The Canadian Manufacturing Sector, 2002-2008: Why Is It Called Dutch Disease?
High-profile complaints about so-called Dutch disease have led many to question if industry in some parts of the country is suffering due to the success of the natural resources sector in others. This paper considers changes in manufacturing employment from 2002- 2008, a time of increased commodity...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University of Calgary
2013-09-01
|
| Series: | The School of Public Policy Publications |
| Online Access: | https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/dutch-disease-gordon.pdf |
| _version_ | 1811239605705375744 |
|---|---|
| author | Stephen Gordon |
| author_facet | Stephen Gordon |
| author_sort | Stephen Gordon |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | High-profile complaints about so-called Dutch disease have led many to question if industry in some parts of the country is suffering due to the success of the natural resources sector in others. This paper considers changes in manufacturing employment from 2002- 2008, a time of increased commodity prices. At first glance, the figures appear alarming — Canada shed 328,000 manufacturing jobs during that period — but the decline wasn’t entirely commodity-driven. Canada is the sole G-7 country in which manufacturing is on par with what it was 40 years ago; manufacturing employment rose in the decade prior to the decline thanks to government austerity, which spurred monetary easing, making industry more export-competitive. Much of the contraction from 2002-2008 was a natural reaction to this unsustainable situation. Higher commodity prices in the same period actually had a benign — if not positive — effect on Canada’s manufacturing industry, notwithstanding the fall in employment. The manufacturing jobs that were lost were typically low paying, and were offset by the creation of betterpaying employment in other sectors. The available data on gross employment flows suggest that the disruptions associated with the shift of employment out of manufacturing were surprisingly small. The reduction in employment was largely achieved through attrition; layoff rates held steady while hiring rates fell. Moreover, the data are not consistent with fears that the manufacturing sector was hollowed out. Research and development activities held steady and investment in new technology continued to grow, leaving the manufacturing sector healthier in 2008 than it was in 2002. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-12T13:04:00Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-cd39944a6bca4e73885d754b8ffa426c |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2560-8312 2560-8320 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-12T13:04:00Z |
| publishDate | 2013-09-01 |
| publisher | University of Calgary |
| record_format | Article |
| series | The School of Public Policy Publications |
| spelling | doaj.art-cd39944a6bca4e73885d754b8ffa426c2022-12-22T03:32:06ZengUniversity of CalgaryThe School of Public Policy Publications2560-83122560-83202013-09-01626116https://doi.org/10.11575/sppp.v6i0.42438The Canadian Manufacturing Sector, 2002-2008: Why Is It Called Dutch Disease?Stephen Gordon0Université LavalHigh-profile complaints about so-called Dutch disease have led many to question if industry in some parts of the country is suffering due to the success of the natural resources sector in others. This paper considers changes in manufacturing employment from 2002- 2008, a time of increased commodity prices. At first glance, the figures appear alarming — Canada shed 328,000 manufacturing jobs during that period — but the decline wasn’t entirely commodity-driven. Canada is the sole G-7 country in which manufacturing is on par with what it was 40 years ago; manufacturing employment rose in the decade prior to the decline thanks to government austerity, which spurred monetary easing, making industry more export-competitive. Much of the contraction from 2002-2008 was a natural reaction to this unsustainable situation. Higher commodity prices in the same period actually had a benign — if not positive — effect on Canada’s manufacturing industry, notwithstanding the fall in employment. The manufacturing jobs that were lost were typically low paying, and were offset by the creation of betterpaying employment in other sectors. The available data on gross employment flows suggest that the disruptions associated with the shift of employment out of manufacturing were surprisingly small. The reduction in employment was largely achieved through attrition; layoff rates held steady while hiring rates fell. Moreover, the data are not consistent with fears that the manufacturing sector was hollowed out. Research and development activities held steady and investment in new technology continued to grow, leaving the manufacturing sector healthier in 2008 than it was in 2002.https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/dutch-disease-gordon.pdf |
| spellingShingle | Stephen Gordon The Canadian Manufacturing Sector, 2002-2008: Why Is It Called Dutch Disease? The School of Public Policy Publications |
| title | The Canadian Manufacturing Sector, 2002-2008: Why Is It Called Dutch Disease? |
| title_full | The Canadian Manufacturing Sector, 2002-2008: Why Is It Called Dutch Disease? |
| title_fullStr | The Canadian Manufacturing Sector, 2002-2008: Why Is It Called Dutch Disease? |
| title_full_unstemmed | The Canadian Manufacturing Sector, 2002-2008: Why Is It Called Dutch Disease? |
| title_short | The Canadian Manufacturing Sector, 2002-2008: Why Is It Called Dutch Disease? |
| title_sort | canadian manufacturing sector 2002 2008 why is it called dutch disease |
| url | https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/dutch-disease-gordon.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT stephengordon thecanadianmanufacturingsector20022008whyisitcalleddutchdisease AT stephengordon canadianmanufacturingsector20022008whyisitcalleddutchdisease |