Multifactor Productivity Growwth Estimation in Canada and the United States: Do Different Methodologies Matter?
Jiang Li (),
Larry Shute () and
International Productivity Monitor, 2013, vol. 26, 36-62
National statistics offices in different countries, as well as individual researchers, make a range of different assumptions and use different approaches to estimating multifactor productivity (MFP) growth. As a result, MFP growth estimates can vary for methodological reasons across countries and for a particular country over a given time period. These methodological choices typically reflect a combination of data availability and the objectives of the study. In this article, we use “reasonably” comparable data for output, labour and capital in Canada and the United States to investigate the sensitivity of MPF growth estimates (by industry and for the business sector in the two countries) to three alternative methodological assumptions. We show that MFP growth estimates for both countries and the Canada-U.S. MFP growth gap are fairly robust to the alternative methodologies and assumptions considered.
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sls:ipmsls:v:26:y:2013:3
Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
Access Statistics for this article
International Productivity Monitor is currently edited by Andrew Sharpe, Executive Director
More articles in International Productivity Monitor from Centre for the Study of Living Standards 170 Laurier Ave. W, Suite 604, Ottawa, ON K1P 5V5. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CSLS ( this e-mail address is bad, please contact ).