Is Targeting Productivity a Good Idea?

Would it be reasonable for the Bank of England to have a productivity target alongside its inflation target? Probably not. In response to a recent report which suggests a productivity growth target of 3% per annum, Frances Coppola offers explanations why attempting to target productivity in this matter could present problems:

This target is extremely challenging. A footnote in the report notes that labour productivity growth since 1950 has averaged 2.4%, and describes the proposed uplift of .06% above this average as a "small increase". Forgive me, but an increase of 25% in the rate of change is not by any stretch of the imagination "small". It's an absolute whopping hike, particularly when you take into account the fact that in the 1950s and 60s the labour force was much smaller due to lower immigration and female participation, and the UK was rebuilding after WWII. In a mature economy which is 80% services and which has nearly full employment of both men and women, that 3% target looks well-nigh impossible. 

There was also lack of clarity in the report, what aspects of productivity might actually be targeted, hence Coppola noted labour, capital, and multi-factor productivity as possibilities. What about capital, for instance?

The fact that the rate of return of capital has been falling for the best part of forty years could suggest that capital is not being deployed efficiently. 

However: Recall that as returns on capital have fallen, the services component of the economy has been rising, and has only recently stabilized at present levels in mature economies. Chances are the decades long shift in dominance between tradable and non tradable sector activity, holds considerable meaning for how capital potential translates into marketplace realities. After all, time based services in particular face not only natural scarcities but also artificially imposed scarcities, which further limits aggregate output for applied knowledge. Since much of today's capital investment is closely linked with human capital investment, non tradable sector output includes higher levels of professional income, rather than tradable sector profits which tend to be more widely dispersed among key staff, employees and shareholders.

There's probably little that central bankers can do directly, to encourage productivity gains. It's up to participants in the real economy to make this happen, and differences in organizational capacity will also be needed before significant productivity changes are likely for some non tradable sectors. In any event, central bankers aren't well positioned to positively impact present levels via productivity targets.

Alas, mature economies do need productivity gains in the near future, if living standards are to continue improving for future generations. But what can be done? Presently, a non linear approach might be necessary, which is another way of saying much of the low hanging fruit for productivity potential has already been picked, via more obvious linear means.

Any non linear approach would also benefit from a broader framing re general equilibrium dynamics. Toward this end, aggregate output potential can be considered through a total factor (or multi-factor) productivity lens. For instance, how much of today's time based product in non tradable sectors could be likened to a knowledge production factory?

Once we envision inputs and outputs on these terms, one problem quickly comes into focus. Unlike the direct alignments of tradable sector supply chains, many non tradable sector inputs which could translate into applied knowledge settings, are mostly haphazard and partial. Processes of learning in this regard, presently extend across a wide range of diverse institutions which are only indirectly linked to other institutions, if at all. Plus, it's difficult to discern what supply and demand for time based product might actually consist of, since much of the alignment is from individuals to multiple institutions, instead of individuals to individuals in group settings with a knowledge continuum.

Consequently, inputs which hold potential for use at most skill levels, greatly outnumber the outputs which are actually gleaned from the time based product of these supply chains. Imagine the problems this would create for the supply side chains of tradable sector activity, if only a mere fraction of their intermediate processes were useful to other parts of the supply chain!

Just as tradable sector activity has often combined many separate activities into long term knowledge continuum, an institution is needed which can perform a similar function for diverse high skill services in the present. Fortunately, it's possible to turn many aspects of formal education and human capital investment into input which could simultaneously function as output. Instead of attempting to target productivity in an effort to achieve long term growth gains, why not turn time value into an economic measure which provides greater focus for input, even as output is simultaneously increased. Time value as resource reciprocity could ultimately mean more productivity gains, than has been possible thus far with the input/output imbalance of today's high skill non tradable sectors.