Happy Friday the thirteenth!
The Financial Times has an article today that talks about productivity diffusion, referencing a prior FT article and an OECD study on the topic, both of which I somehow missed.
In its simplest form (which suits me fine), economic growth can be broken down into two components: having more workers (or having existing workers put in more hours); or being more productive, meaning investing in machines, new business processes or worker training.
One of the bigger economic issues facing the world (US included) is the sharp dropoff in productivity growth over the past ten years or so. The OECD report that sparked the FT articles argues that the problem isn’t a drop in innovation across the board. Rather, the most productive firms in the world continue to show strong productivity growth. What’s changed is that the once-fast followers are only adopting best practices today at a much reduced rate.
Why is this? The OECD answer, which best fits the EU, I think, is that big banks are protecting low-growth, heavily indebted “zombie” firms. Their reason? The banks keep the zombies afloat (mixed metaphor, sorry) so they won’t have to write off the dud loans–calling into question the banks’ own financial viability. What’s scary about this analysis is that it calls to mind the experience of Japan in the 1990s, the first of that country’s three lost decades. Given that the Tokyo government actively protects managements from the consequences of failing to innovate, the problem of economic stagnation still afflicts Japan today.
To me the real relevance of the current lack of productivity diffusion for the US is that it speaks to the thrust of Donald Trump’s macroeconomic ideas. However well intentioned, the effect of dissuading firms from adopting productivity enhancing measures for fear of being publicly shamed and of shielding non-competitive firms from import competition will likely be the zombification of the affected portions of American industry. That is not a long-term outcome anyone wants.