NZ productivity growth 0.9% from 2006 to 2010, compared to annual growth of 2% from 1978 to 2010

NZ productivity growth 0.9% from 2006 to 2010, compared to annual growth of 2% from 1978 to 2010

New Zealand's labour productivity - the ratio of hours worked and economic output - between 2006 and 2010 grew at an annual average rate of 0.9% compared with an average of 2% between 1978 and 2010, Statistics New Zealand says.

Productivity was measured in the market economy, which makes up approximately 80% of the total economy. It excludes government administration and defence, health, and education, Stats NZ said.

Despite the slower growth rate over the last four years, labour productivity grew 3.7% in the year to March 2010 as a fall in hours worked was greater than the fall in output, Stats NZ said.

Here is a media release from Stats NZ:

Labour productivity grew 3.7 percent in the March 2010 year, Statistics New Zealand said today. New figures from the information release Productivity Statistics: 1978–2010 show that the weaker labour market has boosted productivity. "The increase in labour productivity was the result of a substantial decline in workforce hours, in response to falling demand and consecutive years of falling production in the market economy," economic statistics development manager Jude Hughes said.

Fewer hours were worked in the market economy, which makes up approximately 80 percent of the total economy. It excludes government administration and defence, health, and education. Fewer people were employed in most sectors of the economy, particularly manufacturing and construction, and there was a substantial drop in self-employed hours. The amount of goods and services produced in the economy decreased, but less so than hours worked, resulting in stronger-than-average labour productivity growth.

New Zealand's labour productivity growth has trailed Australia's in recent years. Since 1996, New Zealand's market economy labour productivity has grown at 1.6 percent annually, with Australia at 2.0 percent. Australia had much stronger growth in the amount of capital per worker. This additional capital has resulted in the productivity of Australian workers rising faster than that of New Zealand workers.

Productivity is regarded as key to increasing New Zealand’s standard of living. Multifactor productivity (MFP) is a measure of the efficiency of producing goods and services in the economy. In the March 2010 year, MFP increased 1.5 percent, which is above the average annual rate of 1.0 percent achieved since 1978.

More soon.

(Updates with chart, release)

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.


Comment Filter

Highlight new comments in the last hr(s).

Wow...annual growth 2% for 32 years...that's indicative of some fabulous govt management...not.

"Unhealthy Economy - Example

2% GDP Growth with 3% Inflation means Money Growth is larger than 3% with a -1% Real Growth"

and inflation pa, in NZ over the 32 years has been what?

well that's because we keep all our cheese in one basket Bernard.

labour productivity grew 3.7% in the year to March 2010 as a fall in hours worked was greater than the fall in output,  

Stupidest measure going - ranks right up there with GDP, IMO.

For example, I assume if you defer maintenance on a capital/infrastructure asset - labour productivity improves massively?  Take Transrail's run it into the ground history, for example.

This is another wet dream measure of neo whatever economics - less useful (and probably more harmful) than the trickle down theory.

The good news is that the government is growing and borrowing at a prodigious rates.

And here's another toast to the taxpayer from JK's government; 



A law for some and a law for everyone else. When Allan Hubbard was put in Statutory Management he was granted living expenses of $1000 per week. And he goes straight out and spends $77,000 a week on Lawyers. So what were Russell McVeagh doing racking up a $2 million plus bill in 6 months when they knew AH could only spend $1000 per week.

This is like a "Billy T James" comedy skit where he appears in court and loses his driving license again for the third time for speeding and leaves the court with his mate, gets in the car and drives off home. His mate says, hey bro, you cant drive, and Billy says, hey, dont you worry cuz, thats pakeha law, it's not my law.

Absolutely - Hubbard should pay Russel McVeagh - and if he becomes a bad creditor, well then maybe they'll think twice about whether their client has the ability to pay before accepting the assignment. 

But to suggest WE THE TAXPAYER should now bail out Russel McVeagh - well it's just fantasyland.  John Key should absolutely nip this one IN THE BUD - announce that RMcV can wait in line just like all the other creditors of Hubbard's ponzi scheme.

Trust me - with that announcement from Gov't and the statuatory managers - RMcV will be on their horse quicker than JK can say giddyup.


Don't you worry cuz, the proceedings are all suppressed, behind closed doors, the levers are being pulled as we speak, phones are running hot. The fix is in. Who do you think was the "captain of the south" who had the power and influence to persuade Bollard to institute a Government Guarantee to cover Finance Companies when no other country in the world did. A big mistake. Just maybe this is payback time.

Gee it will be funny if he is judge bankrupt in the end.

$1000 a week is a bit better than what he would get on super.

Let's not forget the Auckland Maori Board fighting in court for more money



Waffer thin mint anyone? Or shall I just grab the bucket?

...and we're planning to create a whole new government department (The Productivity Commission) around this statistic.


Didn't Helen Clark grant Jim Anderton some such commission , to appease him ....... The Trade & Mercantile Commie Mission  ........ Some ruddy expensive quango for their friends , to make it look like like they actually did give a rat's arse about business .......

The bucket then? lol

scary that the best we can manage is 2% over  a thirty year period -  i would guess that almost all of that is due to technological advances and none of it due to labour productivity! 

Take more than the 90 day legislation and thinning out of the workforce to cure this - Only masssive cuts to welfare for those who are able to work will increase the competitive market and give employers the leverage to get a decent days work - and then maybe pay a decents days wages at the end of it

Alex - and anyone swallowing this - I hope you understand about doubling-imes.

2% growth, yoy, doubles in 35 years.

Then doubles that in the next 35.

All doubling-time graphs trend to the vertical, the only variable being time.

Meaning they all hit the fan at some point.

You do understand that, don't you?

That % growth isn't linear?