“Better Policies” series
Addressing the
Competitiveness Challenges
in Germany and the Euro Area
OCTOBER 2012
www.oecd.org/france
OECD
2, rue André Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16
Tel.: +33 (0) 1 45 24 82 00
OECD “Better Policies” Series
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) aims to promote better policies
for better lives by providing a forum in which governments gather to share experiences and seek solutions to
common problems. We work with our 34 members, key partners and over 100 countries to better understand
what drives economic, social and environmental change in order to foster the well-being of people around the
world. The OECD Better Policies Series provides an overview of the key challenges faced by individual countries
and our main policy recommendations to address them. Drawing on the OECD’s expertise in comparing country
experiences and identifying best practices, the Better Policies Series tailor the OECD’s policy advice to the specific
and timely priorities of member and partner countries, focusing on how governments can make reform happen.
Cover page picture : Euro-Zahnrad © arahan - fotolia.com
Addressing the
Competitiveness Challenges
in Germany and the Euro Area
Contents
SUMMARY AND MAIN CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 THE EUROPEAN PERFORMANCE IN COMPARISON .................................................................................................... 4 LONG‐TERM PROSPECTS POINT TO A WEAKER PERFORMANCE .............................................................................. 14 RESTORING COMPETITIVENESS AND ADDRESSING IMBALANCES IN THE EURO AREA .............................................. 16 SUPPORTING INNOVATION AND KNOWLEDGE BASED CAPITAL .............................................................................. 17 STRENGTHENING COMPETITION IN PRODUCT MARKETS ........................................................................................ 19 INVESTING IN HUMAN CAPITAL ............................................................................................................................. 21 IMPROVING THE FUNCTIONING OF LABOUR MARKETS .......................................................................................... 27 REFORMING TAX SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................................... 30 STATISTICAL ANNEX ............................................................................................................................................... 33 Summary and main conclusions
The current crisis and deteriorating growth prospects in many countries make a competiveness
enhancing reform agenda a conditio sine qua non to kick-off the European economy.

The euro area is faced with the double challenge of addressing diverging
competitiveness paths between its members and redressing it vis-à-vis the rest of
world. Productivity gains over the past decade have been comparatively modest and even
stagnant in some countries. Labour compensation at one extreme increased less than
productivity in Germany and at the other exceeded it by a large margin in Ireland and
Southern Europe, adding to the differences in competitiveness while driving the current
account imbalances that have built up in the euro area.

This calls for policy actions to boost productivity in all euro area countries, and to
create mechanisms allowing for a stronger link between productivity gains and
wages. Past OECD work has identified a number of areas where policy changes could help
promote stronger and more balanced growth in the euro area: they include product and
labour market reform, innovation, service liberalisation, investment in skills and
education. European countries should therefore embark on a broad strategy to strengthen
their productivity performance an act in all these areas. This is all the more important as
Europe is competing with more dynamic regions in the world.

Precise recommendations need to be adapted to each country’s specific
circumstances. For instance, in the surplus countries, including in Germany, adjustment
requires greater reliance on domestic demand, including by reforms that could unlock
opportunities for investment and consumption to contribute to the correction of imbalances
in the region.
Such a strategy could not only enhance the growth and competiveness performance of European
Countries, it would also contribute to a better balanced economy. The OECD stands ready to be a
partner in the formulation and implementation of an agenda for inclusive growth and
competitiveness in Europe. It is already working with each European country to support such a
comprehensive reform agenda.
1
Introduction
Almost all advanced OECD countries are faced with weak growth prospects. Therefore, restoring or
further improving competitiveness has become a major policy objective. Stronger competitiveness
is indeed an important way of delivering more robust growth, especially in those countries that have
accumulated large external deficits and are now facing painful adjustments.
The euro area is faced with two competitiveness challenges. First, the region as a whole has become
less competitive over the past decade: it is faced with slowing productivity growth and it has been
losing export market share in global markets, while emerging countries have gained new markets
and have moved up the value chain. Second, diverging trends in competitiveness between the
countries in external deficit and those in external surplus have fuelled internal imbalances that are at
the root of the current crisis. Some countries, such as Germany, are performing strongly largely as a
result of important and sometimes difficult reforms that have been implemented since the 1990s.
The crisis has contributed to a partial correction of imbalances in the euro area. However, for these
imbalances to be reduced durably, improvements in labour productivity and labour utilisation are
urgently needed in the deficit countries. Policies to ensure that wages move in line with productivity
are also essential. Competitiveness can also be improved by lowering non wage labour costs (i.e.
taxes on labour) in countries that have the policy space, as long as this can be done in a budget
neutral manner. In the surplus countries, adjustment requires greater reliance on domestic demand,
including by reforms that could unlock opportunities for investment and consumption. More
broadly, competitiveness-enhancing policies should go hand-in-hand with a more comprehensive
agenda to improve living standards and the well-being of the population, foster social inclusiveness
and fairness, and preserve the environment.
Against this background, this note presents a diagnosis of the medium-term performance of the euro
area economies and the drivers of competitiveness. It then presents the key policy areas where
actions could help remove obstacles to stronger growth in the euro area, promote competitiveness
and reduce imbalances.
The OECD stands ready to support the design and implementation of these structural reforms. In
particular, the OECD could, in cooperation with the EU, support the monitoring of the
implementation of structural reforms in EU countries. For that it could rely on its existing system to
monitor structural reforms through the Going for Growth country notes and the Economic Surveys,
as well as the monitoring of structural reforms already done in the context of the G20.
3
The European performance in comparison
An average position in terms of GDP per capita with important cross country differences
The euro area’s per capita GDP is around 80% of the average level of the top half of OECD
countries, below that of the G7, and close to the OECD average (Figure 1). But there is a wide gap
between the best performers (Luxembourg, Netherlands) and Greece or Portugal whose GDP per
capita is below 60% of the average level of the top half of OECD countries. Germany’s per capita
GDP at around 85% of the average level of the top half of OECD countries, is slightly below that of
the G7, but at the top-end for the 3 largest euro area countries.
Among the largest 3 euro area countries France ranks first and well above the euro area average in
terms of the level of labour productivity, either measured as GDP per employee or GDP per hour
worked (Figures 2 and 3). Germany’s productivity per worker is relatively low but it has a
comparatively high productivity per hour worked. This reflects the fact that working hours per
employee are lower than on average in the OECD (Figure 4), notably because of the importance of
part-time employment.
Figure 1. GDP per capita in selected OECD countries
Average of upper half of OECD countries = 100, 2011
Index
120
100
80
60
40
20
Mexico
Chile
Turkey
Poland
Hungary
Slovak Republic
Portugal
Czech Republic
Greece
Korea
New Zealand
Spain
Italy
Japan
France
OECD Total
United Kingdom
Euro area
Germany
Canada
Denmark
G7 countries
Australia
Sweden
Ireland
Austria
Netherlands
United States
Switzerland
0
Source : OECD Productivity Database.
4
Figure 2. Labour productivity levels in the total economy : GDP per total employment,
in selected OECD countries
Average of upper half of OECD countries = 100, 2011
Index
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
Mexico
Chile
Poland
Turkey
Hungary
Czech Republic
Portugal
Slovak Republic
New Zealand
Korea
Japan
Greece
United Kingdom
Germany
OECD Total
Canada
Euro area
Italy
Denmark
Spain
Australia
Austria
Switzerland
Netherlands
Sweden
France
G7 countries
Ireland
United States
0
Source : OECD Productivity Database.
Figure 3. Hourly labour productivity levels (GDP per hours worked)
in selected OECD countries
Average of upper half of OECD countries = 100, 2011
Index
Mexico
Chile
Poland
Hungary
Turkey
Korea
Czech Republic
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Greece
New Zealand
Japan
OECD Total
Italy
Canada
United Kingdom
Spain
Australia
Finland
Euro area
Austria
Sweden
Switzerland
G7 countries
Denmark
Germany
France
Netherlands
United States
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Note :
This chart shows the gap between hourly labour productivity in each country and the average in the
17 OECD countries with the highest productivity. As productivity is especially high in
Luxembourg and Norway (not represented here) only a few countries have an index above 100.
Source : OECD Productivity Database.
5
The euro area suffers from a high gap in hours worked (Figure 4) which affect GDP per capita
performance. This is particularly true in France. Thus is also the case in Germany despite the aboveaverage employment rate (Figure 5) resulting from the dual vocational education system which helps
keeping youth unemployment among the lowest in the OECD and labour market reforms that have
reduced the NAIRU by about 2½ percent.
Figure 4. Gap in hours worked per capita with respect to the average
of the top half of OECD countries (2011)
France
Turkey
Ireland
Spain
Euro area
Germany
Netherlands
Italy
Slovak Republic
United Kingdom
G7 countries
Denmark
Portugal
Greece
OECD Total
United States
Hungary
Sweden
Poland
Austria
Chile
Czech Republic
Australia
Japan
Canada
New Zealand
Mexico
Switzerland
Korea
Percentage points
10
5
0
‐5
‐10
‐15
‐20
‐25
‐30
‐35
‐40
‐45
Note :
This chart shows the gap between working hours in each country and average working hours in the
17 OECD countries with the longest hours worked. As working hours are especially high in Korea
and Luxembourg (not represented here) only a few countries have a positive gap.
Source : OECD Productivity Database.
Figure 5. Employment rate
Ratio of employment to working age population, 2011
Switzerland
New Zealand
Australia
Netherlands
Denmark
Canada
Korea
Sweden
Germany
Austria
Japan
United Kingdom
Mexico
United States
Czech Republic
Portugal
Ireland
Slovak Republic
Poland
France
Spain
Turkey
Hungary
Italy
Greece
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
Source : Economic Outlook database.
6
Low female participation in the labour market contributes to the low overall employment rate in
Southern European countries (Figure 6) ; in other countries like Germany female participation in the
labour market is high, but most work part-time. Low youth participation to the labour market
contributes to the low overall employment rate in Southern European countries and France (Figure 7).
Figure 6. Women employment rate (2012Q2)
% of female population
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
New Zealand
Switzerland
Canada
Netherlands
Australia
Sweden
Denmark
United States
Austria
United Kingdom
Germany
Korea
Portugal
France
Ireland
Japan
Czech Republic
Chile
Slovak Republic
Poland
Mexico
Hungary
Spain
Italy
Greece
Turkey
0
Figure 7. Youth employment and unemployment rates
A. Youth employment rate (2012Q2)
% of youth (aged 15‐24) 70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Netherlands
Switzerland
Denmark
Canada
Austria
New Zealand
Germany
United Kingdom
United States
Mexico
Sweden
Japan
Turkey
Chile
France
Ireland
Czech Republic
Poland
Korea
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Italy
Spain
Hungary
Greece
0
7
B. Youth unemployment rate (2012Q2)
%
60
50
40
30
20
10
Greece
Spain
Portugal
Ireland
Italy
Slovak Republic
Hungary
Poland
Sweden
France
United Kingdom
Czech Republic
United States
New Zealand
Chile
Turkey
Canada
Denmark
Australia
Austria
Netherlands
Mexico
Korea
Germany
Japan
Switzerland
0
An average productivity growth over the past decade
The productivity gains in the euro area over the past decade have been modest (less than 1 percent a
year on average) and well below the OECD average, Japan and the United-States (Figure 8).
Productivity has notably stagnated in Italy and increased by only 1% in Germany and France.1 The
performance of the peripheral countries has been stronger, but not commensurate to the gap in
income levels, except in Ireland. Productivity gains were much stronger in the Eastern European
countries reflecting their transition to market economies since the mid 1990s and impressive inward
FDI flows. In general, in most euro area countries, this reflects low growth in multifactor
productivity both in quantitative as well as in qualitative terms (high-tech, automotive industries)
(Figure 9).
1
The sector breakdown of productivity gains shows some quite different patterns across countries. For
instance, most of the productivity gains in Germany have been concentrated in the industrial sector while in
France they were concentrated in the service sector (Figure A2 in the annex). Redressing the stagnant
domestic services sector, which is not attractive enough for employment and investment and contributes little
to economic growth, will be a key challenge for the German economy going forward.
8
Korea
Ireland
United Kingdom
Austria
United States
Netherlands
MFP growth
Sweden
Japan
Denmark
Contribution of capital deepening
Spain
Germany
France
Australia
New Zealand
Canada
4.0
Switzerland
Italy
Italy
New Zealand
Mexico
Denmark
Australia
Canada
Switzerland
Euro area
France
Germany
Spain
Netherlands
Portugal
Greece
G7 countries
Austria
OECD Total
United Kingdom
Japan
United States
Sweden
Hungary
Ireland
Chile
Czech Republic
Poland
Slovak Republic
Turkey
Korea
Figure 8. Average labour productivity growth in 2000-2011 (total economy)
Percent per year
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Source : OECD Productivity Database.
Figure 9. Decomposition of productivity growth (2001-2010)
Percent per year
5.0
3.0
Labour productivity growth
2.0
1.0
0.0
‐1.0
‐2.0
‐3.0
Source : OECD Productivity Database, October 2012.
9
Diverging trends in competitiveness
The divergence in unit labour costs within the euro area mainly reflects a stronger divergence in
labour compensation. On the one hand, labour compensation increased very modestly in Germany
resulting in flat unit labour costs (ULC) in nominal terms since 2000 (Figures 10 and 11) ; unit
labour costs even declined between 2001-07 as labour compensation growth was lower than
productivity gains. This is exceptional in the euro area as well as in the OECD. Only Japan, a
country in deflation, has posted lower ULC increases. As a result of wage moderation, Germany is
also the only euro area country (with Finland) to have posted a decline in the real effective
exchange rate over the past decade, in spite of a stronger euro area exchange rate vis-à-vis major
economies like the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan (Figure 12).
By contrast, more dynamic labour compensation, despite moderate or stagnant productivity in some
other countries in the euro area (including Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain), has led to strong ULC
growth over this period. This divergence has been the main driver of the trade and current account
imbalances that have built up in the euro area since its inception. Since the crisis however, this
divergence has started to reverse, reflecting both slower productivity gains and higher wage
increases in Germany, and stronger productivity gains and more wage moderation in countries like
Ireland and Spain. However, unit labour costs have not yet started to adjust downwards in France
and Italy, where labour compensation growth continues to remain dynamic despite stagnant
productivity.
Figure 10. Unit labour costs¹ (2000=100)
Unit Labour Costs Index 2000 = 1 1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
Germany
Spain
France
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
EA15 Average
1.2
ITA
PRT
FRA
ESP
EA15
IRL
GRC
DEU
1.1
1
0.9
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Note :
The euro area 15 average is GDP-weighted. The figures for 2012 to 2014 are preliminary
Economic Outlook 92 (November 2012) forecasts.
Source : OECD Economic Outlook database.
10
Figure 11. Decomposition of unit labour costs, total economy, annual average growth
%
A. 2001-2011
Mexico
New Zealand
Hungary
Australia
Slovak Republic
Denmark
Greece
Canada
UNIT LABOUR COSTS
United Kingdom
Italy
Spain
Ireland
France
Portugal
Czech Republic
LABOUR COMPENSATION
Netherlands
Euro area
Korea
Austria
Switzerland
Poland
Sweden
Germany
Japan
LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY
United States
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
B. 2001-2007
% 10
Australia
Hungary
New Zealand
Mexico
Australia
Hungary
New Zealand
Mexico
Slovak Republic
Denmark
Canada
UNIT LABOUR COSTS
United Kingdom
Italy
Spain
Ireland
France
Portugal
United States
Czech Republic
Netherlands
Euro area
Korea
Austria
Switzerland
Poland
Sweden
Germany
Japan
LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY LABOUR COMPENSATION
Greece
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
C. 2007-2011
Note :
Slovak Republic
Denmark
Canada
Greece
United Kingdom
UNIT LABOUR COSTS
Italy
Spain
Ireland
France
Portugal
United States
Czech Republic
Netherlands
LABOUR COMPENSATION
Euro area
Korea
Austria
Switzerland
Poland
Sweden
LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY
Japan
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
Germany
% 8
Countries are ranked according to the period 2001-2011. Information on total hours worked is not
available for all countries in all periods and so proxies, such as employees or the numbers of
persons employed are used instead. This means that the labour productivity estimates shown above
are not necessarily identical to those sourced from the OECD Productivity Database.
Source : OECD Labour Costs Database, October 2012
Figure 12. Real effective exchange rate
Cumulated percentage change, 2000-2011
%
80
60
40
20
0
‐20
Australia
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Canada
Hungary
New Zealand
Chile
Switzerland
Spain
Greece
Denmark
Ireland
Poland
Netherlands
Italy
France
Portugal
Turkey
Mexico
Austria
Sweden
Germany
Korea
United Kingdom
United States
Japan
‐40
Source : Economic Outlook 91 (May 2012) Database.
Outside the euro area, unit labour costs have also increased but from lower absolute levels (Mexico,
eastern European countries) or have been compensated by depreciating exchange rates (eg United
States, United Kingdom).
12
Losses in trade market shares
Over the past decade most advanced OECD countries have been losing export market share to
emerging-market countries, which have experienced strong productivity gains while keeping
competitive wages. Losses in export market shares have been especially large for the euro area
countries. Germany has been the only country with gains in international market shares (Figure 13).
The Eastern European countries (either within or outside the euro area) have shown considerably
larger market gains than Germany, reflecting the opening of these economies, combined with a
business friendly environment, low cost levels, and large incoming FDI.
Figure 13. Export performance
Cumulated gains or losses in market share, percentage change, 2000-2011
%
Greece
Australia
Canada
Italy
New Zealand
France
Japan
Chile
United Kingdom
Denmark
United States
Switzerland
Portugal
Sweden
Austria
Spain
Netherlands
Turkey
Ireland
Germany
Mexico
Korea
Poland
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Hungary
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
‐10
‐20
‐30
‐40
‐50
Note :
Export performance measures the relative gain and losses of world market share of a given country.
If a country’s exports are growing faster (slower) that the weighted average demand from its
partners, it is gaining (loosing) market share.
Source : Economic Outlook 91 (May 2012) Database.
13
Long-term prospects point to a weaker performance
Ageing will weigh on potential employment
Going forward, several euro area countries will be faced by a very rapid ageing of their population
(Figure 14). This is particularly true in Italy and Germany where the ratio of the working population
to the population above 65 will decline from 5 and 4 respectively to less than 2 in 2050.
Figure 14. Old age dependency ratios
Working age population (20-64) per Retirement age population (65+)
Brazil
US
China
Sweden
UK
France
OECD
1970
Germany
2010
2050
Italy
Japan
0
2
4
6
8
10
Working age population per Retirement age population 12
This will lead to negative potential employment growth (Figure 15 panel B). If productivity gains
remain comparatively modest, the growth performance in the medium term for most euro area
countries will be very weak. (Figure 15, panels A and C). This underlines the need for all euro area
countries to continue efforts to boost productivity.
14
2031‐2050
%
%
1.
As a % of mainland potential GDP.
Source : OECD Economic Outlook 91 (May 2012) long-term database.
Russian Federation
South Africa
Brazil
Indonesia
China
India
Germany
Japan
Austria
Denmark
Italy
Euro area
Portugal
Netherlands
France
United Kingdom
Canada
Switzerland
Poland
Total OECD Sweden
Spain
Greece
United States
Korea
Ireland
Slovak Republic
New Zealand
Hungary
Czech Republic
Australia
Mexico
Chile
Turkey
%
Russian Federation
China
Brazil
Indonesia
South Africa
India
Poland
Japan
Korea
Hungary
Greece
Germany
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Netherlands
Italy
Czech Republic
Total OECD Austria
Euro area
France
Switzerland
Chile
Denmark
Sweden
Turkey
Canada
United Kingdom
Mexico
New Zealand
Ireland
Australia
United States
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Russian Federation
South Africa
Brazil
India
China
Indonesia
Ireland
France
United States
Sweden
Euro area
Austria
Germany
Greece
United Kingdom
Australia
Spain
Korea
Netherlands
Italy
Turkey
Canada
Slovak Republic
Denmark
Switzerland
Czech Republic
Poland
Portugal
Total OECD Chile
Japan
New Zealand
Hungary
Mexico
Long-term growth of potential output and its two sub-components
Figure 15. Long-term growth, potential employment growth
and potential labour productivity growth
Annual average of sub-periods, percentage change
A : Long-term growth of real potential output
2012‐2017
B : Potential employment growth – 2031 to 2050
1
0.5
0
‐0.5
‐1
‐1.5
C : Potential labour productivity growth – 2031 to 2050
4
3
2
1
0
Restoring competitiveness and addressing imbalances in the euro area
The poor or insufficient productivity performance in most euro area countries over the past decade
and the challenges of coping with population ageing calls for stronger productivity gains going
forward, including in Germany, despite its strong performance in many areas. As long as the gains
are wider in southern European countries this should also contribute to a reduction of imbalances
within the whole euro area.
Previous OECD work has identified a number of reforms where policy changes could boost
productivity: they include innovation, regulation of labour and product markets, taxation, and
investment in skills and education. The relative position of the euro area countries on this broad
range of policy dimensions are detailed in the following section.
All euro area countries have to make efforts in these areas. Precise recommendations need,
however, to be adapted to each country’s specific circumstances. Wide ranging reforms already
taking place in Spain and Italy and being considered in France are going in the right direction, but
need to be implemented and continued. The indicators presented below may not yet fully capture
the recent efforts carried out in high reforming countries like Spain, Italy, etc.
Competitiveness also depends on a wide range of non-cost factors including products’ variety and
quality, technological innovation, specialisation and integration in global supply chains. These nonprice factors are driven by structural features, notably the development of human capital, the
business environment and innovation policies which also drive productivity.
Wage compensation can also contribute to narrowing imbalances in the euro area and support
competitiveness of the zone as a whole. In the short term this requires not only moderation in deficit
countries, but also further wages catch up with past productivity gains in Germany. More
fundamentally it calls for mechanisms allowing for a stronger link between productivity gains and
wages.
16
Supporting innovation and knowledge based capital
Innovation plays a key role for productivity enhancement. With some non-OECD economies
accounting for a growing share of global R&D, stepping up innovation is crucial for boosting
Europe’s competitiveness and achieving sustainable growth in the longer term. This is a particular
challenge in Southern European countries, whereas Germany and Austria remain very well
positioned and ahead of other euro area countries. With 2.8% of GDP spent on R&D, Germany
accounts for almost 30% of EU27’s total R&D (Figure 16).
Business R&D intensity is insufficient in most euro area countries, including France and Italy. On
In 2011 business R&D spending (BERD) in Germany was 1.92% of GDP, well above the OECD
and the EU27 averages, thanks to an economic structure highly skewed towards manufacturing and
high tech sectors. There is however a bias in this support for export oriented manufacturing and in
favour of incremental innovations of existing products and processes within existing firms. This
may harm the adaptability of the German innovation system and businesses to further changes in
international demand and notably the development of services going forward.
Researchers, per thousand employees
Figure 16. R&D in OECD and non-OECD countries, 2009
FIN
BRIICS
North America
EU27
Other OECD members
R&D Volumes in 2000 USD constant prices and PPP
16.0
1 Billion
10 Billion
14.0
ISL
DNK
100 Billion
12.0
JPN
NOR
NZL
SWE
USA
10.0
KOR
PRT
FRA
CAN
EST
ESP
RUS
SVK
6.0
CZE
AUT
AUS
GBR
8.0
BEL
IRL
DEU
SVN
LUX
CHE
NLD
HUN
GRC
4.0
ITA
POL
TUR
2.0
MEX
CHN
ZAF
CHL
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Gross domestic expenditures on
R&D as a percentage of GDP
Source : OECD, STI Scoreboard 2011, based on Main Science and Technology Indicators Database,
June 2011.
17
Three types of knowledge based assets can be distinguished : computerised information (software
and databases) ; innovative property (patents, copyrights, designs, trademarks) ; and economic
competencies (including brand equity, firm-specific human capital, networks joining people and
institutions, and organisational know-how that increases enterprise efficiency). The shift to
investment in knowledge-based assets from 1995 to 2009 is a striking trend across all advanced
economies. European countries still show a lower propensity to invest in these assets than the
United States. The only exception is the UK whose propensity to invest in KBC is the highest in
Europe, and which, like the United States, invests more in knowledge-based assets than it does in
physical capital such as machinery, equipment and buildings (ie tangible assets) (Figure 17).
Further supporting innovation will require targeted policies (which depend on each country’s
specific position and strengths and weaknesses in this area2) but also improvement of the broader
framework conditions, including the business environment and human capital.
Figure 17. Investment in fixed and intangible assets, 2009
as a percentage of GDP
%
Tangible investment
Software
R&D and other intellectual property products
Brand equity, firm-specific human capital, organisational capital
25
20
15
10
5
0
United Kingdom
Ireland
United States
Germany
France
Greece
Netherlands
Sweden
Denmark
Italy
Portugal
Spain
Austria
Czech Republic
Source : Corrado, C., J. Haskel, C. Jona-Lasinio and M. Iommi (2012), “Intangible capital and growth in
advanced economies : Measurement methods and comparative results”, Imperial College Business
School Discussion Papers, No. 2012/06
2
See OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook, 2012
18
Strengthening competition in product markets
Increased product market competition is essential to support innovation and productivity.
Furthermore, increased competition may affect the wage-bargaining process and increase the
sensitivity of wages to productivity gains.
Several Southern euro area countries with strict product market regulation have implemented
product market deregulation following the crisis. Even in countries where overall product market
regulation is not restrictive compared to other OECD or euro area countries there is room for further
action (Figure 18). For instance, while the overall restrictiveness of regulation is below the OECD
average in Germany, Italy and Spain, the retail sector in these countries and the professional
services sector in Germany and Italy are characterised by strict regulation (Figure 19). Germany has
undertaken piecemeal action to lower barriers for entrepreneurship in professional services (notably
a simplification and adjustment of architects’ fees regulation), but other countries with very strict
regulation of professional services, like Italy, have launched more ambitious reforms. Reforms in
these areas could help foster a greater reliance on domestic demand in Germany by unlocking
opportunities for investment and consumption in the service sector, and thereby contributing to the
reduction of imbalances in the euro area.
Index
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Figure 18. Restrictiveness of economy-wide product market regulation
(Index scale of 0-6 from least to most restrictive)
2008
2003
China
Russia
India
Indonesia
South Africa
Brazil
Greece
Poland
Turkey
Mexico
Chile
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
Korea
France
Austria
Portugal
OECD
EU
Italy
New Zealand
Germany
Sweden
Australia
Hungary
Japan
Switzerland
Denmark
Spain
Canada
Netherlands
Ireland
United States
United Kingdom
Note :
The OECD Indicators of Product Market Regulation (PMR) are a comprehensive and
internationally-comparable set of indicators that measure the degree to which policies promote or
inhibit competition in areas of the product market where competition is viable. They measure the
economy-wide regulatory and market environments in 30 OECD countries in (or around) 1998,
2003 and 2008, and in another 4 OECD countries (Chile, Estonia, Israel and Slovenia) as well as
Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russia and South Africa around 2008 ; they are consistent across
time and countries. Users of the data must be aware that they may no longer fully reflect the current
situation in fast reforming countries.
1.
This is a simple average of two indicators (regulatory and administrative opacity and administrative
burdens on start-ups) in the domain "barriers to entrepreneurship".
Source : OECD (2011), Product Market Regulation Database and Woelfl, A. et al. (2010), "Product Market
Regulation : Extending the analysis beyond OECD countries", OECD Economics Department
Working Papers, No. 799.
Figure 19. Sectoral regulation in retail and professional services
(Index scale of 0-6 from least to most restrictive)
A. Retail sector
5
Index
2008
2003
4
3
2
1
0
China
Russia
Brazil
Austria
Greece
Poland
France
Canada
Chile
Portugal
Denmark
Spain
Italy
United States
Japan
Germany
EU
Mexico
OECD
Netherlands
Hungary
New Zealand
United Kingdom
Czech Republic
Australia
Turkey
Korea
Ireland
Slovak Republic
Switzerland
Sweden
B. Professional services
5
Index
2008
2003
4
3
2
1
0
China
South Africa
India
Turkey
Italy
Hungary
Canada
Germany
Greece
Poland
Austria
Portugal
Chile
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Korea
EU
OECD
France
Spain
New Zealand
Mexico
Japan
Australia
Switzerland
Netherlands
Denmark
United States
Ireland
United Kingdom
Sweden
Note :
The OECD cross-section sectoral indicators measure regulatory conditions in the professional
services and retail distribution sectors. The retail indicators cover barriers to entry, operational
restrictions, and price controls. The professional services indicators cover entry and conduct
regulation in the legal, accounting, engineering, and architectural professions. Users of the data
must be aware that they may no longer fully reflect the current situation in fast reforming countries.
Source : OECD (2011), Product Market Regulation Database.
20
Investing in human capital
A highly skilled workforce is one of the main drivers of productivity and long-term growth.
Education also plays a key role in reducing social inequalities.
Further improving the quality of secondary education remains a priority in many euro area
countries, including Spain, France and Italy (Figures 20 and 21). It is also important that education
systems, especially in France and Germany, play a larger role in promoting social mobility by
providing all children with equal chances, independently of their social background (Figure 22).
While Germany’s scores on educational attainment and achievements are comparatively high up to
the level of secondary education, tertiary education remains a challenge. Despite progress, Germany
scores relatively poorly on tertiary education (Figures 23 and 24). An estimated 42% of young
people in Germany are expected to enter tertiary-type A programmes in their lifetime (OECD
average : 62%), and an estimated 30% of young people are expected to graduate from them (OECD
average : 39%). Moreover, an estimated 21% of young people in Germany are expected to enter
tertiary-type B (vocationally oriented) programmes (OECD average : 17%), and an estimated 14%
are expected to graduate from them (OECD average : 10%). This reflects the still segmented school
system, which does not encourage enough tertiary studies. Germany needs to step up efforts to
prepare a large share of a cohort for tertiary studies by further reducing early tracking and streaming
of students as well as increasing the permeability of its successful dual vocational training system.
Furthermore, though progress has been made in recent years, it should allow all universities greater
autonomy. Another challenge is to promote student’s enrolment in science-related fields which
would help support further innovation (Figure 25).
In most EU countries, extra-EU immigrants are predominantly low skilled in comparison with other
parts of the OECD area that manage to attract relatively more high-skilled workers (Figure 26). A
stronger EU-level migration policy can help ease future skill shortages. The European Blue Card,
which offers extra-EU immigrants a scheme that grants free movement within the EU, is a step in
the right direction. However, some EU countries have still not passed national legislation to make
this possible.
21
Figure 20. Graduation rates in upper secondary education
%
120
First‐time graduation, 2009
General programmes, 2009
First‐time graduation, 2005²
100
80
60
40
20
0
Brazil
China
Russia
Indonesia
India³
Japan
Greece
United Kingdom
Ireland
New Zealand
Switzerland
Korea
Hungary
Denmark
Poland
Germany
Czech Republic
EU
OECD
Slovak Republic
Italy
Canada
United States
Spain
Sweden
Chile
Portugal
Mexico
Turkey
Note :
Graduation in both general and vocational programmes, unless mentioned otherwise
1.
Data refer to 2010 for China ; 2008 for Canada, Greece, India, Portugal and Switzerland
2.
For Brazil and Russia, data for 2005 refer to general programmes. Comparable data does not exist
for Germany due to a statistical break.
3.
Data for upper secondary education in India are defined as 19 years-old who completed upper
secondary education
Source : OECD (2011), Education at a Glance ; China Statistical Yearbook and India National Sample
Survey (2007/8).
Figure 21. Educational achievement :
Average of PISA scores in reading, mathematics and science
PISA score
600
550
OECD average
2009
2006
500
450
400
350
300
Russian …
Brazil
Indonesia
Austria
Korea
Finland
Canada
New Zealand
Japan
Australia
Netherlands
Norway
Switzerland
Poland
United States
Sweden
Germany
Ireland
France
Chinese Taipei
Denmark
United Kingdom
Hungary
Portugal
Italy
Greece
Spain
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
Luxembourg
Turkey
Chile
Mexico
Source : OECD (2010), PISA 2009 Database.
Figure 22. Impact of social background on pupils’ performance
Strength of the relationship between performance and socio‐economic background above the OECD average impact
Strength of the relationship between performance and socio‐economic background not statistically significantly different from the OECD average impact
Strength of the relationship between performance and socio‐economic background below the OECD average impact
600
Above‐average reading performance
Above‐average impact of socio‐economic background
550
Shanghai‐China
Above‐average reading performance
Below‐average impact of socio‐economic background
Hungary
500
450
Finland
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Japan
Netherlands
United States Ireland
Germany
France
Portugal
Greece
Italy United Kingdom
Slovak Republic Spain
Czech Republic
Austria
Turkey
Chile
Mexico
Brazil
400
Argentina
350
Below‐average reading performance
Above‐average impact of socio‐
economic background
Indonesia
OECD Mean score, OECD average = 500
Korea
Below‐average reading performance
Below‐average impact of socio‐
economic background
300
30
25
20
15
10
Percentage of variance in performance explained by the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (r‐squared x 100)
5
0
Figure 23. First-time graduation rates at tertiary-type A and B education (%, 1995 and 2010)
Tertiary-type A (2010)
Tertiary-type B (2010)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Mexico
Turkey
Spain
Austria
Germany (3)
Hungary
Switzerland
Italy (1)
Canada(2)
Sweden
Czech Republic
United States
OECD average
Portugal
Japan
Netherlands
Ireland(1)
New Zealand
Slovak Republic
Australia(1,2)
Denmark
United Kingdom…
Poland1
Note :
Users of the data must be aware that they may no longer fully reflect the current situation in fast
reforming countries.
1.
Data refer to 2008 for Australia, Canada, and Greece.
2.
For Brazil, Indonesia and Russia, data refer to first degree graduation in years 2006 and 2009.
3.
Data for tertiary education refer to the 24 years-old and over who got graduated.
Source : OECD (2011), Education at a Glance ; China Statistical Yearbook and India National Sample
Survey (2007/8).
Figure 24. Population that has attained tertiary education (2010, or latest year available)
Percentage, by age group
70 %
60
50
25-34 year-olds
55-64 year-olds
40
30
20
0
Korea
Japan
Canada
Ireland
New Zealand
United…
Australia
France
United States
Sweden
Netherlands
Switzerland
Spain
Chile
OECD…
Denmark
Poland
Greece
Germany
Hungary
Portugal
Slovak…
Czech…
Mexico
Austria
Italy
Turkey
10
Source : OECD. Table A1.3a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2012).
Figure 25. Tertiary graduates in science-related fields among
25-34 year-olds in employment, by gender (2009)
Number of graduates per 100.000 employed
5,000
4,500
Total
Men
Women
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Hungary
Netherlands
Mexico
United States
Spain
Turkey
Portugal
Sweden
Japan
Austria
Denmark
Chile
Czech Republic
Germany
OECD average
Poland
Switzerland
Canada1
Ireland
Slovak Republic
Australia1
United Kingdom
France
New Zealand
Korea
Note :
Science-related fields include life sciences ; physical sciences, mathematics and statistics,
computing ; engineering and engineering trades, manufacturing and processing, architecture and
building. Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of tertiary science-related
graduates in tertiary-type A programmes per 100 000 employed 25-34 year-olds.
1.
Year of reference 2008 for the number of graduates.
Source : OECD. Table A4.6. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2011).
25
Figure 26. Immigrants by level of education
Share in the total born of foreign-born, 2005/06, %
26
Improving the functioning of labour markets
Labour markets play a central role in boosting productivity by channelling investment in human
capital to its more effective use, and facilitating the adjustment of the economy in a changing world.
They also have an important role in making growth more inclusive.
Many countries in Europe are faced with dualism in the labour market between the well protected
workers on permanent contracts, and the less protected workers in temporary contracts who bear the
brunt of labour market adjustment. This stems mainly from strict employment protection for regular
employment, often combined with the lax protection for temporary employment (Figure 27). It is
essential to unify job protection for all workers in Europe.
Further progress in wage setting mechanisms can also play an important supportive role in
strengthening the responsiveness of wages to productivity. Experience in OECD countries suggests
that decentralised wage bargaining can help wages to better reflect productivity gains. Several euro
area countries have already taken measures in this direction, with a visible impact on wage
settlements. Spain, Greece and Ireland have eased the conditions for firms to opt out from higherlevel collective bargaining agreements, and Ireland has reformed sectoral wage agreements. In Italy,
the 2011 agreement promoting the so called second-tier (firm-level) wage bargaining has had little
effect so far.
27
Figure 27. Employment Protection Legislation (EPL)
Scale from 0 (least stringent) to 6 (most restrictive)
A. Protection for regular employment
4
Indonesia
India
China
Russia
South Africa
Brazil
Portugal
Czech Republic
Germany
Sweden
Netherlands
Chile
Turkey
Slovak Republic
Spain
France
EU²
Korea
Austria
Greece
Mexico
OECD²
Poland
Hungary
Japan
Italy
Denmark
Ireland
New Zealand
Australia
Canada
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States
Brazil
Indonesia
India
China
Russia
South Africa
Turkey
Mexico
France
Spain
Greece
Chile
Portugal
Italy
EU²
OECD²
Poland
Austria
Korea
Hungary
Denmark
New Zealand
Germany
Netherlands
Switzerland
Japan
Sweden
Czech Republic
Australia
Ireland
United Kingdom
Slovak Republic
United States
Canada
China
South Africa
Russia
Indonesia
India
Brazil
Italy
Switzerland
Sweden
Slovak Republic
Mexico
Germany
Poland
Greece
Austria
EU²
Spain
Denmark
Netherlands
United States
United Kingdom
Hungary
Australia
OECD²
Canada
Turkey
Ireland
France
Czech Republic
Portugal
Korea
Japan
New Zealand
Chile
2.
Note :
2009 for France and Portugal. In panel C, values for Brazil, India and Indonesia are equal to zero in
2008.
In 2005, OECD and EU averages exclude Chile, Estonia, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg and Slovenia.
The OECD indicators of employment protection are synthetic indicators of the strictness of
regulation on dismissals see www.oecd.org/employment/protection.
1.
2005
2008¹
5
4
3
2
1
0
2005
2008¹
5
4
3
2
1
0
2005
2008¹
5
3
2
1
0
B. Protection for temporary employment
C. Additional protection on collective dismissals
Source : OECD (2011), Employment Database.
28
Figure 28. Coverage rates of collective bargaining agreements 1
Per cent of all workers
%
100
2010 or last available²
2005²
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
South Africa
Brazil
Indonesia
Austria
Sweden
France
Finland
Spain
Netherlands
Italy
Denmark
EU
Greece
Germany
OECD
Switzerland
Portugal
Ireland
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
Australia
Poland
Hungary
United Kingdom
Canada
Turkey
New Zealand
Japan
United States
Korea
Mexico
1.
The coverage rate is measured as the percentage of workers who are covered by collective
bargaining agreements, regardless of whether or not they belong to a trade union.
2.
For 2010, the last available year is 2009 for Canada, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Hungary,
Italy, Portugal, Slovak Republic, and the United Kingdom ; 2008 for, Brazil, France, Greece,
Indonesia, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, South Africa, Spain, Sweden
and Switzerland ; 2007 for Australia, Denmark, and New Zealand ; 2006 for Turkey. For 2005,
data refer to 2006 for Korea, Switzerland and Slovak Republic ; 2004 for Spain ; 2003 for Brazil,
Indonesia and New-Zealand ; 2002 for Austria, Denmark, France, Ireland, Mexico and Turkey ;
2001 for Australia and Chile ;
Source : OECD estimates and J. Visser, Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies (2011), ICTWSS
Database on Institutions, Coordination, Trade Unions, Wage Setting and Social Pacts
(version 3.0).
29
Reforming tax systems
European countries are characterised by relatively high average and marginal tax wedges on labour
(Figure 29). Another way to improve competitiveness is to reduce the tax wedge. In the current
fiscal context, such measures have to be implemented in a “revenue-neutral” fashion. This can be
achieved, for example, by reallocating the fiscal burden away from labour income onto taxation of
property and environmental taxes.
Country specific issues also have to be addressed. For instance, in Germany and Italy, it is
important to lower the tax wedge for second earners (which are among the highest in the OECD) in
order to support women’s participation in the labour market3.
In addition, the continuing downward trend in statutory corporate income tax rates suggests that
many countries see lower rates as a way to promote domestic investment, including by making their
economy more competitive as a location for FDI. The rates in France, Germany, Belgium and
Portugal are among the highest in the OECD (Figure 30).
A reduction in the tax wedge and corporate tax rates could be achieved by a rebalancing of taxation
towards indirect taxes and green taxes. A reduction in public spending in the countries where it is
comparatively high, including in Germany, could also create room for such tax reductions. Indeed,
in several countries, a high tax wedge and corporate tax rate correspond to high government
expenditure as a share of GDP and high public employment in the labour force (Figure 31 and 32).
Figure 29. Marginal tax wedge on labour, at 100% of average worker earnings,
single person without children
Percentage of total labour compensation
%
2011
2007
Chile
Mexico
New Zealand
Korea
Switzerland
Japan
United States
Canada
Poland
Ireland
Australia
United Kingdom
OECD
Denmark
Turkey
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Greece
EU
Czech Republic
Netherlands
Portugal
Hungary
Italy
Germany
Austria
France
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1.
Measured as the difference between the change in total labour compensation paid by employers and
the change in the net take-home pay of employees, as a result of an extra unit of national currency
of labour income. The difference is expressed as a percentage of the change in total labour
compensation.
2.
Data refer to 2010 for Greece.
3.
Wage figures are based on the old definition of average worker (ISIC D, rev3.).
Source : OECD (2012), Taxing Wages Database
3
In combination with policies to increase the supply and financing of childcare.
Figure 30. Statutory corporate income tax rates, 2012
(Combination (where appropriate) of both central and sub-central rates of tax)
45
%
40
35
OECD Average: 2012 25.3%
30
25
20
15
10
5
Ireland
Chile
Slovak Republic
Poland
Hungary
Czech Republic
Turkey
Greece
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Korea
Netherlands
Denmark
Austria
Canada
Sweden
Italy
New Zealand
Spain
Mexico
Australia
Germany
Portugal
France
Japan
United States
0
Source : OECD Tax Database Table II.1
Figure 31. General government expenditures as a percentage of GDP (2001, 2007 and 2010)
%
70
60
50
2010
2001
2007
40
30
20
10
Ireland
Denmark
France
Japan
Austria
Sweden
Portugal
Netherlands
Italy
United Kingdom
Greece
Hungary
Germany
OECD31
Spain
Poland
Czech Republic
Canada
United States
New Zealand
Slovak Republic
Turkey
Australia
Switzerland
Korea
Chile
Mexico
0
31
25
Denmark
Sweden
France
Hungary
United Kingdom
Canada
Ireland
Australia
OECD32
United States
Italy
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Spain
Netherlands
Portugal
Turkey
Austria
Germany
New Zealand
Poland
Switzerland
Chile
Mexico
Greece
Japan
Korea
Figure 32. Employment in general government as a percentage of the labour force
(2001 and 2009)
35
%
30
2009
2001
20
15
10
5
0
32
Statistical Annex
Figure A1. Differences in GDP per capita level, 2011, in % of 17 best performing OECD
countries
Percentage gap in GDP
per capita
Luxembourg
=
Percentage gap in
hours worked per capita
+ Percentage gap in GDP
per hour worked
100
Norway
Switzerland
United States
Netherlands
Austria
Australia
Ireland
Sweden
Denmark
Canada
Germany
Belgium
Finland
Iceland
United Kingdom
France
Japan
Italy
Spain
Korea
New Zealand
Israel
Slovenia
Greece
Czech Republic
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Estonia
Hungary
Poland
Turkey
Chile
Mexico
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
-80 -60 -40 -20 0
20 40 60 80
-80 -60 -40 -20 0
20 40 60 80
Source : OECD Productivity Database, October 2012
33
Figure A2. Sectors’ contribution to growth in value added per hour worked,
in percentage points
2001-2011
5.0
Industry
Construction
Business sector services
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Note :
SWE
SVN
SVK
PRT
NOR
NLD
ITA
IRL
HUN
FRA
FIN
EST
ESP
DNK
DEU
CZE
AUT
-1.0
The total is represented by the non-agricultural business sector, excluding real estate services.
“Industry” covers manufacturing, mining and utilities. “Business sector services” cover distributive
trade, repair, accommodation, food and transport services ; information and telecommunication ;
financial and insurance ; professional, scientific and support activities ; arts and entertainment and
other repair services.
Source : OECD Annual National Accounts, October 2012
34
Australia
United…
Denmark
Italy
Hungary
Portugal
Spain
LABOUR COMPENSATION
France
Korea
Euro area
Netherlands
Austria
Greece
Poland
Germany
Sweden
LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY
UNIT LABOUR COSTS
Czech Republic
Ireland
12
8
4
0
-4
-8
-12
Slovak…
Figure A3. Decomposition of unit labour costs, industry, annual average growth, in %
2001-2011
2001-2007
Australia
United Kingdom
Denmark
Italy
Hungary
LABOUR COMPENSATION
Spain
France
Korea
Euro area
Netherlands
Austria
Greece
Poland
Germany
Sweden
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
Ireland
LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY
UNIT LABOUR COSTS
Portugal
12
8
4
0
-4
-8
-12
2007-2011
Note :
Australia
United Kingdom
Denmark
Italy
Hungary
Portugal
France
LABOUR COMPENSATION
Korea
Euro area
Netherlands
Austria
Greece
Poland
Germany
Sweden
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
Ireland
LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY
UNIT LABOUR COSTS
Spain
12
8
4
0
-4
-8
-12
Countries are ranked according to the overall period 2001-2011. Industry covers manufacturing,
mining and energy. Information on total hours worked is not available for all countries in all
periods and so proxies, such as employees or the numbers of persons employed are used, instead.
This means that the labour productivity estimates shown above are not necessarily identical to
those sourced from the OECD Productivity Database.
Source : OECD Labour Costs Database, October 2012
35
Decomposition of unit labour costs, market services, annual average growth, in %
2001-2011
Slovak Republic
Hungary
Poland
Czech Republic
Australia
Finland
Spain
UNIT LABOUR COSTS
Italy
Denmark
France
Ireland
Portugal
Greece
LABOUR COMPENSATION
United Kingdom
Euro area
Netherlands
Austria
Sweden
Germany
LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY
Korea
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
2001-2007
Poland
Hungary
Slovak Republic
Poland
Hungary
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Australia
Finland
Spain
UNIT LABOUR COSTS
Italy
Denmark
France
Ireland
Portugal
Greece
LABOUR COMPENSATION
United Kingdom
Euro area
Netherlands
Austria
Sweden
Germany
LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY
Korea
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
2007-2011
Note :
Czech Republic
Australia
Finland
Spain
UNIT LABOUR COSTS
Italy
Denmark
France
Ireland
Portugal
Greece
LABOUR COMPENSATION
United Kingdom
Euro area
Netherlands
Austria
Sweden
Germany
LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY
Korea
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
Countries are ranked according to the period 2001-2011. Market Services cover distributive trade,
repairs, transport, accommodation ; information and communication ; financial and insurance ; real
estate activities ; professional, scientific, technical and support services activities. Information on total
hours worked is not available for all countries in all periods and so proxies, such as employees or the
numbers of persons employed are used, instead. This means that the labour productivity estimates
shown above are not necessarily identical to those sourced from the OECD Productivity Database.
Source : OECD Labour Costs Database, October 2012
36
“Better Policies” series
Addressing the
Competitiveness Challenges
in Germany and the Euro Area
OCTOBER 2012
www.oecd.org/france
OECD
2, rue André Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16
Tel.: +33 (0) 1 45 24 82 00