MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2182173836

The Widening Canada-US Manufacturing Productivity Gap

2002· article· en· W2182173836 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew Sharpe

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityManufacturingEconomicsLabour economicsMultifactor productivityAgricultural economicsDemographic economicsTotal factor productivityBusinessEconomic growth
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3 The level of labour productivity in Canadian manufacturing in the postwar period has been below the US level, although the extent of this gap has varied considerably over time. From 1977 to 1994 the Canada-US gap in output per hour in manufacturing averaged 14 per cent (Chart 1). Since 1994, however, Canada’s relative gap has risen 17.3 percentage points from 12.3 per cent in 1994 to 29.6 per cent in 2000 (32.3 per cent in 2001), as output per hour in Canadian manufacturing fell from 87.7 per cent of the US level in 1994 to 70.4 per cent in 2000 (and 67.7 per cent in 2001).1 This development has reflected both an acceleration of labour productivity growth in manufacturing in the United States, and a deceleration in Canada. Manufacturing accounts for about 15 per cent of total economy employment and output. The widening of the Canada-US labour productivity gap in manufacturing thus accounted for over two thirds of the widening in the aggregate Canada-US labour productivity gap in the 1990s.2 Labour productivity growth is a major long-run determinant of the growth in living standards. Had productivity growth in Canadian manufacturing matched the US rate of advance since 1994, and the productivity gap remained unchanged, growth in Canadian absolute and relative (compared to the United States) living standards would have been higher. Another reason for concern about the widening manufacturing productivity gap relates to the fact that this sector includes dynamic high-tech industries, which are important to the overall performance of the Canadian economy. In addition to the widening of the labour productivity gap, the total factor productivity (TFP) gap in manufacturing has also increased significantly.3 This gap rose 13.9 percentage points from 3.7 per cent in 1994 (96.3 per cent of the US level) to 17.6 per cent in 2000 (82.4 per cent of the US level) (Chart 1). This TFP gap implies that productive efficiency of the Canadian manufacturing sector has deteriorated in the second half of the 1990s relative to that in the United States. The objectives of this article are twofold: first to document the massive widening of the Canada-US labour and total factor productivity gaps in manufacturing over the 1994-2000 period, and second to identify the factors behind this development.4 The article is divided into three main parts. The first section discusses trends in the manufacturing sector in the two countries, including trends in labour productivity, output, employment, capital stock and investment, and the price of labour and capital inputs. The secThe Widening Canada-US Manufacturing Productivity Gap

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.257
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.162 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicEconomic Growth and ProductivityFrench-language works237,207