Where did all the productivity go?

The ONS examines how employment is rising, even while GDP falls.

Joe Grice, chief economist of the ONS, released a report today that addresses the recent GDP-employment paradox.

As seen last week, employment has fallen by only 1 per cent since 2008, in spite of a 4 per cent drop in GDP over the same period. As the number of hours worked rises and output decreases, it can only be concluded that people are producing less per hour.

Output, Employment and Total Hours Worked

This stands in contrast with previous recessions, when productivity progressively increased. This has led economists, including the ONS, to probe into why this is happening.

Firstly, Grice suggests that this phenomenon could be linked to the growth of part-time and temporary jobs.

In particular, the author notes that the increase of part-time work to the detriment of full-time jobs has led to a smaller increase in hours worked than number of jobs would suggest.

Full-time and part-time employment (people aged 16 and over)

Permanent and temporary employees

The proposed hours-to-jobs ratio decline is seemingly confirmed by the rise of the proportion of people who are forced into part-time or temporary work for lack of full-time, permanent options.

Involuntary part-time and temporary workers as a proportion of total part-time and temporary workers

This, Grice notes, suggests that the UK market has adjusted to the recession by becoming more flexible.

There is also evidence to support the idea that companies have been reluctant to shed employees, in spite of the dip in output. The rise in real income has significantly slowed in the last ten years (in large part due to the wage adjustment resultant from a more flexible labour market), making it more affordable for companies to maintain staff levels.

Earnings growth, quarter on same quarter a year ago

Furthermore, as the cash flow for non-financial companies shows - unlike in previous recessions - firms have remained financially buoyant enough to retain employment.

Financial surplus/deficits of private non-financial companies

Finally, the report draws attention to the notable rise in self-employment, perhaps as a direct consequence of lay-offs. However, it is stressed that the exact effects of this rise on output and hours worked remain unclear. (I’ve been told by the ONS that a break-down of self-employment jobs by industry will be published from next month onwards – it’ll be interesting to see whether these "newly self-employed" are genuine entrepreneurs, people who are basically unemployed by another name, or just corporate attempts to dodge the statutory rights conferred to the elusive, and rather narrowly defined, "employee".)

Self Employment as a percentage of total employment

The report goes on to conclude that while the aforementioned reasons may play a significant part in explaining the mystery (further research is being done to confirm this), it is important to consider other issues.

For instance, some commentators have attributed the paradox to consistent under-reporting of GDP. However, the ONS admits that this is unlikely, as previous periodic assessments of GDP revisions haven’t shown any significant bias. Grice does concede that the survey data may be out of sync with GDP estimates, as the former can give information about future trends, while the latter are necessarily based on past tendencies. Nonetheless, some pundits believe that the GDP doesn’t reflect the strength of PAYE and/or tax receipts. But the report contends that the ratios do not seem abnormal:

Ratio of PAYE and VAT receipts to GDP

Moreover, when compared to productivity across Europe, the UK conundrum seems less puzzling. Registering the same trends as its continental counterparts, the drop in British productivity, argues the ONS, could very well be explained by common international factors.

International comparisons of productivity (Real labour productivity per hour)

Following reports by the OECD and IMF, the ONS speculates that the financial crisis may have altered the UK’s productive potential. While acknowledging that there were many forces at work during the crisis, Grice points to a few main factors that may have contributed to the current recession’s exceptionalism.

Firstly, the author argues that "over-exuberant financial intermediation" led to the investment of resources in activities with poor returns. It is argued that as a consequence, we are now left to deal with shoddy machinery and poorly trained individuals. Secondly, due to the drop in financial intermediation after the crisis, firms lost access to financing that would boost productivity. Finally, the report states that because the risk premium increased so significantly after the crisis, existing capital stock was rendered unviable because it was unable to generate the required return at the higher rate.

The ONS concludes that all the aforementioned explanations are likely to play a role in explaining the dip in productivity, and that each one warrants further, extensive research.

A journalist sleeps at his desk. But falling productivity doesn't mean lazy workers. Photograph: Getty Images
Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Tony Blair might be a toxic figure - but his influence endures

Politicians at home and abroad are borrowing from the former prime minister's playbook. 

On 24 May at Methodist Central Hall, Westminster, a short distance from where he once governed, Tony Blair resurfaced for a public discussion. Having arrived on an overnight flight, he looked drawn and puffy-eyed but soon warmed to his theme: a robust defence of liberal globalisation. He admitted, however, to bafflement at recent events in the world. "I thought I was pretty good at politics. But I look at politics today and I’m not sure I understand it."

Blair lost power in the summer of 2007. In the ensuing nine years, he lost reputation. His business ventures and alliances with autocrats have made him a pariah among both the public and his party. A YouGov poll published last year found that 61 per cent of voters regarded Blair as an electoral liability, while just 14 per cent viewed him as an asset. In contrast, John Major, whom he defeated by a landslide in 1997, had a neutral net rating of zero. It is ever harder to recall that Blair won not one general election (he is the only living Labour leader to have done so) but three.

His standing is likely to diminish further when the Iraq inquiry report is published on 6 July. Advance leaks to the Sunday Times suggest that he will be censured for allegedly guaranteeing British military support to the US a year before the invasion. Few minds on either side will be changed by the 2.6 million-word document. Yet its publication will help enshrine Iraq as the defining feature of a legacy that also includes the minimum wage, tax credits, Sure Start, devolution and civil partnerships.

Former leaders can ordinarily rely on their parties to act as a last line of defence. In Blair’s case, however, much of the greatest opprobrium comes from his own side. Jeremy Corbyn inclines to the view that Iraq was not merely a blunder but a crime. In last year’s Labour leadership election, Liz Kendall, the most Blair-esque candidate, was rewarded with 4.5 per cent of the vote. The former prime minister’s imprimatur has become the political equivalent of the black spot.

Yet outside of the Labour leadership, Blairism endures in notable and often surprising forms. Sadiq Khan won the party’s London mayoral selection by running to the left of Tessa Jowell, one of Tony Blair’s closest allies. But his successful campaign against Zac Goldsmith drew lessons from Blair’s election triumphs. Khan relentlessly presented himself as “pro-business” and reached out beyond Labour’s core vote. After his victory, he was liberated to use the B-word, contrasting what “Tony Blair did [in opposition]” with Corbyn’s approach.

In their defence of the UK’s EU membership, David Cameron and George Osborne have deployed arguments once advanced by New Labour. The strategically minded Chancellor has forged an unlikely friendship with his former nemesis Peter Mandelson. In the domestic sphere, through equal marriage, the National Living Wage and the 0.7 per cent overseas aid target, the Conservatives have built on, rather than dismantled, significant Labour achievements."They just swallowed the entire manual," Mandelson declared at a recent King’s College seminar. "They didn’t just read the executive summary, they are following the whole thing to the letter."

Among SNP supporters, "Blairite" is the pejorative of choice. But the parallels between their party and New Labour are more suggestive than they would wish. Like Blair, Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon have avoided income tax rises in order to retain the support of middle-class Scottish conservatives. In a speech last August on education, Sturgeon echoed the Blairite mantra that "what matters is what works".

Beyond British shores, political leaders are similarly inspired by Blair – and less reticent about acknowledging as much. Matteo Renzi, the 41-year-old centre-left Italian prime minister, is a long-standing admirer. "I adore one of his sayings,” he remarked in 2013. “I love all the traditions of my party, except one: that of losing elections."

In France, the reform-minded prime minister, Manuel Valls, and the minister of economy, Emmanuel Macron, are also self-described Blairites. Macron, who in April launched his own political movement, En Marche!, will shortly decide whether to challenge for the presidency next year. When he was compared to Blair by the TV presenter Andrew Marr, his response reflected the former prime minister’s diminished domestic reputation: “I don’t know if, in your mouth, that is a promise or a threat.”

The continuing attraction of Blair’s “third way” to European politicians reflects the failure of the project’s social-democratic critics to construct an alternative. Those who have sought to do so have struggled both in office (François Hollande) and out of it (Ed Miliband). The left is increasingly polarised between reformers and radicals (Corbyn, Syriza, Podemos), with those in between straining for relevance.

Despite his long absences from Britain, Blair’s friends say that he remains immersed in the intricacies of Labour politics. He has privately warned MPs that any attempt to keep Corbyn off the ballot in the event of a leadership challenge would be overruled by the National Executive Committee. At Methodist Central Hall, he said of Corbyn’s supporters: “It’s clear they can take over a political party. What’s not clear to me is whether they can take over a country.”

It was Blair’s insufficient devotion to the former task that enabled the revival of the left. As Alastair Campbell recently acknowledged: “We failed to develop talent, failed to cement organisational and cultural change in the party and failed to secure our legacy.” Rather than effecting a permanent realignment, as the right of the party hoped and the left feared, New Labour failed to outlive its creators.

It instead endures in a fragmented form as politicians at home and abroad co-opt its defining features: its pro-business pragmatism, its big-tent electoralism, its presentational nous. Some of Corbyn’s ­allies privately fear that Labour will one day re-embrace Blairism. But its new adherents would never dare to use that name.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 26 May 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Brexit odd squad