Sources of Labor Productivity Growth in the Turkish Economy: A Sectoral Decomposition Analysis

Öz

Purpose: This paper examines the sectoral contributions to aggregate labor productivity growth in Türkiye from 2002 to 2023. Methodology: The analysis applies both conventional decomposition techniques (TRAD and CSLS) and more recent exactly additive approaches (GEAD and extended GEAD) to identify the sources of labor productivity growth at the aggregate and sectoral levels. Findings: The results indicate that within-sector growth effects are the primary drivers of aggregate labor productivity growth, while reallocation level and reallocation growth effects play a more limited role. Although the methods yield broadly consistent results at the aggregate level, they generate notable differences in sectoral contributions. Manufacturing and trade services contribute positively to aggregate productivity growth under the TRAD, GEAD, and extended GEAD frameworks, whereas the CSLS approach produces more heterogeneous sectoral outcomes. The FSGR analysis reveals a negative Baumol-type growth effect in agriculture and construction, which is partially offset by positive contributions from other sectors. Originality: By combining conventional and recent decomposition methods within a unified framework, the study provides additional evidence on the sensitivity of sectoral productivity assessments to methodological choice in the Turkish context.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Labor Productivity Decompositions
• Sectoral Contributions
• FSGR
• The Turkish Economy

Türkiye Ekonomisinde İşgücü Verimliliği Artışının Kaynakları: Sektörel Ayrıştırma Analizi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, 2002-2023 yılları arasında, Türkiye’de toplam işgücü verimliliği artışına sektörlerin katkılarını incelemektir. Yöntem: Ekonomi genelinde ve temel sektörler düzeyinde verimlilik artışının kaynaklarını belirlemek ve karşılaştırmak amacıyla geleneksel (TRAD ve CSLS) ile daha yeni, tam toplanarak ayrıştırılabilir (GEAD ve genişletilmiş GEAD) ayrıştırma yöntemleri uygulanmıştır. Bulgular: Bulgular, toplam emek verimliliği artışının esas olarak sektör içi büyüme etkileri tarafından belirlendiğini, yeniden tahsis düzeyi ve yeniden tahsis büyüme etkilerinin ise daha sınırlı bir rol oynadığını göstermektedir. Yöntemler toplam düzeyde büyük ölçüde benzer sonuçlar üretmekle birlikte, sektörlerin katkıları açısından belirgin farklılıklar ortaya koymaktadır. TRAD, GEAD ve genişletilmiş GEAD yaklaşımlarına göre imalat sanayi ve ticaret hizmetleri toplam verimlilik artışına olumlu katkı sağlarken, CSLS yöntemi sektörler arasında daha heterojen sonuçlar üretmektedir. FSGR analizi, tarım ve inşaat sektörlerinde Baumol tipi olumsuz bir büyüme etkisine işaret etmekte; bu etki diğer sektörlerden gelen sınırlı olumlu katkılarla kısmen dengelenmektedir. Özgünlük: Bu çalışma, Türkiye ekonomisini hem geleneksel hem de modern ayrıştırma yaklaşımlarını bir araya getirerek karşılaştırmalı bir analizle incelemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İşgücü Verimliliği Ayrıştırması
• Sektörel Katkılar
• FSGR
• Türkiye Ekonomisi

Kaynakça

1. Asian Development Bank. (2010). "Transforming the Philippine Economy: Walking on Two Legs", Asian Development Bank, Manila.
2. Akkemik, K.A. (2006). "Patterns of Industrialization, Structural Changes and Productivity in Turkish Manufacturing (1970-2000)", Journal of Economic Cooperation, 27(1), 71-88.
3. Altıok, M. and Tuncer, İ. (2006). "Structural Change and Productivity in the Manufacturing Industry: Comparison of Türkiye, Mediterranean Region, and Mersin Province", Turkish Economic Association Press.
4. Atiyas, İ. (2010). "Recent Privatization of Turkey: A Reappraisal". Routledge Studies in Middle Eastern Economies.
5. Atiyas, İ. and Bakis, O. (2013). "Structural Change and Industrial Policy in Turkey", REF Working Paper No: 2013-3.
6. Bakış, O. (2018). "The Differences and the Problems of the New GDP Series", Marmara Journal of Economics, 2(1), 15–42.
7. Baumol, W.J. (1967). "Macroeconomics of Unbalanced Growth: The Anatomy of Urban Crisis", The American Economic Review, 57(3), 415-426.
8. Bhatt, G. (2024). "Productivity and Prosperity", Finance and Development, 61(3).

9. Blinder, A. S. (1997). "The Speed Limit: Fact and Fancy in the Growth Debate",The American Prospect, 34, 57-62.
10. Bloom, D.E., Canning, D. and Pia, N. M. (1999). "Demographic Change and Economic Growth in Asia", CID Working Paper No. 15.
11. Coyle, D. and Mei, J. (2023). "Diagnosing the UK Productivity Slowdown: Which Sectors Matter and Why?", Economica, 90, 813–850.
12. de Avillez, R. (2012). "Sectoral Contributions to Labour Productivity Growth in Canada: Does the Choice of Decomposition Formula Matter?", International Productivity Monitor, 24, 97-117.
13. De Vries, G., Timmer, M. and De Vries, K. (2015). "Structural Transformation in Africa: Static Gains, Dynamic Losses", Journal of Development Studies, 51(6), 674-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2014.997222
14. Denison, E.F. (1962). “The Sources of Economic Growth in the United States and the Alternatives Before US”, Supplementary Paper of the Committee for Economic Development, No. 3, New York.
15. Denison, E.F. (1967). “Why Growth Rates Differ; Postwar Experience in Nine Western Countries”, Brookings Institution, Washington.
16. Diewert, E. (2008). "On the Tang and Wang Decomposition of Labour Productivity Growth into Sectoral Effects", Vancouver School of Economics.
17. Diewert, E. (2010). "On the Tang and Wang Decomposition of Labour Productivity Growth into Sectoral Effects", Price and Productivity Measurement, 6, 67-76.
18. Diewert, W.E. (2013). "Decompositions of Productivity Growth into Sectoral Effects", Vancouver School of Economics.
19. Diewert, W.E. (2014). "US TFP Growth and the Contribution of Changes in Export and Import Prices to Real Income Growth", Journal of Productivity Analysis, 41, 19-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-013-0369-4
20. Diewert, W.E. (2015). "Decompositions of Productivity Growth into Sectoral Effects", Journal of Productivity Analysis, 43, 367-387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-014-0392-0
21. Dumagan, J.C. (2013). "A Generalized Exactly Additive Decomposition of Aggregate Labour Productivity Growth", Review of Income and Wealth, 59(1), 157-168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4991.2012.00511
22. Fabricant, S. (1942). "Aggregate Factory Employment and Output", National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1-27.
23. Fagerberg, J. (2000). "Technological Progress, Structural Change and Productivity Growth: A Comparative Study", Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 11, 393-411. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0954-349X(00)00025-4
24. IMF (2006). World Economic Outlook: Financial Systems and Economic Cycles, Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
25. IMF (2015). “2015 External Sector Report”, https://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2015/062615.pdf, (Accessed: 15.02.2025).
26. Kılıçaslan, Y. and Taymaz, E. (2005). "Structural Change, Productivity and Competitiveness in MENA Countries", Economic Research Forum.
27. Montebello, R. and Darmanin, J. (2021). "Labor Productivity Growth in Malta: A Sectoral Decomposition Analysis", Central Bank of Malta Working Paper 4/2021.
28. Nishi, H. (2019). "Sources of Productivity Growth Dynamics: Is Japan Suffering from Baumol’s Growth Disease?", Review of Income and Wealth, 65(3), 592-616. https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12363
29. Nordhaus, W.D. (2008). "Baumol’s Diseases: A Macroeconomics Perspective", The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, 8(1), 1-37.
30. OECD. (2017). “OECD Compendium of Productivity Indicators 2017”, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/pdtvy-2017-en
31. OECD. (2023). “OECD Compendium of Productivity Indicators 2023”, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/74623e5b-en
32. Reinsdorf, M. (2015). "Measuring Industry Contributions to Labour Productivity Change: A New Formula in a Chained Fisher Index Framework", International Productivity Monitor, 28, 3-26.
33. Rodrik, D. (2010). "Structural Transformation and Economic Development". TEPAV, Ankara.
34. Sharpe, A. (2010). "Can Sectoral Reallocations of Labour Explain Canada's Abysmal Productivity Performance?", International Productivity Monitor, 19, 40.
35. Sharpe, A. and Thomson, E. (2010). "New Estimates of Labour, Capital and Multifactor Productivity Growth and Levels for Canadian Provinces", Centre for the Study of Living Standards, Ottawa, Ontario.
36. Sharpe, A., Arsenault, J.-F. and Harrison, P. (2008). "The Relationship Between Labour Productivity and Real Wage Growth in Canada and OECD Countries". Centre for the Study of Living Standards, Ottawa, Ontario.
37. Tang, J. and Wang, W. (2004). "Sources of Aggregate Labor Productivity Growth in Canada and the United States", The Canadian Journal of Economics, 37(2), 421-444. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0008-4085.2004.00009
38. Tang, J. and Wang, W. (2015). "Economic Growth in Canada and the United States: Supply-Push or Demand-Pull?", Review of Income and Wealth, 61(4), 773-798. https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12139
39. Timmer, M.P. and Szirmai, A. (2000). "Productivity Growth in Asian Manufacturing: The Structural Bonus Hypothesis Examined", Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 11, 371-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0954-349X(00)00023-0
40. Tuncer, İ. and Moalla, M. (2020). "Structural Change and Aggregate Labour Productivity in the Turkish Non-Farm Business Industries", Theoretical and Applied Studies on Turkish Economy, Vol.01, 155-173, IJOPEC Publication.
41. Turkish Statistical Institute. (2025). www.tuik.gov.tr, (Accessed:12/03/2025).
42. Usui, N. (2011). "Transforming the Philippine Economy: Walking on Two Legs", ADB Economics Working Paper Series 252.
43. Voyvoda, E. and Yeldan, E. (2001). "Patterns of Productivity Growth and the Wage Cycle in Turkish Manufacturing", International Review of Applied Economics, 15(4), 375-396. https://doi.org/10.1080/02692170110081921