--- canonical_url: "https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-24/comment-on-estimating-capital-input-for-measuring-business-sector-multifactor-productivity-growth-in-canada/" title: "Comment on ‘Estimating Capital Input for Measuring Business Sector Multifactor Productivity Growth in Canada’" author: name: "CSLS" url: "https://csls.ca/author/cslc/" date_published: "2026-07-13T07:33:51+00:00" date_modified: "2026-07-13T07:33:51+00:00" post_type: "ipm" summary: "" ipm_issue_period: - "Fall 2012" ipm_keyword: - "bottom-up" - "capital input" - "international standards" - "MFP" - "OECD" - "production possibility frontier" - "reallocation effect" - "top-down" - "user costs" ipm_research_theme: - "Measurement and methodology" ipm_country_focus: - "Canada" - "International" - "OECD" featured_image: "https://csls.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/IPM_50_banner.webp" status: "publish" --- # Comment on ‘Estimating Capital Input for Measuring Business Sector Multifactor Productivity Growth in Canada’ Canonical URL: https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-24/comment-on-estimating-capital-input-for-measuring-business-sector-multifactor-productivity-growth-in-canada/ # Comment on ‘Estimating Capital Input for Measuring Business Sector Multifactor Productivity Growth in Canada’ [Download full PDF article](https://csls.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/IPM-Issue-24-5-Schreyer.pdf) Cite this article × Cite this article as: Schreyer, Paul. 2012. “Comment on ‘Estimating Capital Input for Measuring Business Sector Multifactor Productivity Growth in Canada’.” International Productivity Monitor, No. 24 (Fall 2012): 73–75. https://www.csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-24/comment-on-estimating-capital-input-for-measuring-business-sector-multifactor-productivity-growth-in-canada/ ## Author: - Paul Schreyer OECD ## IPM Issue 24 Fall 2012 pp. 73–75 ## Related IPM articles [Is the SNA Still Useful? A Review Article on The Measure of Progress: Counting What Really Matters Paul Schreyer Fall 2025 | IPM Issue 49 | pp. 116–124](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-49/is-the-sna-still-useful-a-review-article-on-the-measure-of-progress-counting-what-really-matters/) [Adult Skills and Productivity: New Evidence from PIAAC 2023 Dan Andrews, Balázs Égert, Christine de La Maisonneuve Fall 2025 | IPM Issue 49 | pp. 41–63](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-49/adult-skills-and-productivity-new-evidence-from-piaac-2023/) [The Potential Impact of Pro-competitive Regulatory Reforms on Productivity and Growth in Canada Gilbert Cette, Jimmy Lopez, Giuseppe Nicoletti, Océane Vernerey Fall 2025 | IPM Issue 49 | pp. 3–40](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-49/the-potential-impact-of-pro-competitive-regulatory-reforms-on-productivity-and-growth-in-canada/) [Opportunities and Risks of Artificial Intelligence for Productivity Francesco Filippucci, Peter Gal, Katharina Laengle, Matthias Schief, Filiz Unsal Spring 2025 | IPM Issue 48 | pp. 1–26](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-48/opportunities-and-risks-of-artificial-intelligence-for-productivity/) [Using Ecosystem Accounting to Integrate the Environment in Measures of Multifactor Productivity Carl Obst Fall 2024 | IPM Issue 47 | pp. 87–108](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-47/using-ecosystem-accounting-to-integrate-the-environment-in-measures-of-multifactor-productivity/) [Eroding Natural Capital: An Alternative Explanation for the Secular Decline in Productivity Growth Christina Caron Fall 2024 | IPM Issue 47 | pp. 109–147](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-47/eroding-natural-capital-an-alternative-explanation-for-the-secular-decline-in-productivity-growth/) [Climate Change and Productivity — An Exploration Dirk Pilat Fall 2024 | IPM Issue 47 | pp. 54–86](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-47/climate-change-and-productivity-an-exploration/) [Could Domestic Industrial Policies, Even With Global Fragmentation, Revive Productivity? Catherine Mann Fall 2024 | IPM Issue 47 | pp. 3–19](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-47/could-domestic-industrial-policies-even-with-global-fragmentation-revive-productivity/) [Employment, Output and Productivity Adjustment During the Great Recession: The Role of Managerial Quality Gilbert Cette, Jimmy Lopez, Jacques Mairesse, Giuseppe Nicoletti Spring 2024 | IPM Issue 46 | pp. 101–108](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-46/employment-output-and-productivity-adjustment-during-the-great-recession-the-role-of-managerial-quality/) [IPM Issue 47 Editors’ Overview Andrew Sharpe, Bart van Ark Fall 2024 | IPM Issue 47 | pp. 1–2](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-47/) ## Abstract ## Résumé EN FR Copy link Email LinkedIn This article shows that the large difference of 0.8 per cent percentage points per year between top-down estimates of capital input growth obtained by Diewert and Yu and the bottom-up estimates produced by Statistics Canada for the Canadian business sector over the 1961-2011 period can be interpreted as an reallocation effect due either to inefficiencies in production and or a measurement issue. It is also noted that although user costs of capital are officially recognized in the System of National Accounts, there is no single recommendation on the details of implementation and that moving towards such a recommendation is an objective worth pursuing. RÉSUMÉ Cet article montre que la grosse différence de 0,8 points de pourcentage par année entre les estimations descendantes de la croissance des intrants de capital obtenues par Diewert et Yu et les estimations ascendantes produites par Statistique Canada pour le secteur des entreprises canadiennes pendant la période 1961 à 2011 peut être interprétée comme un effet de redistribution dû à des pratiques de production inefficaces. On fait remarquer aussi que, bien que les coûts de l’utilisation du capital soient officiellement reconnus dans le Système de comptabilité nationale, il n’y a pas une seule recommandation sur les détails de la mise en œuvre, et qu’en arriver à formuler ce genre de recommandation est un objectif qu’il vaut la peine d’essayer d’atteindre. GU (2012) IN THIS SYMPOSIUM examines the dif- Cet article montre que la grande différence de 0,8 point de pourcentage par année entre les estimations descendantes de la croissance des intrants en capital obtenues par Diewert et Yu et les estimations ascendantes produites par Statistique Canada pour le secteur des entreprises canadien sur la période 1961-2011 peut être interprétée comme un effet de réaffectation dû soit à des inefficiences dans la production, soit à un problème de mesure. Il est également noté que même si les coûts d’utilisation du capital sont officiellement reconnus dans le Système de comptabilité nationale, il n’existe aucune recommandation unique sur les détails de la mise en œuvre, et que progresser vers une telle recommandation est un objectif qui vaut la peine d’être poursuivi. [Download full PDF](https://csls.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/IPM-Issue-24-5-Schreyer.pdf)