--- canonical_url: "https://csls.ca/research/sectoral-contributions-to-labour-productivity-growth-in-canada-does-the-choice-of-decomposition-formula-matter/" title: "Sectoral Contributions to Labour Productivity Growth in Canada: Does the Choice of Decomposition Formula Matter?" author: name: "CSLS" url: "https://csls.ca/author/cslc/" date_published: "2026-07-02T13:04:02+00:00" date_modified: "2026-07-02T13:04:02+00:00" post_type: "research" summary: "" post_tag: - "business sector" - "Canada" - "decomposition" - "GEAD" - "labour productivity" - "manufacturing" - "mining" - "productivity growth" - "sectoral contributions" country_focus: - "Canada" province_region: - "National" research_theme: - "Productivity and Economic Measurement" featured_image: "https://csls.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/old-reports_hero_banner_bg.webp" status: "publish" --- # Sectoral Contributions to Labour Productivity Growth in Canada: Does the Choice of Decomposition Formula Matter? Canonical URL: https://csls.ca/research/sectoral-contributions-to-labour-productivity-growth-in-canada-does-the-choice-of-decomposition-formula-matter/ # Sectoral Contributions to Labour Productivity Growth in Canada: Does the Choice of Decomposition Formula Matter? [Download full PDF report](https://csls.ca/pdf/csls2012-09-1.pdf) Cite this report × Cite this report as: de Avillez, Ricardo. 2012. “Sectoral Contributions to Labour Productivity Growth in Canada: Does the Choice of Decomposition Formula Matter?” CSLS Research Report 2012-09. Ottawa: Centre for the Study of Living Standards. https://csls.ca/research/sectoral-contributions-to-labour-productivity-growth-in-canada-does-the-choice-of-decomposition-formula-matter/ ## Author: - Ricardo de Avillez Centre for the Study of Living Standards (CSLS) ## Report 2012-09 December 2012 34 pages ## Related research [Measuring the Appropriate Outcomes for Better Decision-Making: A Framework to Guide the Analysis of Health Policy Matthew Calver March 2016 | Report 2016-03 | 132 pages](https://csls.ca/research/measuring-the-appropriate-outcomes-for-better-decision-making-a-framework-to-guide-the-analysis-of-health-policy-2016-03/) [Living Standards Domain of the Canadian Index of Wellbeing Andrew Sharpe, Christopher Ross November 2011 | Report 2011-17 | 124 pages](https://csls.ca/research/living-standards-domain-of-the-canadian-index-of-wellbeing-2011-17/) [Productivity: Key to Economic Success Centre for the Study of Living Standards (CSLS) March 1998 | Report 1998-01 | 99 pages](https://csls.ca/research/productivity-key-to-economic-success/) [Productivity Trends: A Canada-U.S. Comparison Centre for the Study of Living Standards (CSLS) January 1999 | Report 1999-01 | 6 pages](https://csls.ca/research/productivity-trends-a-canada-u-s-comparison/) [New Estimates of Manufacturing Productivity Growth for Canada and the United States Andrew Sharpe March 1999 | Report 1999-02 | 21 pages](https://csls.ca/research/new-estimates-of-manufacturing-productivity-growth-for-canada-and-the-united-states/) [Apprenticeship in Canada: A Training System Under Siege? Andrew Sharpe December 1999 | Report 1999-03 | 59 pages](https://csls.ca/research/apprenticeship-in-canadaa-training-system-under-siege/) [A Survey of Indicators of Economic and Social Well-being Andrew Sharpe July 1999 | Report 1999-cprn | 72 pages](https://csls.ca/research/a-survey-of-indicators-of-economic-and-social-well-being/) [The Canada-U.S. Income Gap Centre for the Study of Living Standards (CSLS) June 2000 | Report 2000-01 | 6 pages](https://csls.ca/research/the-canada-u-s-income-gap/) [Creating a More Efficient Labour Market Centre for the Study of Living Standards (CSLS) June 2001 | Report 2001-02 | 147 pages](https://csls.ca/research/creating-a-more-efficient-labour-market/) [Productivity Trends in the Construction Sector: A Case of Lagging Technical Progress Centre for the Study of Living Standards (CSLS) November 2001 | Report 2001-03 | 177 pages](https://csls.ca/research/productivity-trends-in-the-construction-sector-a-case-of-lagging-technical-progress/) ## Abstract ## Résumé EN FR Copy link Email LinkedIn Using three decomposition formulas (TRAD, CSLS, and GEAD), this article estimates sectoral contributions to business sector labour productivity growth in Canada during the 2000-2010 period. Although at the aggregate economy level there was substantial agreement among the three formulas – with most of business sector labour productivity growth being explained by within-sector productivity improvements –, contribution estimates varied widely at the sectoral level. In particular, there were significant differences in the estimated contributions of construction, manufacturing, and mining and oil and gas extraction. Ultimately, these differences reflect the fact that traditional decomposition formulas (TRAD and CSLS) and the GEAD formula measure distinct economic phenomena. Instead of seeing estimates constructed by the GEAD and traditional formulas as “competing” narratives, the article concludes it is more useful to see them as providing complementing stories about the role of different sectors in driving aggregate labour productivity growth. À l’aide de trois formules de décomposition (TRAD, CSLS et DGEA), cet article estime les contributions sectorielles à la croissance de la productivité du travail du secteur des entreprises au Canada durant la période 2000-2010. Bien qu’il existe un accord substantiel entre les trois formules à l’échelle agrégée de l’économie — l’essentiel de la croissance de la productivité du travail du secteur des entreprises s’expliquant par des améliorations de la productivité intrasectorielle —, les estimations des contributions variaient considérablement à l’échelle sectorielle. En particulier, des différences importantes sont observées dans les contributions estimées de la construction, de la fabrication, et de l’extraction minière, pétrolière et gazière. En définitive, ces différences reflètent le fait que les formules de décomposition traditionnelles (TRAD et CSLS) et la formule DGEA mesurent des phénomènes économiques distincts. Plutôt que de considérer les estimations produites par la DGEA et les formules traditionnelles comme des récits « concurrents », l’article conclut qu’il est plus utile de les considérer comme offrant des explications complémentaires du rôle des différents secteurs dans la croissance de la productivité globale du travail. [Download full PDF report](https://csls.ca/pdf/csls2012-09-1.pdf)