employment. In countries where productivity information is available for individual industries, as in the United States, the data show that productivity growth more often than not has been associated with employment growth. On the international level, the relationship between productivity growth and unemployment rates is not clear. However, it is often thought that countries where productivity is rising will have low unemployment, because productivity growth is generally associated with increases in output which generally also result in increases in employment. Chart 20 suggests that there may be some merit to this analysis. The countries where unem ployment has been consistently low-Germany, Japan, and France-are countries where productivity has made rapid advances, as shown in chart 1. The countries where unemployment has been con sistently high-the United States and Canada-are countries where productivity has been growing relatively slowly. Nevertheless, one should be cautious about inferring a direct relationship, as many other factors are involved. Perhaps such a relationship represents the favorable effect of low unemployment rates on productivity rates. Average unemployment rates (percent) Country Urtited States Canada France Germany Italy Japan United Kingdom 1960-72 1960-64 1965-72 5.0 5.4 2.2 .6 3.6 1.3 3.5 5.7 6.0 1.7 .5 3.4 1.4 2.6 4.6 5.0 2.3 .7 3.8 1.3 3.9 Chart 20. Unemployment Rates, 1960-72 Percent School Enrollments and Education Expenditures The proportion of young people enrolled in school and the proportion of GNP devoted to education indirectly reflect the rate of productivity growth. A high level of productivity permits a nation to divert some of its resources from immediate production to purposes such as education. In turn, the consequent improvement in labor quality will increase productivity levels when the young people enter the production process. The countries with the highest levels of productivity.-the United States and Canada-had the largest proportion of young people enrolled in school at all levels in 1969. These two countries also devoted the largest share of GNP to public expenditures on education. School Enrollments and Education Expenditures, 1969 SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS (Percent of School-Age Population) 30 60 Percent 1 Public University Enrollment Only 2 Ministry of Education Expenditures Only 3 1967 Source: United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization PUBLIC EDUCATION EXPENDITURES (Percent of GNP) The Contribution of Productivity to Economic Growth Economic growth refers to the increase in the output of an economy. This increase can occur only if inputs such as employment increase or if productivity increases. Productivity increases made the major contribution to economic growth between 1950 and 1972. Productivity growth accounted for at least half the total growth in all of the countries compared, and for the entire growth in Italy. These data suggest that, for developed countries, growth rates are more influenced by productivity changes than by population increases. Chart 22. Contribution of Growth in Output per Employee to Growth in Real G N P, 1950-72 Percentage Points 10 U N IT E D STATES CANADA FRANCE GERMANY IT A L Y JAPAN U N IT E D KINGDOM 50 PART IV. Factors Affecting Productivity The factors which influence changes in productivity vary from the short to the long term. Short term movements in productivity are directly related to the business cycle as labor inputs tend to lag behind demand changes. Improvements in the quality of labor, increased availability of capital, and advances in technology constitute the basic sources of growth in output per unit of labor input. Other sources include improvements in the allocation of resources, increased economies of scale, and advances in managerial know-how. All of these factors are so interrelated that it is difficult to determine the separate effect Growth of each one. Consequently, the charts that follow show changes in some of the factors that affect productivity, without attempting to assess the extent of their influence. In a dynamic economy, the interaction between factors affecting productivity and factors affected by productivity make it often seem valid to include the same data under either heading. Thus, expenditures on education and capital investment are both a result of past productivity gains and a force tending to increase future productivity rates. Likewise, energy consumption per capita is a measure of past growth and an indicator of technological progress and increased capital investment. Changes in the type of labor input affect productivity growth. An increase in the educational attainment of the labor force can spur productivity by improving the quality of the labor input. A change in the labor supply, such as that represented by the changing labor force participation of women in many countries, may also influence productivity change. Shifts of employment between sectors of the economy affect productivity to the extent that productivity levels in the sectors where employment is expanding differ from those where it is contracting. Capital investment has made an important contribution to productivity improvement in indus trialized countries, in large part because the amount of capital supporting each worker has grown substan tially. Land, or natural resources, tends to be ignored as a factor in the growth of national productivity. Land, which is essentially constant, can be important in explaining the differences in productivity levels between countries, especially for agricultural production. Technological change is the other important source of productivity growth. Some indicators of technological change include research and development (R&D) programs, diffusion of selected innovations, patent activities, and energy consumption. The relations between population, labor force, and productivity growth are unclear. Population, Between I960 and 1972, labor force participation rates (labor force as a percent of working age population) declined in all major industrial countries except the United States and Canada. Labor Force, In both of these countries, the increase was entirely due to a significant rise in female labor force participation, particularly on the part of married women. Employment, and Unemployment studied. Male participation rates declined in all the countries Migration from rural to urban areas in Japan and Italy contributed to a sharp decline in participation rates, as many women and children who formerly worked as unpaid farm laborers withdrew from the labor force when their families left agriculture. Changes in the proportion of the working age population in the labor force and in the propor tion of the labor force employed have more of an effect on economic grow th-G NP-than on productivity growth-GNP per employee. If more of the population works, the national product will grow, though the amount of growth will depend on how efficient the additional workers are. Country United States Canada France Germany Italy Japan United Kingdom Working age population1 as percent of civilian population Civilian labor force as percent of working age population Percent of civilian labor force Employed Unemployed 1960 1972 2 1960 1972 2 1960 1972 1960 65.8 66.5 69.2 78.6 76.4 69.9 76.6 69.4 72.3 71.7 77.5 76.9 75.2 75.8 59.4 54.2 62.0 60.0 54.8 67.9 60.4 60.4 56.5 58.1 57.0 47.4 63.7 59.9 94.5 93.0 97.8 99.2 95.7 98.3 97.7 94.4 93.7 97.8 99.3 96.6 98.6 93.7 5.5 7.0 2.2 .8 4.3 1.7 2.3 ^Sixteen and over in the United States and France; 15 and over in Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom; 14 and over in Canada and Italy. 21970 for France and Italy; 1971 for Germany. 1972 2 5.6 6.3 2.2 .7 3.4 1.4 6.3 Work Status of the Civilian Population, 1972 Percent Distribution GERM ANY2 EMPLOYED UNEMPLOYED OF WORKING AGE BUT NOT IN THE LABOR FORCE NOT OF WORKING AGE U N IT E D KINGDOM 1970 '1971 Trends in the Industrial Structure of Employment Shifts of employment from one sector to another reflect different rates of change in demand and productivity. In turn, these shifts affect overall rates of change in productivity and economic growth. From 1950 to 1970 the most pronounced shifts out of agriculture took place in Italy and Japan; in 1950, these two countries were the least developed of the countries compared. almost all the countries compared had large shifts into services. During the period By 1970, the employment structures of the six countries resembled each other considerably more than they had in 1950. Country United States Canada Germany Italy1 Japan United Kingdom 11951-70 Change in share of total employment by sector, 1950-70 (in percentage points) Agriculture Industry Services - 7.8 -15.2 -13.7 -25.7 -26.2 - 2.4 - 0.5 - 4.3 6.4 13.1 12.1 - 1.5 8.3 19.5 7.3 12.0 14.1 4.0 Distribution of Civilian Employment by Economic Sector, 1950-70 Percent 1950 1970 1950 1970 1970 1950 SERVICES .. a INDUSTRY AGRICULTURE U N IT E D STATES 100 1951 1970 G ERM A N Y C A NA D A 1950 1970 1950 1970 50 0L IT A L Y JAPAN U N IT E D KINGDOM Trends in the Sex Composition of the Labor Force Changes in the sex composition of the labor force can affect productivity to the extent that they promote or retard the more efficient utilization of the labor force. Such changes are almost always accompanied by changes in the total labor supply, as well as by shifts in age composition. Women make up a potential source of new labor force entrants, as family and social responsibilities until recently limited their participation in industrialized economies. Technological progress has both eased the burdens associated with these responsibilities and diminished the pro portion of jobs that require great physical strength. Women are an extremely important source of labor supply since male participation rates have been declining in all of the countries studied as a result of longer schooling and earlier retirement. The higher proportion of females in the labor force in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada in 1971 reflect both higher participation rates for women and lower rates for men compared with I960. The lower rates reflect movement out of agriculture where women are an important part of the work force. Country Change in proportion of women in civilian labor force, 1960-71 (in percentage points) United States Canada France Germany Italy Japan United Kingdom 4.8 7.0 -1.31 -1.3 -2.4 -1.8 2.1 10ctober 1960 to March 1967 Chart 25. Women as a Percent of the Total Civilian Labor Force, 1960 and 1971 Percent U N IT E D STATES CANADA FRANCE G ER M A N Y IT A L Y JAPAN U N IT E D KINGDOM Since growth in output per man-hour is closely related to the amount of capital stock supporting Capital each worker, a high ratio of capital investment to output is a precursor of growth in productivity. investment additions to capital stock as well as replacements, comparing rates of capital investment fails to take However, too much of a correlation should not be expected. into account differences in the capital stock already in use. Since capital investment refers to In addition, the lags that exist between the decision to invest in new capital stock, its installation, and the realization of productivity gains tend to obscure the relationship between investment and productivity in country-to-country compari sons. Nevertheless, chart 26 shows a surprising correlation between the rates of growth in productivity and capital investment in manufacturing over a short period of time. During the !960's, Japan had the highest rate of investment as well as the highest rate of productivity gain. Yet the United States, which has the highest level of productivity, also has the highest level of capital stock per worker, according to the scant data available. Chart 26. Growth in the Output per Man-Hour in Manufacturing and Rate of Capital Investment O U TPU T PER M AN-HOUR, 1960-72 (Average Annual Percent Change) C A PITA L IN VE STM EN T AS PERCENT OF OUTPUT, 1960-71 AVERAGE U N IT E D STATES BELGIUM CANADA FRANCE G ERM A N Y IT A L Y JAPAN NETH ER LA ND S SWEDEN U N IT E D KINGDOM 12 0 10 20 Percent 30 Some Sources of Agricultural Productivity Three types of data highlight some of the reasons for the U.S. advantage in food output per person in 1970: agricultural land available per farm person, fertilizer usage per farm person, and tractors per farm person. None of the geographic areas shown reached even one-fourth of the U.S. level for any of the three measures. Chart 2 7 . Factors Affecting Agricultural Productivity, 1970 A G R IC U LTU R A L L A N D 1 PER PERSON IN FARM POPULATION F E R T IL IZ E R USAGE 2 PER PERSON IN FA R M POPULATION U N IT E D STATES WESTERN EUROPE OTHER D EVELO PED CO UNTRIES C O M M U N IST A SIA OTHER LESS D EVELO PED C O UNTRIES W ORLD 0 1 LATEST YEAR 2 1970/71 3 1971 10 20 100 Indexes, United States = 100 TRACTORS IN U S E 3 PER PERSON IN FARM POPULATION Trends in the Diffusion of Major Technological Innovations Productivity growth is directly affected by the rate of acceptance of new technology. Researchers generally agree that the rate of diffusion of new technology varies considerably within and between industries and countries, but disagree as to the specific factors causing this variation and their relative importance. Factors which reportedly affect the diffusion rate include the cost and profitability of the innovation, the growth of multinational corporations, and the size of the firm. Productivity improvement that results from technological change is an important element in international competition. Information available for three major technological innovations of the post-World War II period shows that the United States led other major industrial countries in both computer installations and the production of numerically controlled machine tools, but that it trailed Japan and Germany in the proportion of steel produced in basic oxygen furnaces. Chart 28. Diffusion of Three Innovations V A L U E OF N U M E R IC A L L Y CONTROLLED M AC H IN E TOOL PRODUCTION, 1967 PROPORTION OF STEEL OUTPUT PRODUCED IN BASIC O XYGEN FURNACES, 1960 AND 1972 ELECTRONIC D IG IT A L COMPUTERS IN USE, 1965 A N D 1971 0 0 U N IT E D STATES CANADA N O T A V A IL A B L E FRANCE GERMANY IT A L Y JAPAN SWEDEN U N IT E D K ING DO M 0 1ig63 20 40 Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 60 280 Millions of Dollars 300 20 40 Percent Source: United Nations 60 80 10 20 30 80 90 Thousands Sources: U.S.-EDP Industry Report, March 1972. Other Countries- National Bureau of Standards, EDP Industry Report, December 1971, and Japan Information Processing Center Expenditures for research and development (R&D) can generate increases in productivity through Research and the development and subsequent application of more efficient equipment, processes, and products. Development: of GNP on R&D in 1971, the most recent year for which data are available, while Italy assigned the Chart 29 shows that the most advanced economy - the United States - spent the largest proportion smallest proportion to it (1969). The three countries with the highest rates of spending on R&D were Employment and Expenditures also countries with large expenditures in the military sector, which accounts for a major portion of R&D activity. Another measure of potential growth in productivity is the proportion of scientists and engineers in the population engaged in R&D. The United States and Japan led in the employment of scientists and engineers. Chart 29. Research and Development: Employment and Expenditures, 1971 SCIENTISTS A ND ENGINEERS ENGAGED IN R&D PER 1 0 ,0 0 0 POPULATION R&D EXPEND ITU R ES AS PERCENT OF GNP U N IT E D STATES C A NA D A FRANCE G ERM A N Y IT A L Y JAPAN U N IT E D KINGDOM 0 10 20 30 Percent Sources: National Science Foundation and Organisation for Economic Development and Co-operation Percent Objectives of Government The effect of research and development programs upon productivity is determined in part by the allocation of governmental expenditures among major objectives. The United States and the United Kingdom, which had the lowest rates of productivity growth of the countries compared, devoted the highest proportion of R&D expenditures to national defense. Japan, with the highest rate of produc tivity growth, spent very little on national defense or space; well over half its total expenditures went Research and Development Expenditures towards the advancement of science. Chart 30. Government Expenditures for R&D by National Objective, 1969 Percent Distribution U N IT E D STATES FRANCE G ERM A N Y C O M M UNITY SERVICES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NUCLEAR JAPAN Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ENT VZZZA ADVANCEM OF SCIENCE MISCELLANEOUS Trends in Patent Activity Patent activity in the United States can be regarded as an indicator of technological innovation throughout the world since foreign concerns tend to file applications here to protect their more important inventions. The proportions of patents issued to foreign residents rose steadily between 1963 and 1971. Four countries accounted for more than half of the total. Germany ranked consistently highest among the four; however, Japan evidenced the greatest rate of increase. Chart 3 1 . Percent of U.S. Patents Issued to Foreign Residents, 1963-71 Percent TO TA L ISSUED TO FOREIGN RESIDENTS RESIDENTS OF OTHER FOREIG N C O U N TR IES G ERM A N Y JAPAN U N IT E D KINGDOM FRANCE 1963 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 Energy Consumption The consumption of energy is one consequence of many technological advances which contribute to productivity growth. Energy consumption per capita would be expected to show a correlation with either GNP per capita or GNP per civilian employee. On a per capita basis, the United States and Canada had both the highest consumption of energy and the highest levels of real GNP in 1972. Energy consumption per capita not only contributes to real GNP per capita but also is influenced by it, as higher incomes result in higher consumer demands. Variations between countries in the use of energy are also influenced by differences in the cost of energy, climate, industrial structure, measures for environmental protection, and consumer tastes. Chart 32. Relationship of Energy Consumption per Capita to Real GNP per Capita, 1971 (Indexes, United States = 100) Real GNP Per Capita Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics and United Nations U N IT E D STATES Appendix A. Supporting Tables for Charts Users of the following tables should recognize that data on inter national comparisons have substantial limitations. Problems arise from such diverse sources as variations in concepts, methodology, ability and willingness of respondents to provide information, and stage of economic development. In addition, the use of aggregated measures of economic activity requires reference to some pattern of expenditure or production. These broad measures vary depending on the particular national patterns selected. For almost all tables, adjustments to the original country data by either international organizations or U.S. statistical agencies improved the consistency of the series. However, in general the accuracy attained would not equal that of U.S. data. Two important problems deserve special attention. The fairly com mon statistical procedure of converting GNP measures in foreign cur rencies to U.S. dollars via use of existing exchange rates was rejected since the bulk of GNP does not enter into foreign trade. Instead, rough estimates based on three detailed studies and extended by the most appropriate existing series were prepared and checked against alternative procedures. A second major problem centers on governmental activities (and to a lesser degree other services). Output measures here are weak, which may influence comparisons where either measurement techniques differ or the proportion of GNP associated with governmental output differs. The official statistics on productivity for the United States relate to the private economy only and the information presented here for total GNP per person is provided for comparative purposes and does not supersede the official data. Table 4. Food Production Per Person in the Farm Population, 1970 (Indexes, United States = 100) Year..... United States Canada France Germany Italy Japan United Kingdom 1950..... 1955..... 1960..... 1965..... 1970..... 100.0 116.9 123.0 144.1 152.4 100.0 120.6 131.5 150.3 165.4 100.0 122.6 156.3 201.5 254.1 100.0 137.1 192.3 237.7 300.1 100.0 127.9 166.5 222.1 299.0 100.0 136.7 189.6 287.8 468.9 100.0 112.0 123.4 139.1 158.0 1971 ..... 1972..... 156.2 160.4 170.7 175.2 266.5 278.0 308.7 320.4 305.5 321.2 495.6 541.1 164.2 168.9 Country Index United States .......................................... Western Europe ...................................... Other developed countries ...................... World, including UnitedStates ................ Communist Asia ....................................... Other less developed countries................. 100.0 18.8 9.3 2.8 .9 1-6 Table 5. Output Per Man-Hour in Manufacturing, 1960-72 (Indexes, 1960=100) Table 2. Real GNP Per Employed Civilian, 1950-72 (Indexes, United States = 100) Year..... Canada France Germany Italy Japan United Kingdom 1950.... 1955.... 1960.... 1965.... 1970.... 82 85 88 86 89 46 48 59 65 77 38 44 59 62 74 30 33 41 46 59 18 21 28 37 57 56 54 56 54 58 1971 .... 1972.... 90 90 78 80 74 75 59 60 58 62 59 59 Year..... United States Canada EEC (5 Countries) Japan 1960..... 1961 ..... 1962..... 1963..... 1964..... 100.0 102.5 108.3 112.7 118.0 100.0 105.5 111.1 115.2 120.2 100.0 104.6 111.0 116.3 124.5 100.0 113.1 118.1 127.6 144.6 100.0 104.7 112.5 118.4 132.9 100.0 100.8 103.3 108.9 116.8 1965..... 1966..... 1967..... 1968..... 1969..... 122.7 124.3 124.2 130.2 133.3 124.5 127.9 131.8 141.4 149.1 133.4 140.6 148.6 160.6 170.3 150.7 165.9 190.5 214.5 247.6 142.8 152.0 162.9 180.0 192.2 120.3 124.6 130.2 139.1 141.0 1970..... 1971 ..... 1972..... 134.2 143.7 151.3 151.5 160.2 167.2 177.1 186.2 199.7 279.0 289.0 318.1 202.4 207.8 224.1 141.9 149.7 158.2 United Sweden Kingdom Table 3. Output Per Employed Civilian, by Sector, 1950-71 (Average annual percent change) Sector Total.................... Agriculture ..... Industry......... Services ......... United States Canada 2.2 5.6 2.2 1.8 2.4 5.3 3.6 0.6 1 1955-71 2 1951-71 France 1 Germany 4.9 5.7 5.6 2.9 5.4 6.6 5.9 3.6 United Italy2 Kingdom 5.3 6.9 5.2 3.1 2.2 5.3 2.5 1.5 Table 6. Output Per Man-Hour, Output, and Man-Hours in Manufacturing, 1960-72 (Average annual percent change) Country Output Per Man-Hour United States.......... ................ Belgium ................... ................ Canada...................... ................ France....................... ................ G erm any.................. ................ Ita ly .......................... ................ Japan ........................ ................ Netherlands ............ ................ Sweden...................... ................ United Kingdom .... ................ 3.2 6.5 4.2 5.9 5.9 6.2 10.4 7.1 7.3 4.0 Output 4.8 6.2 6.1 6.6 5.6 6.8 12.7 6.5 5.9 3.0 Man-Hours 1.6 -0.3 1.8 .7 -0.2 .6 2.1, -0.5 -1.3 -1.0 Table 7. Relative Levels1 of Output Per Man-Hour in the Iron and Steel Industry, 1964-72 Table 10. Output Per Man-Hour, Compensation Per Man-Hour, and Unit Labor Costs in Manufacturing, 1960-65 (Indexes, United States = 100) (Average annual percent change) Y e a r...... France Germany Japan 1964 ..... 1965 ..... 48-51 48-52 54-63 52-61 43-54 43-54 46-50 47-51 ..... ...... ...... ...... ...... 50-54 55-59 59-63 64-69 68-72 52-61 59-69 65-76 71-83 72-84 51-63 63-78 68-85 83-103 97-121 45-48 46-50 48-52 49-53 51-55 1971 ...... 1972 ...... 65-69 66-71 68-80 72-84 94-116 102-126 47-51 49-53 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 Unit Labor Costs United Kingdom Country Output Per Compensation Man-Hour Per Man-Hour United States.............. ............ Belgium ....................... ............ Canada...................................... France ...................................... Germany....................... ............ Ita ly .............................. ............ Japan............................. ............ Netherlands............................. Sweden.................................... United Kingdom ........ ........... 4.3 5.1 4.4 4.9 6.4 6.8 8.5 5.2 7.6 4.1 3.7 8.8 3.5 9.0 9.6 13.6 13.2 11.4 10.3 6.4 National Currency U.S. Dollars -0.7 3.5 -0.8 3.8 3.0 6.3 4.3 5.9 2.6 2.2 -0.7 3.5 -2.9 3.8 3.7 6.2 4.2 6.7 2.6 2.1 1 Range of estimates. Table 11. Output Per Man-Hour, Compensation Per Man-Hour, and Unit Labor Costs in Manufacturing, 1965-70 (Average annual percent change) Unit Labor Costs Table 8. Output Per Man-Hour, Output, and Man-Hours in the Iron and Steel Industry. 1964-72 (Average annual percent change) Country Country Output Per Man-Hour Output United States ........ .................. 1.2 France .................... .................. 6.2 Germany ............... .................. 6.0 Japan ...................... .................. 14.3 United Kingdom .................. 2.2 -0.4 3.1 3.6 14.5 - .9 Man-Hours -1.5 -2.9 -2.2 .2 -3.0 Table 9. Output Per Man-Hour, Compensation Per Man-Hour, and Unit Labor Costs in Manufacturing, 1960-72 (Average annual percent change) Unit Labor Costs Compensation Output Per Man-Hour Per Man-Hour United States........... ............... Belgium..................... ............... Canada...................... ............... France ...................... ............... Germany.................... ............... Italy............................ ............... Japan ......................... ............... Netherlands ............. ............... Sweden ..................... ............... United K ingdom ..... ............... 2.0 7.7 4.5 6.5 5.6 5.3 13.4 8.5 7.5 3.7 6.1 9.4 7.6 10.0 8.3 9.4 15.2 11.9 10.1 7.4 National Currency U.S. Dollars 4.0 1.5 3.1 3.2 2.6 3.9 1.6 3.1 2.4 3.6 4.0 1.4 3.5 1.0 4.1 3.8 1.8 3.0 2.3 -0.4 Table 12. Output Per Man-Hour, Compensation Per Man-Hour, and Unit Labor Costs in Manufacturing, 1970-72 (Average annual percent change) Unit Labor Costs Country Output Per Compensation Man-Hour Per Man-Hour National Currency U.S. Dollars Country United States................ ........... Belgium......................... ........... Canada .......................... ........... France........................... ........... Germany........................ ........... Italy .............................. ........... Japan ............................. ........... Netherlands ................. ........... Sweden ........................ ........... United Kingdom ........ ........... 3.2 6.5 4.2 5.9 5.9 6.2 10.4 7.1 7.3 4.0 5.1 9.9 6.2 9.5 9.3 11.2 14.1 12.1 10.4 8.0 1.8 3.2 1.9 3.5 3.3 4.7 3.3 4.7 2.9 3.8 1.8 3.7 1.9 2.7 4.8 4.9 4.1 5.4 3.2 2.2 Output Per Man-Hour United States ............ ............. Belgium ..................... ............. Canada ........................ ............. France ......................... ............. Germany..................... ............. Ita ly ............................. ............. Japan ........................... ............. Netherlands................ ............. Sweden........................ ............. United Kingdom ....... ............. 6.2 7.3 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.6 6.8 6.5 5.2 5.6 Compensation National Per Man-Hour Currency 6.6 13.5 7.7 12.5 12.9 16.1 15.9 13.5 12.7 13.6 0.4 5.8 2.6 6.1 6.5 9.9 8.6 6.6 7.1 7.6 U.S. Dollars 0.4 12.4 5.3 11.1 13.9 13.9 18.1 13.1 11.8 9.9 Table 13. Relative Output Per Man-Hour, Unit Labor Costs, and Hourly Labor Costs in the Iron and Steel Industry, 1964-72 (Indexes, United States = 100) Output Per Man-Hour Unit Labor Costs in U.S. Dollars United Kingdom Y e a r....... France Germany 1964 ....... 1 9 6 5 ....... 1 9 6 6 ....... 1967 ....... 1968 ....... 48-51 48-52 50-54 55-59 59-63 54-63 52-61 52-61 59-69 65-76 43-54 43-54 51-63 63-78 68-85 46-50 47-51 45-48 46-50 48-52 1 9 6 9 ....... 1 9 7 0 ....... 1971 ....... 1 9 7 2 ....... 64-69 68-72 65-69 66-71 71-83 72-84 68-80 72-84 83-103 97-121 94-116 102-126 49-53 51-55 47-51 49-53 Japan Hourly Labor Costs Germany Japan United Kingdom France Germany Japan United Kingdom 66-72 69-75 67-73 63-68 62-67 58-72 63-78 65-80 57-71 53-65 31-40 34-43 31-39 27-35 28-35 57-64 61-68 67-75 60-67 53-59 34-35 35-36 36-37 37-38 39-40 37-39 38-40 39-42 39-42 40-42 17-17 18-18 20-20 21-22 23-24 29-30 31-32 32-33 30-31 27-28 56-61 54-59 60-65 65-70 50-62 64-80 73-90 73-91 25-32 25-31 27-35 29-35 52-58 55-62 60-67 62-69 38-39 39-40 41-42 46-46 41-44 54-48 58-62 62-66 26-26 30-31 32-32 37-38 28-29 30-31 31-32 33-34 France Table 14. Hourly Compensation of Wage Earners in Manufacturing and Selected Industries, 1972 Table 15. Consumer Prices, 1960-72 (Indexes, 1 9 6 0 = 100) (U.S. dollars) Country United States ........... ..... Belgium ..................... Canada ....................... France ........................ G erm any..................... Israel............................ Italy ........................... Japan ........................... Korea........................... Netherlands ............... Sweden ..................... United K ingdom ...... Motor Manufacturing Vehicles $ 4.75 2.89 4.28 2.31 3.18 $ 6.49 3.59 5.68 2.75 4.03 - - 2.54 1.69 2.90 1.86 - - 2.93 3.98 2.04 3.08 4.12 2.65 Textiles Apparel Y e a r....... United States Canada France Germany Italy Japan United Kingdom $ 3.25 2.51 3.23 2.01 2.61 1.36 2.08 1.11 .23 2.63 $ 3.12 1.90 2.65 1.84 2.42 1.03 2.01 .92 .19 1.59 1960 ....... 1961 ....... 1962 ....... 1 9 6 3 ....... 1964 ....... 100.0 101.1 102.2 103.5 104.8 100.0 100.9 102.1 104.0 105.8 100.0 103.3 108.3 113.5 117.4 100.0 102.5 106.2 109.2 111.9 100.0 102.1 106.8 114.8 121.6 100.0 105.3 112.4 120.9 125.5 100.0 103.4 107.8 110.0 113.6 1 9 6 5 ....... 1 9 6 6 ....... 1967 ....... 1968 ....... 1969 ....... 106.6 109.7 112.8 117.6 123.9 108.4 112.4 116.5 121.2 126.7 120.3 123.5 126.9 132.6 141.2 115.4 119.6 121.7 123.6 126.9 127.1 130.1 134.9 136.7 140.3 135.1 142.0 147.7 155.5 163.6 119.0 123.7 126.7 132.7 139.9 1970 ....... 1971 ....... 1972 ....... 131.2 136.8 141.3 130.9 134.7 141.1 148.5 156.7 166.4 131.6 138.4 146.4 147.2 154.3 163.1 176.2 187.3 196.5 148.8 162.8 174.4 - - 1.69 1.37 Table 19. Distribution of Consumer Expenditures, 1971 (Percent) Germany Italy Japan United Kingdom 100.0 103.3 108.3 114.8 119.4 100.0 104.4 108.6 112.0 115.1 100.0 102.7 108.6 118.0 125.4 100.0 106.9 111.3 116.1 120.8 100.0 103.3 106.8 109.1 112.0 109.7 114.5 118.9 122.8 128.3 122.3 125.9 129.5 135.4 144.3 119.3 123.4 125.0 127.0 131.5 130.4 133.2 137.1 139.1 144.9 127.4 133.3 138.9 144.3 150.2 116.5 121.2 124.8 128.8 133.7 134.0 138.3 145.0 152.2 160.5 169.7 140.8 151.5 160.7 154.6 164.9 174.6 160.2 167.7 176.1 143.8 158.5 173.3 Y e a r...... United States Canada 1 9 6 0 ...... 1961 ...... 1 9 6 2 ...... 1 9 6 3 ...... 1 9 6 4 ...... 100.0 101.3 102.4 103.8 105.3 100.0 100.5 101.9 103.5 106.3 1 9 6 5 ...... 1 9 6 6 ...... 1967 ...... 1 9 6 8 ...... 1 9 6 9 ...... 107.4 110.3 113.8 118.4 124.1 1 9 7 0 ...... 1971 ...... 1972 ...... 130.9 137.1 141.4 France United States France Germany Italy Japan^ United Kingdom Total Expenditures.....,.100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 17.6 26.5 21.9 35.0 30.7 22.3 19.4 27.1 19.8 22.2 20.5 26.5 18.2 19.3 16.8 25.6 17.2 24.7 15.4 10.7 11.8 11.0 4 .3 12.4 14.1 6.4 13.8 7.0 11.9 7.4 12.6 3.9 12.8 9.8 18.7 4.7 Item Food ............................. . Clothing, Medical Care and Personal Care.... .. Housing.......................... . Transportation and Communication....... . Education and Recrea tion ............................. . Other ............................ . 1 1970. Table 20. Unemployment Rates, 1960-72 (Percent) Table 17. Real GNP per Capita,, 1950-72 (Indexes, United States = 100) Year ....... Canada France 1950.... ... 1955 .... ... I9 6 0 .... ... 1965 .... ... 1 9 7 0 .... ... 77 78 81 82 86 54 56 66 70 81 1971 .... ... 1972 .... ... 88 88 83 82 Germany Y e a r....... United Kingdom Italy Japan 45 59 75 77 85 31 35 43 46 54 20 25 36 47 71 63 64 69 67 65 84 82 53 51 73 75 65 63 Table 18. Real Hourly Earnings of Manufacturing Wage Earners, 1960-72 (Indexes, 1 9 6 0 = 100) United Y e a r...... States Canada France Germany Italy Japan United Kingdom 1 9 6 0 ...... 1961 ...... 1962 ........ 1 9 6 3 ...... 1 9 6 4 ...... 100.0 101.6 103.5 105.1 106.8 100.0 101.3 102.8 104.7 106.6 100.0 104.4 107.8 111.7 114.7 100.0 108.0 116.1 121.0 127.5 100.0 104.8 115.4 125.5 131.5 100.0 105.7 112.3 116.5 124.8 100.0 103.5 103.1 105.2 109.9 1 9 6 5 ...... 1 9 6 6 ...... 1967 ...... 1 9 6 8 ...... 1 9 6 9 ...... 108.3 109.8 111.0 113.3 114.0 109.2 111.8 115.1 118.9 123.0 117.4 121.3 126.3 133.8 141.6 136.3 141.1 144.3 147.9 158.8 137.9 140.9 143.7 147.3 157.3 129.5 138.0 148.9 165.7 187.9 112.6 116.7 118.4 121.4 125.9 1 9 7 0 ...... 1971 ...... 1 9 7 2 ...... 113.3 115.1 119.3 128.5 136.0 140.2 151.7 160.2 170.0 172.9 183.7 188.0 184.0 205.0 224.2 204.3 222.2 246.4 136.1 140.6 148.2 United States Canada France Germany Italy Japan United Kingdom 1 9 6 0 ....... 1961 ....... 1 9 6 2 ....... 1 9 6 3 ....... 1964 ....... 5.5 6.7 5.5 5.7 5.2 7.0 7.1 5.9 5.5 4.7 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.6 0.8 .5 .4 .5 .3 4.3 3.7 3.2 2.7 3.0 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.2 2.3 2.1 3.0 3.8 2.6 1 9 6 5 ....... 1 9 6 6 ....... 1967 ....... 1 9 6 8 ....... 1 9 6 9 ....... 4.5 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.5 3.9 3.6 4.1 4.8 4.7 1.8 1.8 2.3 2.7 2.1 .3 .3 1.0 1.2 .8 4.0 4.3 3.8 3.8 3.7 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 2.3 2.4 3.8 3.7 3.7 1 9 7 0 ....... 1971 ....... 1972 ....... 4.9 5.9 5.6 5.9 6.4 6.3 2.2 2.7 2.9 .5 .7 .9 3.4 3.4 4.0 1.2 1.3 1.4 4.0 5.3 6.2 Table 21. School Enrollments and Education Expenditures, 1969 Proportion of school-age population enrolled in school Country Primary and Secondary United States.......... ... Canada ..................... ... France ...................... ... Germany....................... Italy .......................... .. Japan ........................ ... United Kingdom ....,.. 86.2 85.7 72.8 79.5 67.0 72.8 78.6 Postsecondary Public expenditures on education as a percent of GNP 48.0 24.8 15.21 12.0 15.3 16.1 10.4 3 1 Public university enrollment only. 2 Ministry of Education expenditures only. 6.3 8.3 4.5 2 3.6 4.3 2 4.0 5.6 3 ' 3 1967. Table 22. Contribution of Growth in Output Per Employee to Growth in Real GIMP, 1950-72 Country (Average annual percent change) Growth in real GNP Country United States............ Canada ....................... France ........................ Germany ................... Italy ............................ Japan ........................... United Kingdom .... Growth in civilian employment Growth in real GNP per employed civilian Interact _ 2.2 2.6 4.8 5.4 5.4 8.0 2.4 1.5 2.4 .4 .9 -0.1 1.7 .3 3.7 5.0 5.2 6.4 5.4 9.8 2.7 . _ 0.1 0.1 0.1 “ (Percent distribution) Not of Working Age Civilian Labor Force Not in Employed Unemployed Labor Force United States ........... Canada ....................... France 1 ................. G erm any2 ............... Italy 1 ....................... Japan ........................... United Kingdom ..... 39.6 38.3 40.7 43.9 35.2 47.2 42.2 2.3 2.6 .9 .3 1.2 .7 2.8 27.5 31.5 30.1 33.4 40.4 27.3 30.8 1971 33.4 25.8 38.2 37.5 29.6 40.3 34.6 38.2 32.8 36.9 36.2 27.2 38.5 36.7 United States ........ Canada ................. . France ................... Germany .............. ,. Italy ..................... .. Japan ..................... ,. United Kingdom .,,. Table 26. Growth in Output Per Man-Hour in Manufacturing and Rate of Capital Investment Output Per Man-Hour Capital Investment as Percent of in Manufacturing Output 1960-71 Average Country 1960-72 All industry 1 Manufacturing (Average annual percent change) Table 23. Work Status of the Civilian Population, 1972 Of Working Age 1960 30.6 27.7 28.3 22.5 23.1 24.8 24.2 United States.................. 3.2 Belgium ........................... 6.5 Canada ............................ 4.2 France ............................ 5.9 Germany .................... 5.8 Italy .................................. 6.1 Japan ............................. 10.4 Netherlands ................... 7.1 Sweden ........................... 7.3 United K ingdom .......... 4.0 14.3 2 19.7 21.0 21.3 22.4 3 17.9 29.6 21.4 18.7 16.6 12.0 19.5 14.7 N.A. N.A. N.A. 30.5 N.A. 16.6 13.5 1 Mining, manufacturing, construction, and public utilities. 2 Excludes construction. 3 Total capital investment, excluding residential dwellings, as percent of total output. 1 1970. 2 1971. Table 27. Factors Affecting Agricultural Productivity, 1970 (Indexes, United States = 100) Table 24. Distribution of Civilian Employment by Economic Sector, 1950 and 1970 (Percent) Country Agri culture United States...... Canada .................... G erm any.............. ... Italy ................. Japan .................... ... United Kingdom ,... 22.9 22.7 44.61 43.1 5.3 1 1951. Item 1970 1950 Industry Services 33.7 34.6 43.1 29.9 1 23.5 46.5 54.0 42.5 34.2 25.61 33.4 48.2 Agri culture 4.5 7.7 9.0 19.5 16.9 2.9 Industry Services 33.2 30.3 49.5 43.0 35.6 45.0 62.3 62.0 41.5 37.6 47.5 52.2 Agricultural land^ per person in farm population ........... Fertilizer usage 2 per person in farm population .......... Tractors in use 3 per person in farm population ........... 1 For latest year. 2 For 1970-71. 3 For 1971. United States Other Other less Western developed Communist developed Europe countries countries World Asia 100.0 7.8 20.4 1.5 4.2 5.1 100.0 22.3 9.6 0.4 0.5 2.2 100.0 22.6 5.9 0.1 0.2 1.6 Country Percent of Steel Value of Numerically Output Produced Controlled Machine Tool Production, 1967 in Basic Oxygen Furnaces (Millions of Dollars) 1960 United States ........ .......... $ Canada ................... .......... France .................... .......... Germany ................. .......... Italy........................... .......... Japan ........................ .......... Sweden ................... .......... United Kingdom..... .......... 3.4 N.A. .7 2.5 0 11.9 3.9 0.5 284.9 N.A. 9.0 29.5 12.0 5.9 1.6 20.1 Total issued to Foreign Electronic Digital Computers in Use 1972 1965 1971 56.0 23,200 , 750 500 996 1 500 1,445 N.A. 1,850 88,000 3,800 6,700 7,800 3,300 9,482 45.8 64.6 39.1 79.4 36.5 42.6 Y e a r..... France Germany Japan Residents of United Other Foreign Kingdom Countries 1963.... ... 1964 .... ... 1965.... ... 1966.... ... 1967 .... ... 18.6 18.9 19.9 20.1 21.9 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.4 5.1 5.1 5.4 5.8 5.7 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.6 2.2 4.0 3.9 4.1 3.9 4.3 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.7 7.3 1968.... ... 1969 .... ... 1970.... ... 1971 .... ... 22.5 25.4 26.9 28.5 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.8 5.8 6.7 6.9 7.1 2.5 3.2 4.1 5.1 4.2 4.7 4.6 4.4 7.6 8.1 8.6 9.1 7,600 1 1963. N.A. Not Available. Table 32. Energy Consumption Per Capita and Real GNP Per Capita, 1971 (Indexes, United States = 100) Table 29. Research and Development: Employment and Expenditures, 1971 Country Scientists and Engineers Engaged in R & D per 10,000 Population United States Canada France Germany Italy Japan United Kingdom R & D Expenditures as Percent of GNP 25 10 12 15 1 5 25 1 8 2.6 1.2 1.8 2.0 1 .9 1.8 2.1 1 1969. Table 30. Government Expenditures for R&D by National Objective, 1969 (Percent distribution) Objective United States Total ......................................... 100 National defense ................ 49 Space .................................... 24 Community services .......... 12 Economic development ... 7 Nuclear energy ................... 6 Advancement of science .. 2 Miscellaneous .................... — France 100 31 7 3 16 18 24 — Germany 100 19 6 2 2 17 39 15 Japan United Kingdom 100 2 1 4 23 8 61 100 40 4 4 26 12 13 — — Country United States Canada France Germany Italy Japan United Kingdom Real GNP Per Capita 100 88 83 84 53 73 65 Energy Consumption Per Capita 100.0 82.9 34.9 46.5 23.9 29.1 49.0 Appendix B. Sources Sources of the data for the charts and methods of adjustment are as follows: 1. Trends in real GNP per employed civilian: BLS estimates based on national sources. GNP is in constant market prices and is based on OECD definitions, which differ somewhat from the official U.S. concepts. The em ploym ent figures are partially estimated. In addition, the em ploym ent data for France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom have been adjusted for rough com parability with U.S. concepts. Data on output per employed person for the United States d iffer from the indexes regularly published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics since the latter figures exclude general government. Data for 1 950-70 calculated at 5 year intervals only. 2. Comparative levels of real GNP per employed civilian: Relative levels o f real GNP for the European countries for 1955 were derived from G ilbert and associates, Comparative N ational Products and Price Levels (Paris, Organisation for European Economic Co operation, 1958). The relative level of Canadian real GNP in 1960 was derived from D orothy Walters, Canadian Growth Revisited, 1950-1967 (O ttaw a, S taff Study No. 28, Economic Council of Canada, 1970). The relative o f Japanese real GNP in 1960 was de rived from A S tudy o f International Comparison o f Levels o f Living (Tokyo, Institute of People's Living, March 1965) as quoted in Angus Maddison, Econom ic Growth in Japan and the U.S.S.R. (New York, W.W. N orton and Company, Inc., 1969). The base year esti mates are at U.S. relative prices; if the base year comparisons were to be made using relative prices in each of the foreign countries, it would lower the foreign real GNP estimates relative to the United States. Real G NP and em ploym ent for other years were then esti mated based on trend data described in (1) above. 3. Trends in output per employed civilian by sector: BLS esti mates based on national statistics. The methods followed were sim ilar but not identical to those used for chart 1. O utput refers to gross domestic product rather than gross national product. O utput trends were measured in constant market prices for the United States, France, and Germany and at constant factor cost for Canada, Italy, and the United Kingdom. O utput by sector at constant prices is not available for Japan. The em ploym ent figures for Italy have been adjusted for major conceptual differences. The employment figures for the other countries have not been similarly adjusted, but such adjustments would have little effect on the trends. The agricultural sector includes farming, forestry, hunting, and fishing. Industry is defined as mining, manufacturing, and construc tion. Services cover transportation, communication, public utilities, trade, finance, public administration, private household services, and miscellaneous services. Em ploym ent in government enterprises is class ified according to the sector appropriate to the output of the enterprise. 4. Levels o f food production per person in the farm popula tion: Based on unpublished data from the Economic Research Ser vice, U.S. Departm ent of Agriculture. Value o f food production based on the previously published benchmark for 1959-61 (in 1959 -61 world prices) extended to 1971 by the Economic Research Ser vice using indexes o f food production. Farm Population statistics from Food and Agricultural Organisation, except fo r the United States. Regional groups include the following countries: Other developed countries—Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Union o f South Africa, U.S.S.R., and Eastern Europe. Less developed countries (except Communist A s ia )-A fric a except Union o f South Africa, Asia except Japan and Com munist Asia, and all of Latin America. Communist Asia—China, Mongolia, North Korea, and North Vietnam. This listing may differ from UN regional groups established for other purposes. 5, and 6. Productivity, o utput, and man-hour trends in manu facturing: BLS estimates based prim arily on aggregate manufactur ing output statistics from national economic accounts and national data on em ploym ent and man-hours worked by all employees. 7, and 8. Productivity, output, and man-hours in the iron and steel industry: Comparative 1964 data for the United States, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom are from An International Comparison o f Unit Labor Cost in the Iron and Steel Industry, 1964: United States, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Bulletin 1580 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1968); comparative 1964 data for Japan are preliminary unpublished estimates. The estimates for 1964 are essentially based on the U.S. definition of the iron and steel industry. Estimates for later years were obtained by applying trend indexes for each country-unad justed for comparability among the countries-to the 1964 relatives. 9, 10, 11, and 12. Trends in output per man-hour, compensation per man-hour, and unit labor costs in manufacturing, 1960-72: BLS estimates based primarily on aggregate manufacturing output statistics from national economic accounts, estimates of the number of man-hours worked by all employees, and aggregate labor compensation statistics. Trends in unit labor costs on a U.S. dollar basis were calculated using the average daily exchange rates published in the Federal Reserve Bul letin, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 13. Levels of output per man-hour, unit labor costs, and hourly labor costs in the iron and steel industry: See (7 and 8) above. 14. Compensation in manufacturing and selected industries: BLS estimates based on published average hourly earnings adjusted for com pensation items excluded from earnings. The adjustments were based primarily on labor cost survey statistics. Total compensation refers to all payments made by the employer directly to the worker before deduc tions of any kind, plus employer contributions to legally required insur ance programs and to contractual and private plans for the benefit of employees. The earnings and labor cost data are from national and EEC statistical publications. Hourly compensation was converted into U.S. dollars using the average daily exchange rate for 1972. 15. Trends in consumer prices: Consumer price indexes published in national statistical publications converted to a common base year. 16. Trends in the GNP implicit price deflator: Derived from coun try national accounts data and converted to a common base year. 17. Comparative levels of real GNP per capita: BLS estimates. For derivation of real GNP estimates, see (2) above. Population estimates relate to the resident population. 18. Trends in real hourly earnings: Average hourly earnings of manufacturing wage workers adjusted for changes in consumer prices as measured by consumer price indexes. The earnings data are from national and EEC statistical publications; the consumer price data are from national statistical publications. 19. The structure of consumer expenditures: National accounts statistics of private consumption expenditures in current prices. National accounts data for Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom were adjust ed by BLS in order to obtain statistics for comparable expenditure categories. 20. Trends in unemployment: BLS estimates of unemployment rates adjusted to U.S. labor force survey concepts and definitions. No adjustments were made to the published Canadian data. Adjustments of national data for most countries were based primarily on the results of labor force surveys. For Great Britain, adjustments were based on the results of the 1961 population census and the 1966 "sample census." 21. School enrollment and education expenditures: School enroll ment ratios calculated by BLS from enrollment figures published in the UNESCO Statistical Yearbook and population figures by age published in the United Nations Demographic Yearbook, The first and second levels cover primary and secondary education. Third level includes: (1) universities and equivalent degree-granting institutions; (2) teacher train ing in nonuniversity institutions (e.g., teacher colleges); and (3) other post-secondary education in nonuniversity institutions (technical colleges, etc.). Both full-time and part-time students are included except in the Canadian data which exclude part-time students. Educational expendi ture ratios are from the UNESCO Statistical Yearbook. Public expendi tures on education comprise recurring and capital expenditures at all levels of government. Recurring expenditures cover public expenditures on: (1) school administration; (2) preschool through third level educa tion; (3) other types of education such as special education, adult educa tion, religious schools, and similar institutions; and (4) scholarships, student transport, and other types of education-related subsidies, if applicable. 22. The contribution of productivity to economic growth: See (1) above. 23. Population, labor force, employment, and unemployment: BLS estimates of data adjusted to U.S. labor force survey concepts and defini tions. See (20) above. 24. Trends in the industrial structure of employment: BLS estimates of sectoral employment adjusted to U.S. labor force survey definitions wherever major conceptual differences exist. Other adjustments were also made by BLS to achieve consistency in the employment series. Total civilian employment includes wage and salary workers, unpaid family workers, and the self-employed. Data for the United Kingdom exclude a small number of unpaid family workers. For definition of sectors, see (3) above. 25. Trends in the sex composition of the labor force: BLS estimates adjusted to U.S. labor force survey definitions. See (20) above. 26. Capital investment: The capital investment ratios are BLS esti mates derived from published national accounts data. Output is at factor cost while investment is in purchasers' values. The ratios are based on data at current prices as figures in constant prices are not available for several of the countries. U.S. ratios based on constant and current prices are not significantly different over the time period covered. Ratios for all industry include public utilities for this chart only. U.S. total excludes construction. 27. Some sources of agricultural productivity: Compiled by the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, from F.A.O. sources, except for U.S. population. For regional listing, see (4) above. 28. Trends in the diffusion of major technological innovations: See sources listed on chart. 29. Research and development: employment and expenditures: 1969 data from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop ment. 1971 estimates from National Science Foundation developed to be consistent with earlier OECD data. Employment of scientists and engineers are full-time equivalents. 30. Objectives of government R&D expenditures: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 31. Trends in patent activity: Unpublished data from the U.S. Patent Office, U.S. Department of Commerce. Comparable charts have been published previously from the Patent Office data. 32. Energy consumption: Statistical Office of the United Nations. For real GNP per capita, see (2) and (17) above. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS REGIONAL OFFICES Region I 1603 JFK Federal Building Government Center Boston, Mass. 02203 Phone: 223-6762 (Area Code 617) Region II Suite 3400 1515 Broadway New York, N.Y. 10036 Phone: 971-5405 (Area Code 212) Region III P.O. Box 13309 Philadelphia, Pa. 19101 Phone: 597-1154 (Area Code 215) Region IV Suite 540 1371 Peachtree St., N.E. Atlanta, Ga. 30309 Phone: 526-5418 (Area Code 404) Region V 8th Floor, 300 South Wacker Drive Chicago, III. 60606 Phone: 353-1880 (Area Code 312) Region V I 1100 Commerce St., Rm. 6B7 Dallas, Tex. 75202 Phone: 749-3516 (Area Code 214) Regions V II and V III* Federal Office Building 911 Walnut St., 15th Floor Kansas City, Mo. 64106 Phone: 374-2481 (Area Code 816) Regions IX and X * * 450 Golden Gate Ave. Box 36017 San Francisco, Calif. 94102 Phone: 556-4678 (Area Code 415) Regions VII and VIII are serviced by Kansas City Regions IX and X are serviced by San Francisco
@FedFRASER