No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 March 2020
This note outlines some of the problems in measuring short-run changes in manpower costs and lists some of the statistical series now available for major industrial countries. Information about changes in the cost of labour provides a useful complement to data about export prices for analysis of the development of a country's competitive position. Each type of indicator has its own drawbacks. For example, for some exports prices are set by competitive world markets and a change in competitiveness may take the form of a change in relative profits rather than a change in price. Moreover, there are well-known difficulties in comparing national indices for prices or unit/average values. For production costs per unit of output, too, there are problems of compilation. There are also problems of interpretation, particularly over very short periods, because the measures can be very erratic. In the field of unit costs it has become usual to focus attention on changes in manpower costs, variously defined, partly because such costs are the most important, and partly because costs of materials (to the extent that they are set by world prices) tend to move more closely in line as between different countries.
(1) See Department of Employment, Employment and Productivity Gazette, September 1968, page 720, and September 1970, page 765. (The data for EEC countries were drawn from material published by the Statistical Office of the European Communities and the definitions used in the comparisons may not be completely consistent.)
(1) US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor Review, August 1962, March 1965, April 1967, and September 1970. For an earlier discussion of the prob lem, see Donald MacDougall, ‘The World Dollar Problem’, London, 1957, Appendix IIIB, pages 445-9.
(1) The same is true of Sweden and, according to unpublished estimates which B. Hughes of The Flinders University of South Australia kindly made available to us, of the Netherlands. Hughes believes, however, that the official figures for Belgium are, on United States definitions, substantially too high.
(1) The foundation of the adjusted British unemployment statistics was laid by Joseph S. Zeisel in his article: ‘Comparison of British and US unemployment rates’, Monthly Labor Review, May 1962.