“We Must be More Productive” : Global discourse, local ... · representations of the concept “productivity” in order to gain insights into local strategies and global similarities

“We Must be More Productive” :

Global discourse, local strategies

Professor Sally Davenport

Victoria Management School,

Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

[email protected]

Dr Michelle Renton

Victoria Management School


[email protected]

Dr Jane Bryson



[email protected]

Dr Urs Daellenbach



[email protected]

Professor Shirley Leitch

Deputy Vice Chancellor, Academic

Swinburne University, Melbourne, Australia

[email protected]

Professor Judy Motion

School of English, Media and Performing Arts

University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

[email protected]

Simon Scott



[email protected]

Page 1 of 20 ANZAM 2010

mailto:[email protected]

1

“We Must be More Productive” :

Global discourse, local strategies

Abstract By analysing a selection of productivity reports from four different countries (New Zealand, Australia,

the United Kingdom and Canada) over a ten year period (2000-2009), we map the discursive

representations of the concept “productivity” in order to gain insights into local strategies and global

similarities in approaches to generating productive change. Using Leximancer we analysed five

matched reports for each country, and argue that the reports contain a range of subtle and not-so-

subtle nuances in the productivity discussions of each country. Despite this wide variation in local

themes, we propose that the rhetorical strategies employed are evidence of significant mimetic

isomorphism, driven by the uncertainty surrounding the notion of productivity.

Keywords: globalisation, change, discourse, productivity, isomorphism, leximancer

The sad reality, however, is that Canada, even after all this effort, is slipping badly on the

productivity front…. In 2003 and 2004 growth per output in the business sector in Canada

was essentially zero. In the US the growth has been 3.5 per cent a year since 2000. We are

2.5 percentage points behind the U.S. and we are ranked 17th among the top 30 industrial

nations. (Atkins, 2006: 1)

Productivity means many things to many people - and therein lies the challenge for useful

exploration of the topic: is it one concept or several? Or is it one multi faceted concept? Or is

the construction of the concept evolving? (Bryson et al., 2008: 1)

Nations all around the world are concerned with the levels of productivity in their economy and the

challenge of poor productivity to their international status, despite the fact that serious issues relating

to conceptualising, let alone measuring, productivity were identified decades ago (eg. Griliches and

Mairesse, 1983; Berndt and Fuss, 1986 and references therein). In particular, there is apparent

confusion over the levels of analysis and nomenclature (eg. Pritchard et al., 1988) with productivity

units at: national; sector; enterprise; workgroup; or individual levels.

This paper will explore variations and distinctive features of the way in which productivity is

discussed around the world, looking at measurement and unit of analysis uncertainties, as well as

semantic instabilities in the productivity discourse. By analysing a selection of productivity reports

from four different countries (New Zealand (NZ), Australia, the United Kingdom (UK) and Canada)

Page 2 of 20ANZAM 2010

2

over a ten year period (2000-2009), we map the discursive representations of the concept

“productivity” in order to gain insights into local meanings and global discourses in approaches to

generating productive change. The paper will explore the similarities which occur despite the

different political and cultural contexts and the uncertainty surrounding the very notion of

productivity, and posit some potential reasons for the isomorphism apparent in the reports.

LITERATURE

Isomorphism

As organizations struggle to attain legitimacy they tend act in ways that make them appear similar to

other organizations that have already achieved legitimacy in their field. In a seminal work in neo-

institutional theory, Di Maggio and Powell (1983) argue that organizations become increasingly

similar over time as they respond to pressures from stakeholders in the organizational competition for

political and institutional legitimacy.

Di Maggio and Powell (1983) described three isomorphic mechanisms: coercive, normative and

mimetic. Coercive isomorphism “results from both “formal and informal pressures exerted on

organizations by other organizations upon which they are dependent and by cultural expectations in

the society within which organizations function” (Di Maggio and Powell, 1983: 150). Normative

isomorphism “stems primarily from professionalization”, by which Di Maggio and Powell mean “the

collective struggle of members of an occupation to define the conditions and methods of their work…

to establish a cognitive base and legitimation for their occupational autonomy” (1983: 152). Mimetic

isomorphism occurs when organizations model themselves on other organizations because of

uncertainty in the environment, as “uncertainty is a powerful force that encourages imitation” (Di

Maggio and Powell, 2003: 151). Thus, “mimetic isomorphism provides legitimacy and happens when

managers face ambiguous situations with unclear solutions” (Barreto and Baden-Fuller, 2006: 1561).

Davenport and Leitch (2009) argue that homogeneity in organizational discourses can be a

consequence of isomorphic pressures. Creating legitimacy often involves the assertion of one


3

discourse over another (Sutherland, 2005) with the result that a new “common sense” emerges

(Laclau and Mouffe, 1985). Mimetic discourse can thus enable the author to appear “more rational

and prudent to the social system” (Deephouse and Carter, 2005). We propose that the subject of this

paper, the (inter-) national discourses on productivity, are striving for a seemingly “common sense”

status that provides inherent legitimacy to the concept and authors, yet this universalised discourse is

by no means homogenous when it is analysed in detail.

Productivity and its Measurement

At the simplest level, productivity can be defined as the efficiency with which volumes of measured

inputs are converted into volumes of measured outputs (Janssen and McLoughlin, 2008). Two

measurements of productivity are commonly used, labour productivity and multi factor productivity.

Labour productivity (LP) is a measure of outputs produced by a volume amount of labour input, while

multi factor (MFP) or total factor (TFP) productivity measures output not attributable to physical

capital, labour, materials or other inputs and may include growth in output derived from more

efficient use of existing resources. MFP is measured as a residual, and as such, is prone to input

evaluation errors.

Productivity can be assessed using economy wide measures, it can be measured at an industry,

organisational or individual worker level, and as a result is both a complex and ambiguous concept.

Productivity is however, the focus of governments, economists, business owners, managers and

individual workers alike to connote the economic measurement of outputs. Productivity may, though,

be more broadly conceptualised within different national discourses and it is this that we wish to

explore.

Discourse Analysis

The study of discourse is here understood to mean the analysis of interrelated sets of texts that

systematically form the objects of which they speak‟ (Foucault, 1972: 49). The concept of

“intertextuality” (Bakhtin, 1986; Kristeva, 1986) refers to the relations that exist between texts.


4

Textual analysis involves an examination of related links in the intertextual chain in order to

understand how a particular text reproduces and/or transforms meaning. Intertextual analysis can,

therefore, contribute to our understanding of the processes by which change occurs. In this study we

analyse the intertextual chain that links reports intended to drive significant productivity growth from

four different countries, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada, with the central

focus being on the ways in which the word “productivity” and other words such as “growth” are used

within a set of interrelated text. We examine the role that this word usage plays in facilitating a

coherent presentation of a productivity message.

Leximancer

We used Leximancer to undertake a key word and thematic analysis of the productivity reports.

Leximancer is a software tool which extracts, counts and relates common concepts from multiple texts

(Cummings and Dallaenbach, 2009) identifying themes and thematically analysing the words used in

the texts. The programme generates concept maps, graphical representations which may be compared

to show how the discourse on productivity varies between different contexts (the four nations), giving

an insight into the impacts of the local meanings of productivity and productive growth.

RESEARCH APPROACH

Based on our interest in differences and similarities in productivity discourse, our research centred on

three questions: 1) What were the definitions of productivity and productivity growth used, and how

did they differ between Australia, the UK Canada and NZ in the period 1998-2009? 2) What was the

nature (as indicated by keywords) of the discourse surrounding productivity and what similarities and

differences existed between the four countries? 3) What are the discursive strategies utilised in

support of the productivity growth?

Report selection

An initial online search for reports resulted in a pool of over 220 reports from the four countries.

From this pool, twenty matched reports with 5 from each country were selected along 5 dimensions: 1)


5

Early in the period (1998-2003); 2) Late in the period (2007-2009); 3) A representative report from a

government department ; 4) A representative report from a lobby or industry group; and 5) A report

with a labour or wages focus. Table 1 gives the titles and dates of the twenty reports along with the

labels used to attribute excerpts in this paper which accord with the 5 categories given above.

ANALYSIS

Local Strategies

Definitions

The definitions of productivity used in the reports vary greatly in terms of their specificity. At one

extreme, productivity is defined using a mathematical formula, while at the other extreme several

reports use vague conceptions of productivity. Most employ a non-technical description aligning

productivity with production, living standards or efficiency and expressing it as an output/input ratio.

Of the twenty reports, fifteen defined labour productivity (LP) and eleven defined total- (TFP) or

multi-factor productivity (MFP). Despite the fact that many of the reports identify MFP as a better

measure of productivity, most focus on LP because it is easier to measure. Our analysis of the reports

confirms that uncertainties in defining and measuring productivity persist, although this has not

hampered the promotion of productivity as part of the economic discourse in many nations.

Productivity Concept Relevance

Using Leximancer, keywords, or “concepts”, were collated for each of the reports, according to

frequency of use. The analysis showed that while “productivity” was a common concept in all four

countries, and “growth” a concept closely related to productivity in each, the themes relating to

productivity growth differed between each of the countries. Whilst concepts such as change, economy,

industry, market and output appear at similar frequency levels across all of the four countries, there

were significant variations for other themes such as labour, firm and policy. Figure 1, presents the

frequency of concepts (relative to productivity which is 1.0) in such as way as to illustrate the key

emphases for each country.


6

Growth is a strong concept for all of the countries but is particularly dominant in the Canadian reports,

followed by Australia, NZ, and the UK. For Canada, productivity is strongly related to labour (as a

grouping of employees) and also to wages (+salaries). The wages concept occurs at very low levels in

the other 3 countries concept lists, despite being one of the criteria for selection. In contrast, the UK

and NZ reports place an emphasis on skills upon which the Canadian reports are silent.

The next most obvious area of difference is around the place of firms (businesses, companies etc) in

the documents. The firm grouping is a more prominent concept in the NZ reports relative to labour,

and is also important for the UK, but is not so strongly evident in the Australian and Canadian reports.

The role of capital appears to be of similar relevance for all countries. In contrast, the role of

government policies in the NZ data is very low but given higher prominence in the UK, Canada and

Australia. The innovation and performance concepts are emphasised in the NZ, UK and to a lesser

extent Australian reports, but are absent from the Canadian data.

The concept frequency data highlight that differences exist, but they do little to shed light on why.

This is where Leximancer’s concept mapping can add evidence for the nature of linkages between

productivity concepts in each country.

Productivity Concept Maps

The Leximancer concept maps group related concepts into themes which are represented as circles.

Size, centrality and colour in the maps indicate importance, and proximity of themes indicates how

closely these keywords/themes are inter-connected. The country-specific differences noted above are

still evident in the maps, but the relationships add a layer of complexity to our understanding of how

each country approaches productivity discussions. Whilst many themes are the same across countries,

there is greater variation between countries in the concepts/keywords that occur within themes, the

relationships they have with other themes and in their centrality on the map. The discussion below

will focus on the concepts of productivity, growth and government.


7

Starting with the productivity theme, it is very central in the Canada map (figure 5) suggesting it is

closely linked to all the other themes, fairly central in the NZ map (figure 2) but more peripheral in

the Australian (figure 3) and UK (figure 4) maps. The overlap between productivity and the central

“capital” theme in the UK map suggests that the interest is in total- or multi-factor productivity. In the

NZ map, productivity is populated by concepts of market and economy and is closely related to

economic performance as well as growth.

Despite the fact that growth was such a frequently noted concept for most countries, the NZ map is

the only one in which growth is raised to a theme. The NZ growth theme is built upon labour, capital

and output concepts but is distant from the themes of business and firms, suggesting that the

discussions of growth are not aimed at the business sector. However, given the absence of government

related concepts in the NZ map, it is not clear what or who is responsible for the “growing.”

In the other maps, growth remains at a concept level usually as part of the productivity theme but, in

each map, it is connected to quite different concepts. In the Australian map, growth is connected to

rate and labour while in the UK it is connected to economy. In the Canadian map, growth is subsumed

under the labour theme and connected to productivity concepts such as level and sector - it is however,

more strongly connected with concepts such as goods and labour located (just) out of the productivity

theme. When this is factored alongside the separate and central “wages” theme, the map reinforces the

distinctive emphasis in Canada on labour and wages to productivity growth.

Another distinctive feature of the maps is the placement and relationships of “government”. In both

the Canadian and UK maps, “government” is fairly central and is elevated to theme level, suggesting

the importance of policies in driving firm competitiveness (Canada) and in shifting focus away from a

centralised approach to productivity and towards regional initiatives (UK). In both the Australian and

NZ maps, the government concept is positioned in the work theme suggesting in NZ that the

government’s role has an employment orientation, while in the Australian case it appears that

government’s role is to drive change, particularly within the workplace.


8

In summary then, the analysis of concepts in the twenty reports indicate that there are nuanced

variations to the productivity discussions in each country, reflecting the differing political and cultural

contexts within which the reports have been written. Having said that, there are several discourse

strategies which are consistent across the countries, which we now discuss.

DISCUSSION

Global Discourse

The consistent elements across the four countries were centred on the discursive devices used to

present the topics and data in the reports, and how they were harnessed for persuasive purposes. Four

different rhetorical strategies surfaced which we call: aspirational; fear of failure; national threat; and

exhortation to action. These are the global discourses as, despite the nuances that surfaced in the

concept analysis, they are common across all of the reports. It appears the role of the productivity

reports include using elements of shock and persuasion to invoke action on productivity related issues.

Aspirational

In the first discourse strategy, that of aspiration, almost all of the reports contain productivity-related

goals to which the nation must aspire, be it in terms of OECD ranking or a raise in standard of living

levels (not often given in explicit detail). Examples include:

Productivity growth is important to Australia because, through income growth, it contributes

to our community wellbeing. (Aus3)

The challenge for the future is to build on where our workplaces are performing well, while

also achieving improvements that move New Zealand to a sustainable, high value, high skill

and high wage economy. To achieve this will require engaging New Zealanders and lifting

national awareness about what improved productivity can contribute to our lives. (NZ5)

Of particular note in the aspirational rhetoric is the role of comparisons with other countries in

emphasising the goals to be achieved. Productivity growth rates above that of the local economy are

usually cited so that such comparisons are overwhelmingly negative, portraying the home nation as

“behind” with the aspiration being to “narrow the gap”. We specifically looked for examples of inter-

country comparisons in all of the reports and found nineteen examples over eleven of the twenty


9

reports (Table 2). Whilst the subject of the comparisons varied, comparisons were generally

unfavourable to the host nation with only five painting the host country in a favourable light.

Fear of Failure

Coupled with these negative comparisons between productivity levels across different countries, a

common rhetorical strategy used was to invoke fear around the consequences of a nation not

achieving the productivity levels to which it aspired. The discourse tended to employ emotional terms

such as “disappointing” ‟poor”, “deteriorated”, “in danger of”, “decline” and even “dismal”

From an international perspective, Canada's productivity growth performance in recent years

has been disappointing. Over the 1989-96 period, output per person employed rose only 4.3

per cent, the smallest increase of the 13 industrial countries for which the US Bureau of

Labor Statistics produces data. Canada's poor performance has meant that our relative

productivity level has deteriorated, dropping from 82.2 per cent of output per person

employed in the United States in 1989 to 80.5 per cent in 1996, although our level is still in

the mid-range for industrial countries. OECD productivity statistics paint even a more dismal

picture of Canada's business sector productivity performance over the 1979-96 period. Of 22

OECD countries, Canada was 19th in terms of labour productivity, and 21st in terms of

capital and total factor productivity growth. (Can1, emphases added)

The negativity associated with the productivity reports is also evident in some of the report titles.

“Challenge” is a key word used in association with productivity concerns and is coupled with the

evocative word “fading” in “Fading Productivity: Making Sense of Canada’s Productivity Challenge”

(Can4). Productivity is associated with challenges to be overcome.

National Threat

The fear invoked by a nation seemingly being “behind” others is sometimes manifested as direct

threat, again to (ambiguous) concepts such as living standards and well-being.

Canada’s weak productivity performance is especially troubling. If the country does not

improve on its poor performance since 2000, Canadians are likely to see their economic well-

being decline relative to other major industrial countries. (Can3).

Reflecting the conceptual themes from the earlier analysis, excerpts below illustrate a Canadian threat

to real wages, while in the UK, the threat relates to the private sector’s ability to innovate and thereby

increase productivity:


10

It is worrying, therefore, that real median earnings failed to increase from 1980 to 2005,

while labour productivity grew 37.4 per cent. If most Canadians are not seeing the benefits of

labour productivity growth in the form of higher real wages, why should they support policies

favouring productivity growth? (Can5)

Innovation without entrepreneurial people to take ideas forward and to exploit their business

potential will not contribute to productivity or output. Similarly, enterprises without

innovation run the risk of performing more poorly than other businesses and ultimately

failing. (UK5)

Exhortation to Action

The aspirational and threatening rhetorical strategies set the scene for calls to action. Who is being

exhorted to act is sometimes very vague, at other times all encompassing. Often the expectations are

that the action embodies new government policies while in other cases, it is the private sector that is

deemed to be a priority for mobilisation. The calls are very normative in nature (actions “must”

happen or are “essential” or “fundamental”) and evocative words such as “urgency”, “focused” and

“critical” are used to highlight the importance of the “effort” needed.

There is no silver bullet. Building sustainable economic growth and lifting living standards

demand a focused effort and strategic approaches across industry, firms and government….

Improving productivity is not primarily about working harder and harder but about working

smarter. It sounds straightforward but there is no one answer to achieving it. (NZ5)

The productivity challenge does not fall solely to the Government. All participants in the

economy – businesses, employees, investors and others – have an important role to play in

raising aggregate economic growth. (UK1)

These calls for action carry with them very strong nationalistic elements, and effectively the economy

becomes the metaphor for the nation, as a healthy productive national economy implies on-going

well-being for its organizations and communities. It becomes “obvious”, or common sense, that the

enemy of the nation is poor productivity. This approach to productivity is reminiscent of other

“nation-building” discourses , organized around prioritizing the nation state (Sutherland, 2005).

Whilst it is not likely that the authors of the various reports purposefully evoked this metaphor, it is

interesting that, despite the lack of a common approach to measuring productivity and also the

distinctive local meanings as surfaced by the concept analysis, the four mantras were common to the


11

majority of the reports. This apparent isomorphism appears to be accepted and it is interesting to

question the reasons behind the seeming uniformity in discourse strategies.

The similarities are unlikely to be a form of coercive isomorphism in that there are no apparent direct

pressures from stakeholders to copy the rhetoric of other nations. It is possible that we may be

observing some elements of normative isomorphism in that there may be tendencies for economists

and policy makers worldwide to conform to “standard” ways of treating the subject of productivity as

proscribed by organizations such as the OECD. Thus, economists in public and private sector

organizations conform to the cognitive norms of their profession, resulting in the international

diffusion of productivity rituals and rhetoric. By doing so, the authors of the reports may be

attempting to establish or confirm their own legitimacy by imitating the major elements and themes of

the globalised productivity discourse. We would suggest it is likely that most of the convergence is a

form of mimetic isomorphism. This is particularly evident in the tendency in all of our countries, and

many others as well to compare their productivity performance, usually negatively, to that of other

economies to which they aspire. Mimetic isomorphism is probably more likely because of the

uncertainty around what constitutes productivity and the varying definitions that abound, as well as

contextual and cultural influences that are not well understood. Organizations (and we would suggest

report authors) tend to model themselves after others “when goals are ambiguous, or when the

environment creates symbolic uncertainty” (Di Maggio and Powell, 1983: 51). Mimetic isomorphism

is thus a logical strategy employed to reduce uncertainty (Villadsen et al., 2010) with the result that

explicit acknowledgement of local contextual variables is suppressed even though these can be unique

to the locale as suggested by our concept analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis of the productivity literature (Bryson et al., 2008) and how it is defined in reports from

four countries has shown that considerable semantic instability and ambiguity exists around the very

meaning of productivity and how to measure it, despite the fact that it has become such a ubiquitous

concept. It has become “common sense” discursively yet there is no common understanding.


12

Our thematic and keyword analysis of the reports has shown that local contextual factors have

considerable influence on what is considered important in discussions of productivity. It is likely that

such variation is wide-spread, not just in our four sample countries, which makes a mockery of “one-

size-fits-all” best practice approaches to productivity solutions. It also should alert those interested in

enhancing productivity to be cynical of inter-national comparisons as the aspirations are not likely to

be realistic. A contingency approach to local productivity issues is probably more appropriate so that

effort should be focused on tailoring measures to local conditions that may then be more sustainable

in the long-term.

Despite the wide variation in local themes, significant mimetic isomorphism, is evident in the

discourse strategies employed by the report authors. We propose that this tendency to imitate is

probably driven by the uncertainty surrounding the productivity notion. In many of the reports the

economy is effectively conflated with the country and the discourse strategies invoke strong

nationalistic overtones. We have not specifically analysed the remedies employed in the nations to

grow productivity to contrast this with those espoused in the documents, but it is likely that we would

uncover a tension between the globalised prescriptions and the local contexts. While it has been

interesting to identify the local meanings and global discourses in the productivity reports, there is

certain irony and futility in the isomorphism generated which should make those interested in

productivity wary. First, the results raise a question about whether any nation thinks they are

addressing the supposed “productivity challenge”correctly. Second, given the merry-go-round of

comparisons, if every country is trying to raise national productivity to levels higher than that

observed in other countries, it becomes a never ending and potentially futile quest. If most countries

are extolling working harder or working smarter as the path to improved productivity, but no nation is

happy with their levels of productivity, it begs the question as to whether the issue is really one of

productivity, however defined, or is more about acknowledging the diversity of potential approaches

to building a sustainable economies and societies.


13

REFERENCES

Atkins, M. (2006) The Importance and Danger of the Productivity Mantra, President‟s Note, Northern

Ontario Business, July 1.

(http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+importance+and+danger+of+the+productivity+mantra.-

a0148614238 , 2006, accessed 17 December, 2009)

Bakhtin, M. (1986) Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, ed. and trans. by C. Emerson and M.

Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Barreto, I. And Baden-Fuller, C. (2006) To confirm or to perform? Mimetic behaviour, legitimacy-

based groups and performance consequences, Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1559-1581.

Berndt, E., and Fuss, M. (1986) Productivity Measurement with Adjustments for Variations in

Capacity Utilization and Other Forms of Temporary Equilibrium, Journal of Econometrics, 33, 7-29.

Biersteker, T. (1990) Reducing the role of the state in the economy: A conceptual exploration of IMF

and World Bank prescriptions, International Studies Quarterly, 34 (4), 477-492.

Bryson, J., Renton, M., Davenport, S., Dallaenbach, U., Leitch, S., and Motion, J. (2008). Mapping

the firm-level productivity terrain. Presentation at the Labour, Employment and Workplace

Conference, Wellington, December 2008.

Cummings, S., and Daellenbach, U. (2009) A guide to the future of strategy? The history of Long

Range Planning. Long Range Planning, 42, 234- 263.

Davenport, S. and S. Leitch (2009) Creating space for the successor: The discourse strategies of pro-

and ant-GM faction regarding the future of agriculture un New Zealand, European Planning Studies,

17(7), 943-961.

Deephouse, D. and Carter, S. (2005) An examination of differences between organizational

legitimacy and organizational reputation, Journal of Management Studies, 42, 329-360.

DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective

rationality in organizational fields, American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.

Edlin, B. (2009). Too much debt: Not enough productivity. New Zealand Management, 56(8), 22.

Fairclough, N. (1993) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.

Fairclough, N. and Wodak, R. (1997) „Critical Discourse Analysis‟, in T.A. Van Dijk (ed.), Discourse

as Social Interaction: Discourse Studies vol. 2 – A Multi-Disciplinary Introduction, pp. 258–84.

London: Sage.

Foucault, M. (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock.

Frumkin, P. and J. Galaskiewicz (2004) Institutional isomorphism and public sector organizations,

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 283-307.

Grant, D., Hardy, C., Oswick, C. and Putnam, L. (2004) „Introduction‟, in D. Grant, C. Hardy, C.

Oswick and L. Putnam (eds) The Sage Handbook of Organizational Discourse, pp. 1–36. London:

Sage. 23


14

Griffith, R., Huergo, E., Mairesse, J. and Peters, B. (2006), Innovation and productivity across four

European countries, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 22(4), 483-498.

Griliches, Z. and Mairesse, J. (1983) Comparing Productivity Growth: An Explanation of French and

U.S. Industrial and Firm Data, European Economic Review, 21, 89-119.

Janssen, J and McLoughlin, S. (2008). New Zealand's Productivity Performance. New Zealand

Treasury Productivity Paper 08/02

Keep, E. Mayhew, K and Payne, J. (2006) From skills revolution to productivity miracle - not as easy

as it sounds? Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 22(4) 539-559.

Kristeva, J. (1986) The Kristeva Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.

Laclau, E. & Mouffe, C. (1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic

Politics, trans. W. Moore & P. Cammack. London: Verso.

McCann, P. (2009) Economic geography, globalisation and New Zealand‟s productivity paradox,

New Zealand Economic Papers, 43(3), 279-314.

Meyer, J. and B. Rowan (1977) Institutional organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony,

American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.

Mizruchi, M. and Fein, L. (1999) The social construction of organizational knowledge: A study of the

uses of coercive, mimetic and normative isomorphism, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 653-683.

OECD (2003) Economic Surveys: New Zealand. Paris: OECD.

Pritchard, R. D., Jones, S. D., Roth, P.L., Stuebing, K. K., and Ekeberg, S. E. 1988. Effects of group

feedback, goal setting, and incentives on organizational productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology.

73(2) 337-358.

Smith, A. (2008). Leximancer manual (version 1.0). Brisbane: The University of Queensland.

Steinberg, R. (1997) Trade-environment negotiations in the EU, NAFTA and WT: Regional

trajectories of rule development, The American Journal of International Law, 91(2), 231-267.

Sutherland, C. (2005) Nation-building through discourse theory, Nations and Nationalism, 11, pp.

185-202.

van Dijk, T. (1995) „Discourse Analysis as Ideology Analysis‟, in C. Schäffner and A. Wenden (eds)

Language and Peace, 17–33. Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing.

van Dijk, T.A. (1997a) „The Study of Discourse‟, in T. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse as Structure and

Process, 1–34. London: Sage.

van Dijk, T.A. (1997b) „Discourse as Interaction in Society‟, in T.A. Van Dijk (ed.) Discourse as

Social Interaction: Discourse Studies – A Multi-Disciplinary Introduction, 1–38. London: Sage.

Villadsen, A., J Hansen and N. Mols (2010) When do public managers imitate each other? Mimetic

decision making in contracting decisions of Danish municipalities, Public Organization Review,

online, 25 February.


15

Williams, R. (1976/1983) Keywords. London: Fontana. 24

Figure 1: Differing emphases in productivity reports; cross country analysis.


16

Figure 2: Leximancer Concept Map for New Zealand

Figure 3: Leximancer concept map for Australia


17

Figure 4: Leximancer concept map for the UK.

Figure 5: Leximancer concept map for Cananda.


18

Table 1: Reports included in the Sample

New Zealand Australia United Kingdom Canada

Early NZ1: Productivity

in New Zealand

1988 to 2002

(New Zealand

Treasury 2003, pgs

43)

Aus1:

Microeconomic

reforms and

Australian

productivity:

exploring the links

(Productivity

Commission 1999,

264 pgs)

UK1: Productivity

in the UK: The

Evidence and the

Government’s

Approach (HM

Treasury 2000, 59

pgs)

Can1: Productivity: Key

to Economic Success –

(Centre for the study of

Living Standards 1998,

99 pgs)

Late NZ2: Putting

Productivity First

(NZ Treasury

2008, 32 pgs)

Aus2: Raising the

level of

productivity

growth in the

Australian

economy

(Australian

Treasury 2009, 20

pgs)

UK 2: Productivity

in the UK 7:

Securing long-term

prosperity (HM

Treasury

Department for

Business,

Enterprise &

Regulatory Reform

2007, 68 pgs)

Can2: Three Policies to

Improve Productivity

Growth in Canada



49 pgs)

Government NZ3: New

Zealand’s

Productivity

Performance (NZ

Treasury 2008, 30

pgs)

Aus3: Enhancing

Australia's

productivity

growth

(Productivity

Commission 2007,

22 pgs)

UK3: BERR’s role

in raising

productivity: new

evidence

(Department for

Business Enterprise

& Regulatory

Reform 2008, 107

pgs)

Can3: Business Sector

Productivity in Canada:

What Do We Know?

(Industry Canada 2008,

11 pgs)

Industry/Lobby NZ4: Productivity

Perspectives

(Business NZ

2006, 28 pgs)

Aus4: Embedding

Workplace

Collaboration:

Preventing

Disputes (Business

Council of

Australia 2009, 16

pgs)

UK4: In search of

high value added

production:

Product strategies,

skills and

innovation in UK

firms (National

Institute of

Economic and

Social Research

2008, 39 pgs)

Can4: Fading

Productivity: Making

sense of Canada’s

productivity challenge

(Certified General

Accountants Association

of Canada 2007, 28 pgs)

Labour/Wages NZ5: The

Workplace

Productivity

Challenge

(Workplace

Productivity

Working Group

2003(?), 98)

Aus5: Management

Matters in

Australia: Just how

productive are we?

(University of

Technology

Sydney for

Department of

Innovation,

Industry, Science

and Research,

Australian

Government 2009,

42 pgs)

UK5: Exploring

the links between

Skills and

Productivity: Final

Report (Institute

for Employment

Research -

University of

Warwick 2009, 72

pgs)

Can5: The relationship

between labour

productivity and real

wage growth in Canada

and OECD countries



87 pgs)


19

Table 2: Productivity Comparisons Between Countries.

New Zealand Australia UK Canada

Unfavourable NZ3;

Australia, US

(LP)

Canada,

Australia, US (LP

growth)

NZ5;

OECD average

(GDP per capita)

NZ4;

Australia, US

(productivity

growth)

Aus1;

High income

countries-

(productivity)

US (labour prod)

Aus3;

US (productivity)

OECD leaders

(productivity)

Aus 5;

USA, Japan,

Germany & Sweden

(mgmt practices)

UK2;

US (MFP, LP)

UK3;

US, France,

Germany

(productivity)

Can2;

US, OECD (productivity

growth)

Can3;

US(MFP)

Can4;

G8 France, Russia, UK

and Germany

(competitiveness)

Favourable NZ5;

OECD average

(economic

growth)

Aus3;

EU (productivity)

Aus 5;

France,

Great Britain &

Germany (mgmt

practices)

UK2;

G7, Germany,

France

(GDP per capita –

caught up)

Can3;

US (Capital)


Documents

“We Must be More Productive” : Global discourse, local ... · representations of the concept “productivity” in order to gain insights into local strategies and global similarities