The Canadian productivity puzzle is fasinating. The finding that its more about technological progress and busines investment lagging rather than policy failures challenges the conventional narrative. Makes me wonder if other developed countries with similar productivity stagnation issues share this pattern. The emphasis on digital sovereignty in the tech agenda section also raises interesting questions about how national policy frameworks might inadvertently hamper productivity gains from global tech platforms.
That productivity paper is a part of an international series by the UK's Productivity Institute. It draws on a framework developed for the UK (very much a country suffering from the same productivity stagnation). So far in the international series, they've published studies of Spain and Brazil, with more to come. I've not had any time to look at them yet, but I imagine they will get into whether the pattern is the same: https://www.productivity.ac.uk/news/pro-productivity-policies-country-experiences-series/
On the second point, there are absolutely productivity trade-offs. I think it is so important to have an open and honest conversation about what they are and what trade-offs are acceptable. That is why I often push for a greater focus on real-world outcomes. Productivity isn't an end in and of itself. It is a means to a better quality of life, but productivity increases can also be achieved at the cost of a worse quality of life for most people.
The fact that these "global platforms" are mostly (by a fair margin) located in the US is the biggest driver of the diverging productivity metrics in my opinion. The fact that most major tech companies are HQed in the US and that they make up the bulk of the S&P value is what has created a lot of GDP growth in the US and this just hasn't been the case in the rest of the developed world.
We have to be willing to address that or our elbows really aren't that high.
The Canadian productivity puzzle is fasinating. The finding that its more about technological progress and busines investment lagging rather than policy failures challenges the conventional narrative. Makes me wonder if other developed countries with similar productivity stagnation issues share this pattern. The emphasis on digital sovereignty in the tech agenda section also raises interesting questions about how national policy frameworks might inadvertently hamper productivity gains from global tech platforms.
That productivity paper is a part of an international series by the UK's Productivity Institute. It draws on a framework developed for the UK (very much a country suffering from the same productivity stagnation). So far in the international series, they've published studies of Spain and Brazil, with more to come. I've not had any time to look at them yet, but I imagine they will get into whether the pattern is the same: https://www.productivity.ac.uk/news/pro-productivity-policies-country-experiences-series/
On the second point, there are absolutely productivity trade-offs. I think it is so important to have an open and honest conversation about what they are and what trade-offs are acceptable. That is why I often push for a greater focus on real-world outcomes. Productivity isn't an end in and of itself. It is a means to a better quality of life, but productivity increases can also be achieved at the cost of a worse quality of life for most people.
The fact that these "global platforms" are mostly (by a fair margin) located in the US is the biggest driver of the diverging productivity metrics in my opinion. The fact that most major tech companies are HQed in the US and that they make up the bulk of the S&P value is what has created a lot of GDP growth in the US and this just hasn't been the case in the rest of the developed world.
We have to be willing to address that or our elbows really aren't that high.