Manufacturing productivity
The UK’s productivity in manufacturing has always been in the forefront of discussion because the sector is so open to global competitive forces. Table 1.11 gives a brief summary of trends in labour productivity for the whole economy and for manufacturing, together with trends in manufacturing output in the UK between 1964 and 2009.
We see that output per person employed in manufacturing has risen by 114.2 points on 1964, much more than the 76.9 points recorded for the whole economy. This is certainly supportive of the view that manufacturing is a vital ‘engine for growth’. However, we can see that manufacturing output increased by only 33.6 points between 1964 and 2005, while manufacturing output actually fell between 2005 and 2009 by 13.7 points as a result of the onset of a cyclical downswing. It isTable 1.11 United Kingdom productivity and manufacturing output (1990 = 100).
UK output per person employed
| Year | Whole economy | Manufacturing | Manufacturing output |
| 1964 | 58.1 | 45.3 | 72.6 |
| 1969 | 67.0 | 53.8 | 85.4 |
| 1973 | 76.2 | 63.4 | 94.6 |
| 1979 | 81.7 | 65.8 | 90.6 |
| 1990 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| 2005 | 136.5 | 153.2 | 106.2 |
| 2009 | 135.0 | 159.5 | 92.5 |
Source: ONS (2010d) Monthy Digest of Statistics, September; ONS (2010c) Labour Market Statistics, September ONS (2006a) Economic Trends, April, and previous issues.
hardly surprising that we noted significant job losses in the manufacturing industry in Table 1.4 since relatively rapid labour productivity growth and static or falling output are invariably associated with reductions in employment.
Table 1.12 provides more detailed productivity data for manufacturing output between 1980 and 2008 for the UK, US, France and Germany.
Table 1.12 Labour productivity in manufacturing (output per hour), 1980-2008 (2002 = 100).
| US | France | Germany | UK | |
| 1980 | 41.6 | 42.9 | 54.6 | 46.3 |
| 1985 | 50.0 | 56.0 | 62.8 | 59.0 |
| 1990 | 65.9 | 63.6 | 69.8 | 72.8 |
| 1995 | 68.3 | 75.2 | 80.6 | 82.1 |
| 2000 | 89.5 | 94.0 | 96.5 | 93.7 |
| 2005 | 115.1 | 107.3 | 107.5 | 115.5 |
| 2008 | 127.8 | 115.4 | 129.2 | 124.2 |
Source: US (2010) International Labor Comparisons, BLS Supplementary Tables.
Although much discussion of the UK’s performance in terms of productivity has centred on the manufacturing sector, it should be noted that this sector is not a cohesive entity; rather it is made up of many subsectors with divergent records over time.
A major study of UK manufacturing productivity (Cameron and Proudman 1998) showed that although the overall growth of manufacturing output may have been stagnant, there were significant differences between subsectors of manufacturing. The study investigated output growth and labour productivity in 19 subsectors of manufacturing over the period 1970-92. Their results suggest that there has been an important shift in the contribution of the various subsectors to manufacturing output, with nine sectors experiencing positive rates of output growth (led by computing, pharmaceuticals, aerospace, electronics and precision instruments), whilst the other 10 sectors experienced negative rates of growth of output (led by iron and steel, basic metals, minerals and machinery). Interestingly, the sectors experiencing positive rates of growth of output also tended to be those which experienced higher rates of growth of labour productivity.Two further conclusions of the study might also be noted. First, the authors investigated whether changes in overall manufacturing productivity were due to the relocation of resources between sectors (i.e. from low to high productivity sectors) or due to productivity growth within the sectors over time. They concluded that over 90% of the increase in labour productivity was due to within-sector productivity growth. This suggests that explanations of changes in productivity should concentrate on factors which affect productivity within industries and even plants. Second, the study looked at whether productivities across the various sectors of manufacturing have tended to converge. They concluded that whilst productivity in a number of sectors appeared to settle at levels just below the manufacturing mean, the productivities of a few sectors (such as computing, pharmaceuticals and aerospace) remained consistently above the mean and tended to move further above the mean over time.
Despite these differential performances between sectors within UK manufacturing, the UK falls behind the US, Germany and France in absolute labour productivities in most of the subsectors of manufacturing.
For example, a study by O’Mahony and de Boer (2002) points out that in the basic metals sector, the absolute productivity levels in the US, France and Germany in 1999 (UK = 100) were 198, 148 and 166 respectively. For the electrical and electronic equipment sector the figures were 173, 145 and 135 respectively, whilst in textiles, clothing and footwear the absolute productivity figures were 159, 196 and 129 respectively. Such divergent productivity performances between different UK manufacturing sectors, and also between the UK and other countries’ manufacturing sectors, raises interesting questions. For example, are these differences due to the nature of technologies used in these sectors, or are they the result of other factors involving capital intensity, labour skills or openness to trade? We will return to some of these questions later in the chapter.
More on the topic Manufacturing productivity:
- Relative unit labour costs (RULC)
- International economics
- Basicframework
- References (incomplete)
- Malta
- SUBJECT INDEX
- The Post-Keynesian Approach
- Conclusion
- United States
- Consolidation of State Power Under Volodimer