--- canonical_url: "https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-44/the-rise-of-pro-productivity-institutions-a-review-of-recent-developments/" title: "The Rise of Pro-Productivity Institutions: A Review of Recent Developments" author: name: "CSLS" url: "https://csls.ca/author/cslc/" date_published: "2026-07-13T08:14:53+00:00" date_modified: "2026-07-13T08:14:53+00:00" post_type: "ipm" summary: "" ipm_issue_period: - "Spring 2023" ipm_keyword: - "Australia" - "Belgium" - "Denmark" - "Finland" - "France" - "Germany" - "Ireland" - "IVIE" - "Netherlands" - "New Zealand" - "OECD" - "Portugal" - "productivity commissions" - "productivity institutions" - "TPI" - "UK" ipm_research_theme: - "Policy and institutions" ipm_country_focus: - "Australia" - "Europe" - "International" - "OECD" - "United Kingdom" featured_image: "https://csls.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/IPM_50_banner.webp" status: "publish" --- # The Rise of Pro-Productivity Institutions: A Review of Recent Developments Canonical URL: https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-44/the-rise-of-pro-productivity-institutions-a-review-of-recent-developments/ # The Rise of Pro-Productivity Institutions: A Review of Recent Developments [Download full PDF article](https://csls.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/IPM-Issue-44-1-Pilat.pdf) Cite this article × Cite this article as: Pilat, Dirk. 2023. “The Rise of Pro-Productivity Institutions: A Review of Recent Developments.” International Productivity Monitor, No. 44 (Spring 2023): 3–33. https://www.csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-44/the-rise-of-pro-productivity-institutions-a-review-of-recent-developments/ ## Author: - Dirk Pilat Economic Analysis and Statistics Division, OECD ## IPM Issue 44 Spring 2023 pp. 3–33 ## 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/) [ONS Response to ‘Are UK Regional Productivity Disparities Really Narrowing?’ Richard Prothero Spring 2025 | IPM Issue 48 | pp. 85–89](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-48/ons-response-to-are-uk-regional-productivity-disparities-really-narrowing/) [New Measures of Public Service Productivity: Lessons and Results from the United Kingdom Richard Heys Spring 2025 | IPM Issue 48 | pp. 90–114](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-48/new-measures-of-public-service-productivity-lessons-and-results-from-the-united-kingdom/) [De-industrialization and the Great Productivity Slowdown: What Comes Next? Paul Fisher Spring 2025 | IPM Issue 48 | pp. 115–138](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-48/de-industrialization-and-the-great-productivity-slowdown-what-comes-next/) [Are UK Regional Productivity Disparities Really Narrowing? An Investigation into Recent Productivity Data Revisions Fokke Reitze Gouma, Philip McCann, Raquel Ortega-Argilés Spring 2025 | IPM Issue 48 | pp. 63–84](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-48/are-uk-regional-productivity-disparities-really-narrowing-an-investigation-into-recent-productivity-data-revisions/) [Online Supplementary Material: UK Regional Productivity Data Fokke Reitze Gouma, Philip McCann, Raquel Ortega-Argilés Spring 2025 | IPM Issue 48 | pp. 15–19](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-48/online-supplementary-material-uk-regional-productivity-data/) [Appendix: UK Productivity Growth Rates Across Data Vintages and Studies Josh Martin Spring 2025 | IPM Issue 48 | pp. 65–73](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-48/appendix-uk-productivity-growth-rates-across-data-vintages-and-studies/) [The UK Productivity Slowdown: A Review of Timing, Magnitude, and Drivers Josh Martin Spring 2025 | IPM Issue 48 | pp. 1–34](https://csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-48/the-uk-productivity-slowdown-a-review-of-timing-magnitude-and-drivers/) ## Abstract ## Résumé EN FR Copy link Email LinkedIn This article reviews the recent analytical work and policy recommendations of eleven national productivity commissions, i.e. Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, and the United Kingdom. It finds several differences between the commissions as regards institutional set-up, composition, and degree of independence, amongst others. The commissions have much more in common in their analytical and policy work. This likely reflects common challenges, such as the slowdown in productivity and the COVID-19 crisis, as well as structural trends such as digitalization. It also reflects a shared understanding of the main drivers of productivity, notably investment, human capital, innovation, digitalization and creative destruction, and the policies affecting those drivers. The article also finds some areas that have not yet received much attention from commissions, such as the link between the environment and productivity or the relationship between productivity, wages, and inequality. The rise of productivity commissions across the OECD area provides a rich source of analysis and policy learning that should be drawn on by academics, policy makers and others interested in productivity. Cet article passe en revue les travaux analytiques récents et les recommandations politiques de onze commissions nationales de la productivité, notamment en Australie, en Belgique, au Danemark, en Finlande, en France, en Allemagne, en Irlande, aux Pays-Bas, en Nouvelle-Zélande, au Portugal et au Royaume-Uni. Il relève plusieurs différences entre les commissions quant à la structure institutionnelle, la composition et le degré d’indépendance, entre autres. Les commissions ont beaucoup plus en commun dans leurs travaux analytiques et politiques, ce qui reflète probablement des défis communs, comme le ralentissement de la productivité et la crise de la COVID-19, ainsi que des tendances structurelles comme la numérisation et une compréhension partagée des principaux facteurs de productivité. [Download full PDF](https://csls.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/IPM-Issue-44-1-Pilat.pdf)