NZ and Australia

In a couple of weeks it will be 2023. And then in a couple of years it will be 2025.

Those with longish geeky memories may recall that there was once talk of closing the gap between New Zealand and Australian incomes/productivity by 2025. Without any great enthusiasm no doubt, the incoming National government led by John Key agreed to ACT’s request for a (time and resource-limited) official 2025 Taskforce that would offer some analysis and advice on what it would take to achieve such a goal. The Taskforce’s first report had been dismissed by the Prime Minister before it was even released and after the second report the Taskforce was quietly disbanded. I held the pen on the first report and had some input on the second one (itself written by the current chair of the Reserve Bank Board), and since the reports were written when my kids were very young and I still held some vague hope that they might grow up into a first world country that goal of catching Australia has stayed with me, as has the disillusionment with our political and bureaucratic classes who, no doubt comfortable themselves, seem to have lost all interest. It need hardly be repeated – I’ve made the point often enough – that, despite all its mineral riches, Australia is not a stellar productivity performer, so aiming to catch them was hardly reaching for the stars.

My preferred summary metric for such comparisons is real GDP per hour worked. It isn’t the only meaningful national accounts measure but (for example) it isn’t thrown around by the vagaries of commodity price (terms of trade) fluctuations which, especially in economies like ours, are exogenous variables our governments can’t do a lot about. In 2007, just prior to the last recession, OECD estimates have Australian real GDP per hour worked about 23 per cent higher than that in New Zealand.

What has happened since? On that same (annual) OECD metric the gap last year was about 31 per cent.

The ABS produces an official quarterly series of real GDP per hour worked. SNZ does not, but it does publish two measures of real GDP (production and expenditure) and both the HLFS hours worked series and the QES hours paid series. Over time the various possible New Zealand productivity growth measures tend to converge (as they should), but at any point in time the estimates for the most recent few years can and often do diverge quite substantially. Here is a chart with the most recent data.

Covid has probably only compounded the situation, both because measuring what actually happened to GDP over the disrupted last three years is more than usually challenging and because hours worked and hours paid series will have diverged in ways that make sense but hadn’t really been anticipated. In doing charts like this I used to simply work on the basis that the two were just roughly the same thing, each measured noisily and so averages would usually be the least bad way to go. But then governments compelled people to stay at home (often not able to work) and yet funded employers to enable them to be paid. Hours paid held up in lockdowns even as hours worked fell away. More recently of course there is a lot more sickness than usual – for much of which people will have been paid, but may not have worked.

I still don’t have any particular reason to favour one GDP measure over the other, but the HLFS hours actually worked (self-reported) seems a better denominator for labour productivity estimates at present. Here is that line, together with the official Australian series.

And here is the same chart just for the Covid period

The New Zealand series is much more volatile, but count me a bit sceptical for both countries. Go back one chart and it looks as if productivity growth in both countries has been faster during the Covid period than in the previous half-dozen years, and that doesn’t make a lot of sense. There are plenty of puzzles about how the economy has performed over the last three years – starting with what everyone missed and got wrong on inflation – but if “true” labour productivity growth really accelerated over the Covid period that should spark a lot of future research papers.

I remember back in 2020 people suggesting that (eg) that lift in reported productivity in Australia in June 2020 might have been because (eg) the shock to tourism saw a lot of very low wage workers not working, so simply averaging up productivity for the rest. But a couple of years on both countries have very high labour force participation rates and very low unemployment rates (relative to history Australia even more so than New Zealand). And we’ve had huge (probably largely inevitable) policy and virus uncertainty, and it isn’t many years since economics commentary used to full of talk of the damage that increased (policy) uncertainty would cause. And when supply chains have been disrupted, and people haven’t been able to foster face-to-face connections globally, it isn’t usually a climate considered most conducive to productivity growth. It isn’t as if productivity growth in these estimates has been stellar, but it is a bit puzzling. Perhaps where we are now the numbers are just flattered by overheated economies. Perhaps it will all end revised a way anyway, but for now at least (a) both countries have had a bit more productivity growth in the data that might have been expected, and (b) over the Covid period, the gap between New Zealand and Australia does not appear to have gotten any wider.

As I noted earlier, for commodity exporting countries, fluctuations in the terms of trade are largely exogenous. But, unfortunately for New Zealanders, whether one starts one’s comparison 15 years ago just before the last big recession or focuses just on the last couple of years, Australia’s terms of trade has performed better than New Zealand’s.

Indications from the Australian government that it is going to make it easier for New Zealanders to move to Australia is great for young New Zealanders, opening up higher income opportunities that have been harder to access in recent years. It isn’t so good for a community of people who choose to dwell in these islands. But there is no sign either main political party actually cares enough to think hard about overhauling policy here in a way that might one day mean New Zealand might offer the world-matching living standards it did not that many decades ago.

7 thoughts on “NZ and Australia

  1. To read the Taskforce reports now is to despair. None of its recommendations have been implemented – indeed, in most respects the problems identified have been exacerbated. Young people their thousands will move to Australia, leaving behind the old and the unadventurous.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. The composition of New Zealand’s GDP has changed.

    I believe that Kommissar Robbo increased government spending by about $50 billion per year, since 2017. This government wastage more than offset the burning of the tourism industry to the ground, as a consequence of the Covid hoax. Our GDP has in net terms increased, but the GDP composition embedded in these changes are disastrous for long-term economic growth.

    Perhaps the reported productivity of higher government spending is higher than the low productivity tourism exports that have been lost? This could have a very dark side.

    This change in structure of the economy is not necessarily an advantage to the country, irrespective of the effect on reported productivity effects. Insane wastage of monies with wild government spending could be “productive” in the sense that few hours were spent producing the useless consultancy reports et al that this government specialises in. However, this ramping of poorly targeted government spending does not represent improved productivity in the future. To the contrary, the funds were simply frittered away, and don’t now earn foreign currency. How will we pay for our imports in the future?

    The vandalism of tourism is one of the causes of the blowout of the current account deficit to a staggering 7.9% of GDP – the highest in our history.

    Personally, I’d rather have our export industries back, than have them replaced by terrible value government spending.

    Like

    • A quick addendum.

      What does Kommissar Robbo increasing spending by circa $50 billion a year more than 2017 mean?

      We have about 5 million people. This is $10,000 more government spending for every man, woman and child in the country, every year into perpetuity!

      Have you seen any value for the $10,000 extra per year spent on you? I haven’t.

      Health services are a disaster – they are worse than they were in 2017! Education is a joke – the kids are illiterate and many don’t even bother to turn up. The crime wave is out of control.

      Everything is worse now, than it was in 2017, despite the biggest increase in government spending in New Zealand’s history.

      We now have the worst Minister of Finance New Zealand has ever had, combined with the worst Governor of the Reserve Bank that we have ever experienced.

      It’s a train wreck.

      In terms of relative productivity versus Australia, we will become like Mexico is to the USA – an annoying poor country on their border, with waves of economic migrants escaping our failed State.

      Expect Australia to eventually close their borders to all but skilled NZ migrants.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. A very thought provoking article Michael. What is economic success? Is there a valid relationship between national wealth and a stable and satisfying society?

    Like

    • “Is there a valid relationship between national wealth and a stable and satisfying society?”

      Is this question a joke? Assuming that you’re not pulling our legs…

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

      If we take GDP per capita nominal (PPP is nonsense) as a proxy for wealth, compare the top thirty countries to the bottom thirty countries. I’ve been to nearly all the top thirty countries, and lived in quite a few, and would say that they are all relatively stable and satisfying.

      Although I’ve travelled a lot and lived for decades overseas, I have never been to any of the bottom thirty countries listed. Why would I? They are the worst of the Third World. Irrespectively, I think it is correct to say that probably none of them are safe or stable. By the way, most of them have been and are totalitarian / socialist / communist regimes.

      I know there is a socialist thing where you say that even though we are slowly descending downwards towards relative poverty compared to say Australia, we can still have a big smile on our faces blah blah blah.

      Actually, not being able to afford basic healthcare, not having a strong education sector etc etc etc is actually no fun at all.

      Maybe it takes pharmac to be unable to fund children’s drugs for socialists to understand that a strong economy is important to living standards? Or maybe socialists will never understand – they will just say their centralised plans will magically solve it all, one day in the far future?

      It is depressing how socialist New Zealanders have become. The price for this could be terrible…

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s