Talk:Productivity/Archives/2016

Dr. Masters's comment on this article
Dr. Masters has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"I cannot see why the section on "Detrimental impact of bullying, incivility, toxicity and psychopathy" is there.

There are a many influences on productivity, as disparate as education levels, nutrition and health, noise and room temperature -- each of those should be discussed under their own topic pages. So this whole section on bullying should be in a page on "Personnel Management" or "Organizational Behavior", which is the concept to which it belongs."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Masters has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


 * Reference : Masters, William A. & Delbecq, Benoit, 2008. "Accelerating innovation with prize rewards: History and typology of technology prizes and a new contest design for innovation in African agriculture," IFPRI discussion papers 835, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Borowiecki's comment on this article
Dr. Borowiecki has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

""Drivers of productivity growth" should be revised to point at the role of interpersonal exchange (spillover effects across peers) in productivity enhacement:

Other drivers of productivity growth include improved or intensified exchange with peers or co-workers, as more productive peers have a stimulating effect on one's own productivity. Citation: Borowiecki, Karol Jan. (2013) Geographic Clustering and Productivity: An Instrumental Variable Approach for Classical Composers [pdf], Journal of Urban Economics, 73: 94-11 Borowiecki, Karol Jan. (2015) Agglomeration Economies in Classical Music [pdf], Papers in Regional Science, 94(3): 443-68"

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Borowiecki has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


 * Reference : Karol Jan BOROWIECKI, 2011. "War and Creativity: Solving the War-Art Puzzle for Classical Music Composition," Trinity Economics Papers tep0711, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Lecat's comment on this article
Dr. Lecat has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"- "Productivity paradox[edit]

Main article: Productivity paradox

Despite the proliferation of computers, productivity growth was relatively slow from the 1970s through the early 1990s.[17] Although several possible causes for the slowdown have been proposed there is no consensus. The matter is subject to a continuing debate that has grown beyond questioning whether just computers can significantly increase productivity to whether the potential to increase productivity is becoming exhausted.[18]"

=> A necessary reference here is : "Robert Solow, "We'd better watch out", New York Times Book Review, July 12, 1987, page 36".

- "Drivers of productivity growth[edit]

There is a general understanding of the main determinants – or “drivers” – of productivity growth. Certain factors are critical for determining productivity growth. The Office for National Statistics (UK) identifies five drivers that interact to underlie long-term productivity performance: investment, innovation, skills, enterprise and competition. (ONS 3, 20) Investment is in physical capital — machinery, equipment and buildings. The more capital workers have at their disposal, generally the better they are able to do their jobs, producing more and better quality output."

=> Investment increases labor productivity but not necessarily total factor productivity as it increases the volume of capital input/factor. Skills also increases the quality of the labor input and increases labor productivity but not total factor productivity. It should hence be specififed that this part addresses "Drivers of LABOR productivity growth".

- The article should refer to the current debate between techno-optimists (Brynjolfsson and Hit, Mokyr) and techno pessimists (R.Gordon) about the future of productivity growth. I can write one or two paragraphs on this debate if you wish.

- The measurement of productivity should mention the intensity of use of production factors: for labor, the article is mentionning the time spent, but for capital it should also mention capacity utilization and the capital workweek in the "Multifactor productivity" part.

-Adding a long term view would be necessary: cf graphs p12 of https://www.banque-france.fr/uploads/tx_bdfdocumentstravail/DT_475.pdf I coudl also write this part if you wish.

-overall, this article is messy and should be made less redundant: "Characteristics of production" could be removed, apart from the explanation of the concept of marginal vs average productivity."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Lecat has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


 * Reference : Bergeaud, A. & Cette, G. & Lecat, R., 2014. "Productivity trends from 1890 to 2012 in advanced countries," Working papers 475, Banque de France.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Haskel's comment on this article
Dr. Haskel has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"Quite of lot of this seems wrong or hard to understand e.g.

The accounting result of the growth accounting model is expressed as an index number, in this example 1.015, which depicts the average productivity change. As demonstrated above we cannot draw correct conclusions based on average productivity numbers. This is due to the fact that productivity is accounted as an independent variable separated from the entity it belongs to, i.e. real income formation. Hence, if we compare in a practical situation two growth accounting results of the same production process we do not know which one is better in terms of production performance. We have to know separately income effects of productivity change and production volume change or their combined income effect in order to understand which one result is better and how much better.

there are a lot, really a lot of references to Saari's work. He may be the world expert as far as i know, but there might be more references to others"

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Haskel has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


 * Reference 1: Haskel, Jonathan & Wallis, Gavin, 2010. "Public Support for Innovation, Intangible Investment and Productivity Growth in the UK Market Sector," IZA Discussion Papers 4772, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).


 * Reference 2: Corrado, Carol & Haskel, Jonathan & Jona-Lasinio, Cecilia, 2014. "Knowledge Spillovers, ICT and Productivity Growth," IZA Discussion Papers 8274, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

What is Productivity?
"Productivity is a crucial factor in production performance of firms and nations. Increasing national productivity can raise living standards because more real income improves people's ability to purchase goods and services, enjoy leisure, improve housing and education and contribute to social and environmental programs. Productivity growth also helps businesses to be more profitable.[2]" Is it really? Is productivity a factor? Surely productivity isn't a factor at all, but a means of re-describing how output and profitability arise.


 * Productivity is and has been the main source of economic growth.Phmoreno (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Does productivity growth really make businesses more profitable? Or is there an inherent logical connection through the definitions of the terms in the text such that a more profitable business is more productive by definition?Optymystic (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comparing business with all other variables held constant, the one with the highest productivity will be the most profitable.Phmoreno (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Comparing business with all other variables held constant, the most profitable will be the most one with the highest productivity. Is that because they mean the same thing?Optymystic (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No. Productivity and profitability are not the same thing.  In the real world "all other variables" are anything but the same.  It is possible for a less productive company to have higher profitability for many reasons, a common one being brand preference.  That is why advertising is a $500 billion business worldwide.Phmoreno (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Would that not require, all other variables held constant, that you can distinguish the proportion of that greater profit attributable to productivity and that attributable to brand preference. If you can't, you are in no position to counter my contention that the more profitable company has greater productivity.Optymystic (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * One example in economics is a Veblen good.Phmoreno (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Rodriguez-Lopez's comment on this article
Dr. Rodriguez-Lopez has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"This is a well written and precise article. I would not add further comments to this article. Wikipedia readers can find a very precise idea of both the concept of productivity and its implication on efficiency, welfare and economic growth."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Rodriguez-Lopez has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


 * Reference : Jesus Rodriguez Lopez, 2010. "Growth, fluctuations and technology in the U.S. post-war economy," Working Papers 10.01, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Grazzi's comment on this article
Dr. Grazzi has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"I rate the overall quality of the article below the standard of wikipedia, where by "standard of wikipedia" I refer to my perception of quality of other contributions on economics in wiki that I am aware of.

There are many sections (see below) which I do not consider relevant for an entry on 'productivity', and that I would suggest to drop. The writing is also poor.

Productivity is a lot about measurement. In extreme synthesis there are two approaches a) parametric and b) non-parametric. The former, after making some hypothesis (not all of them necessarily realistic), presents production as a mathematical function that relates inputs to output, hence estimating the productivity (both total factor and single factor) is matter of employing actual data to fit the production function that one has in mind. The latter does not assume a specific functional form and - much semplifying - measure firm's productivity in relative terms, consider how far a firm is from the most efficients in a given industry.

The productivity entry should at least presents the second approach, too. I would also suggest to include an even broader definition of production that refers to the knowledge embedded in the production process and the time (or procedural) dimension of the production process, see below for a reference. Note that for convenience, this is a reference to a work of mine, you can of course include others and not mine.

I also make some suggestion about possible contributors/reviewers. One of the greatest scholar, Chad Syverson, might not have the time to engage in this, but might suggest people willing to contribute. The same for John Haltiwanger.

More detailed comments:

"When multiple inputs are considered, such as labor and capital, it means the unaccounted for level of output compared to the level of inputs." UNACCOUNTED is not much clear.

The paragraph or section "Characteristics of production" and "Main processes of a producing company" are not much relevant for the article on productivity.

The paragraph "Production growth and performance" is relevant, but is not accurate and not well written (take for instance "Economic growth is defined as a production growth of an output of a production process"

The following paragraphs also contain inaccuracies, and again it is not clear to me their close relation to productivity. (I mostly skipped these paragraph after the very first lines)

The content becomes relevant again for an article on productivity from section "National productivity" onward. However the title of the subsection "validity" is kind of misleading

Reference on procedural/knowledge approach to production, taken from Dosi and Grazzi, Industrial and Corporate Change, Volume 15, Number 1, pp. 173–202 doi:10.1093/icc/dtj010

"Let us elaborate on the illustrative example, originally put forward by Richard Nelson and Sid Winter, of making a cake. This involves inputs, both of the "variable" kind-flour, butter, eggs, and so on - and "fixed" ones - including spoons, pots, ovens, and so on. And, clearly, there is an output, a cake, possibly with a variable taste, caloric content, and so on. Apparently, the input-output characterization is straightforward: a vector x of inputs for y (possibly a vector) of output(s). However, just turn the question to your grandmother: "how do I make a cake?" Suppose for a moment that the old lady answers "max price times output minus price of inputs times their quantities." Anyone would take that as ultimate evidence of old-age dementia. Needless to say, such an answer is also totally uninformative on how to make a cake. And so is of course the more sophisticated answer suggesting that the cake and flour, butter, sugar, and so on are related through, say, a degree-one homogeneous function! (In fact the latter statement would only further confirm the mental disorder of the poor lady...) Of course, the appropriate answer to the question on how to make a cake entails a series of procedures: "mix a couple of eggs and one ounce of butter into a pound of flour" This procedural story does involve statements on quantities (the two eggs, the ounce of butter, etc.) but such quantities make sense only in relation to specific sequences of operations. Moreover, note that the relation between such quantities and relative prices is at best indirect: one needs certain ingredients in order to make a cake and needs them irrespectively of their price (except perhaps "local" forms of substitution, such as margarine versus butter).""

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Grazzi has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


 * Reference : Xiaodan Yu & Giovanni Dosi & Marco Grazzi & Jiasu Lei, 2015. "Inside the Virtuous Cycle between Productivity, Profitability, Investment and Corporate Growth: An Anatomy of China Industrialization," LEM Papers Series 2015/03, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)