Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • Report looks at captured nature of BC’s Oil and Gas Commission August 6, 2019
    From an early stage, BC’s Oil and Gas Commission bore the hallmarks of a captured regulator. The very industry that the Commission was formed to regulate had a significant hand in its creation and, too often, the interests of the industry it regulates take precedence over the public interest. This report looks at the evolution […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Correcting the Record July 26, 2019
    Earlier this week Kris Sims and Franco Terrazzano of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation wrote an opinion piece that was published in the Calgary Sun, Edmonton Sun, Winnipeg Sun, Ottawa Sun and Toronto Sun. The opinion piece makes several false claims and connections regarding the Corporate Mapping Project (CMP), which we would like to correct. The […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Rental Wage in Canada July 18, 2019
    Our new report maps rental affordability in neighbourhoods across Canada by calculating the “rental wage,” which is the hourly wage needed to afford an average apartment without spending more than 30% of one’s earnings.  Across all of Canada, the average wage needed to afford a two-bedroom apartment is $22.40/h, or $20.20/h for an average one […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Towards Justice: Tackling Indigenous Child Poverty in Canada July 9, 2019
    CCPA senior economist David Macdonald co-authored a new report, Towards Justice: Tackling Indigenous Child Poverty in Canada­—released by Upstream Institute in partnership with the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA)—tracks child poverty rates using Census 2006, the 2011 National Household Survey and Census 2016. The report is available for […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Fossil-Power Top 50 launched July 3, 2019
    What do Suncor, Encana, the Royal Bank of Canada, the Fraser Institute and 46 other companies and organizations have in common? They are among the entities that make up the most influential fossil fuel industry players in Canada. Today, the Corporate Mapping Project (CMP) is drawing attention to these powerful corporations and organizations with the […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers


Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

Keynesian Productivity

Statistics Canada released an interesting study today on the slowdown of productivity growth in Canadian manufacturing.

Conservative economists tend to view productivity as a microeconomic issue, reflecting the allocation of scarce resources through the market. The way to maximize productivity is to remove taxes, regulations and other “barriers” to the market’s free functioning.

However, the largest driver of productivity is investment in new machinery, equipment, structures and the technology embedded in them. Businesses will make such investments in additional capacity only if demand outstrips their existing capacity. In that sense, productivity may actually be a macroeconomic issue, reflecting the overall level of economic demand.

Today’s study supports this latter view, finding that productivity slowed mostly due to lower levels of capacity utilization. A possible policy implication is that the most effective way to boost productivity is to boost demand through a competitive exchange rate, public investment and a more equal distribution of income.

UPDATE (December 13): Quoted in the Vancouver Sun (page C3).

Enjoy and share:


Comment from Jim Stanford
Time: December 12, 2011, 11:33 am

Thank you Erin for posting this interesting study. I guess Kaldor lives!

Another interesting angle to the StatsCan report is that they find over half of the total slowdown in productivity growth in the business sector (to just 1.1% p.a. 2000-2006, and even less since then) is due to the slowdown in productivity growth in manufacturing (where productivity growth, which had been very rapid in the 1990s, at 3.3% p.a., fell by over two-thirds … dragged down by excess capacity and the resulting slowdown in investment).

We didn’t know it at the time, but the year 2000 was a turning point in our national economic history. A combination of factors (popping of the dotcom bubble, the WTO’s abolition of the Auto Pact, 9-11 and everything that came after for the U.S. economy, the rise in global commodity prices which reinforced our own emerging resource dependence) has promoted a secular deindustrialization. Lousy productivity growth — which seems to “puzzle” market-friendly economists, but is entirely predictable for anyone who studied Kaldor, is just one of the many negative consequences of this shift.

Comment from Sara Mayo
Time: December 12, 2011, 11:50 am

Your comments, Jim, are very interesting for us researchers in the “local” trenches. I’ve been looking at the historical data for Hamilton for an upcoming report here at the Social Planning Council and it’s clear that 2000-2001 was a real low point for our economy locally as well, so your analysis is very helpful for our thinking here.
Thanks for posting a link to this post on Twitter! 🙂

Write a comment

Related articles