Britain’s productivity problem isn’t as bad as we thought

The Office for National Statistics has changed how it measures productivity – economic output per hour worked – and it turns out we’ve been doing rather better than we realised. In particular, the government’s official statisticians now reckon the rate of growth in the decade following the global financial crisis, from 2009-2019, was 1.3% each year, on average, rather than the 0.7% they had previously thought.

Alas, this doesn’t mean the UK economic output was any higher. It simply means the statisticians have changed their minds about how many hours we worked – that is, they think it was far fewer than originally estimated. That same level of output, divided by a smaller number of hours, equals a higher resulting figure for productivity. It means the UK’s unique productivity puzzle may not have been so much of a puzzle all along – and places us in the top half of the G7 pack on productivity, rather than as an embarrassing outlier.

What did the ONS change when measuring productivity?

Previously, the ONS had largely calculated the total hours worked from the Labour Force Survey, in which respondents are asked how many hours they’ve worked in a particular week. However, for a variety of reasons (as covered in this space previously), that survey has become notoriously unreliable, with ever lower response rates.

People may report their usual or contracted hours rather than their actual hours, for example, as economist Jonathan Portes points out on his blog. Or when “respondents drop out temporarily, the survey may carry forward their previous answer – even if the reason they did not respond was that they were on holiday”. As response rates fell, the survey’s upward biases in estimating working hours worsened – with a corresponding downward bias in the calculation of productivity rates.

By contrast, the ONS’s new “component method”, already used by many other countries, draws on a wide variety of sources, including the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings – deducting for annual leave and other absences, and adjusting for overtime – as well as other business surveys. The resulting picture is one of falling average hours per job, and much slower growth in total hours, after 2008.

Is the UK getting more productive?

Yes, the revised figures suggest that people are more productive when they are working (output per hour is higher), but they are putting in fewer hours (average weekly hours are lower). Over the period from 2008 to 2024, the latest year for which we have the new figures – the difference is stark. Total output grew by only 8.7% under the ONS’s existing (“current”) approach, but 15.8% on the revised (“component”) method. On the face of it, that’s good news.

Productivity is one of the most important drivers of economic growth, living standards and the public finances. The metric slowed across advanced economies after the financial crisis, “reflecting weaker investment, the fading of the information-technology boom and other common factors”, says Portes. The fact that the UK was not, in fact, an exceptionally weak performer is good news.

Are there any caveats?

Always. Importantly, the revision doesn’t mean that productivity has recovered to pre-crisis levels – the revised annualised figure of 1.3% remains well below the pre-crisis average of 2%. Indeed, Richard Heys, ONS deputy chief economist, argues that the new methodology does not change “the fundamental story of a slowdown in productivity” following the global financial crisis and that the UK had still experienced “the slowest growth since the Second World War and arguably since the Napoleonic period”. Sadly, he’s right, says David Smith in The Sunday Times. Since 1997, the ONS reckons output per hour is 40.7% higher on the new estimate, compared with 34% on the old one.

That’s not a giant gap. Also, output per worker-hour is not the only way to measure productivity. The ONS has also looked at two other measures – output per worker and output per job, which are a “more relevant gauge” than output per hour when it comes to the impact on real wages and the public finances. In both cases, the new way of measuring alters the picture far less than with the output-per-hour metric: there has still been a drastic slowdown following the financial crisis.

Arguably, then, the revision of the ONS statistics is a worrying development. If productivity is already rising at 1.3%, it will be much harder to improve on it significantly – “leaving us stuck with wage stagnation and big fiscal challenges”. And if the UK’s productivity was less disastrous than feared, by corollary, our supposedly resilient jobs market was less impressive than assumed.

What do the latest stats show?

There are promising signs. Last month, the Resolution Foundation think tank published its own analysis of UK productivity based not on the Labour Force Survey, but on RTI payroll data (the Real Time Information system employers use to send pay data to HMRC) and on self-employment tax return data. They concluded that productivity has grown by a respectable 1.1% on average since the third quarter of 2024, having fallen 0.7% on average over the two years prior. By contrast, the latest (incomplete) “old” ONS figures – based on the LFS – show a fall of 0.2% over the past two years and 0.1% before that.

This strong uptick is not the result, say the Resolution report’s authors, of disproportionate contraction in low-productivity sectors such as retail and hospitality, nor expansion in high-tech sectors or increased use of AI. Rather, this is “a broad-based recovery, with 12 of 19 sectors seeing improved productivity growth in the past two years – including in information and communications, retail, science, transport and health”. It’s early days, and higher productivity is not a panacea, but there are at least some reasons for optimism.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek’s magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.