Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694843962543.pdf (Mauritius)
Productivity and Competitiveness Indicators (1998 – 2008) Introduction This issue of the Economic and Social Indicators presents Productivity and Competitiveness Indicators for the years 1998 to 2008 for the total economy, the manufacturing sector and Export Oriented Enterprises (EOE).

Tables 1.1 to 1.4 present the various indices for the total economy, tables 2.1 to 2.5 for the manufacturing sector and tables 3.1 to 3.6 for the EOE and its sub-sectors (textile and non-textile).
A description of concepts and definitions used is given on pages 10 and 11.

2.

Indicators for the total economy Table A below presents the growth rates of productivity, unit labour cost and other competitiveness related indicators for the total economy.
Table A: Productivity and competitiveness indicators for the total economy Indicator Output (GDP at basic prices) GDP at market prices GDP per capita (market prices) Labour input Capital input Capital - Output ratio Capital - Labour ratio Labour productivity Capital productivity Multifactor productivity Average compensation of employees Unit Labour Cost (Mauritian Rupees) Unit Labour Cost (US Dollars) 2.1 Output (Gross Domestic Product) Growth rate (%) Annual Average 1998 - 2008 2007 2008 4.6 4.1 3.2 1.3 5.4 0.8 4.0 3.3 -0.8 0.1 8.2 4.8 3.1 5.4 5.4 4.8 1.6 5.9 0.4 4.2 3.7 -0.4 0.1 10.6 6.7 5.9 5.3 4.6 3.9 3.7 5.8 0.5 2.0 1.6 -0.5 0.4 10.4 8.7 20.2 Output, as measured by the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), is the total value of goods and services produced within a country.
From 1998 to 2008, GDP in real terms grew on average by 4.6% per annum.

The growth rate for 2008 was 5.3% slightly lower than the 5.4% growth registered in 2007.

The GDP per capita at market prices is an indicator of the standard of living of the population.

With an annual growth of 0.9% in the population and 4.1% in GDP at market prices, GDP per capita grew by 3.2% per annum during the period 1998 to 2008.
2.2 Labour and capital inputs 2 During the period 1998 to 2008, whilst real GDP at basic prices increased by an average of 4.6% per annum, capital input grew by 5.4% compared to a growth of 1.3% for labour input.

The capital - labour ratio, defined as the ratio of the stock of fixed capital to labour input, grew by 4.0%, showing that capital deepening is taking place.

Annual growth rates of output and inputs for the years 1998 to 2008 are given in table 1.1.
2.3 Productivity trends Figure 1: Trends in productivity indices – Total economy, 1998 to 2008 0 0 1 = 0 0 0 2 x e d n I 130 120 110 100 90 80 Multifactor productivity Labour productivity Capital productivity 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2003 Ye ar 2.3.1 Labour productivity Labour productivity is defined as real GDP per worker.

From figure 1, it is observed that the index of labour productivity, improved from 90.6 in 1998 to 124.9 in 2008, giving an average annual growth of 3.3%.
In 2008, labour productivity grew at a lower rate of 1.6% compared to 3.7% in 2007 (Table 1.2).

This was the result of a slightly lower GDP growth of 5.3% in 2008 compared to 5.4% in 2007, coupled with a higher growth of 3.7% in labour input in 2008 against 1.6% in 2007.

2.3.2 Capital productivity Capital productivity is defined as real GDP per unit of capital.

During the period 1998 to 2008, the index of capital productivity declined at an average annual rate of 0.8% from 100.8 in 1998 to 93.4 in 2008.
In 2008, the capital productivity declined further by 0.5% after a decline of 0.4% in 2007 (Table 1.2).

The 0.5% fall in 2008 was explained by a higher growth in capital input (5.8%) compared to GDP (5.3%) 2.3.3 Multifactor productivity (MFP) 3 The MFP index shows the rate of change in “productive efficiency”.

In addition to labour and capital inputs, it takes into account qualitative factors such as better management and improved quality of inputs through training and technology.
During the period 1998 to 2008, the average annual growth of MFP worked out to 0.1%.

In 2008, MFP registered a growth of 0.4% compared to 0.1% in 2007 (Table 1.2).

2.4 Growth accounting The contribution of different factors to economic growth is determined by the growth accounting technique.

From 1998 to 2008, the contribution of labour to the 4.6% annual growth in GDP worked out to 13% and that of capital to 82%.
The remaining 5% represents the contribution of “Total Factor Productivity” (TFP), which includes qualitative factors such as training, management and technology.
Figure 2: Contribution of labour, capital and TFP to GDP growth, 1998 to 2008 TFP 5% Labour 13% Average annual GDP growt h 1998- 2008= 4.6% Capital 82% 2.5 Unit Labour Cost (ULC) Figure 3: Trends in Unit Labour Cost - Total economy, 1998 to 2008 0 0 1 = 0 0 0 2 x e d n I 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 Average compensation ULC Labour productivity 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Ye ar Unit labour cost measures the remuneration of labour per unit of output.
It is affected by changes in both average compensation of employees and labour productivity.

During the period 1998 to 2008, average compensation of employees increased by 8.2% annually whilst labour productivity grew by 3.3%.

The higher growth in average compensation of employees compared to 4 that of labour productivity resulted in an average annual growth of 4.8% in ULC.

In 2008, ULC grew by 8.7% compared to 6.7% in 2007 (Table 1.3).
To compare changes in competitiveness across economies, the impact of exchange rate fluctuations has to be taken into account.

When a national currency appreciates against the US Dollar, more Dollars are paid in exchange for each national currency unit.

On the other hand, when a national currency depreciates against the US Dollar, fewer Dollars are paid in exchange for each national currency unit.
From 1998 to 2008, ULC in Mauritian Rupees grew annually by 4.8%, while in Dollar terms it increased by 3.1% as a result of an average annual depreciation of 1.7% of the Mauritian Rupee vis-à-vis the US Dollar.

In 2008, ULC in Dollar terms increased by 20.2% compared to 5.9% in 2007, as a result of a high appreciation of 9.6% of the rupee in 2008 (Table 1.4).

3.

Indicators for the Manufacturing sector Table B below summarises the main indicators for the Manufacturing sector.
Table B: Productivity and competitiveness indicators for the Manufacturing sector Indicator Output (Value added at constant prices) Labour input Capital input Capital - Output ratio Capital - Labour ratio Labour productivity Capital productivity Multifactor productivity Average compensation of employees Unit Labour Cost (Mauritian Rupees) 11 Unit Labour Cost (US Dollars) 3.1 Output and inputs Growth rate (%) Annual average 1998 - 2008 2007 2008 1.6 -1.7 4.0 2.4 5.8 3.3 -2.3 -0.4 9.2 5.7 4.0 2.2 1.4 8.3 6.0 6.8 0.8 -5.7 -3.7 12.1 11.2 10.4 3.2 0.8 2.9 -0.3 2.0 2.4 0.3 0.8 12.7 10.1 21.8 From 1998 to 2008, real output in the manufacturing sector grew on average by 1.6% annually.
In 2008, the sector registered a growth of 3.2%, higher than the growth of 2.2% registered in 2007.

During the same period, labour input declined by 1.7% annually whereas capital input grew by an average annual rate of 4.0%.

Labour input registered an increase of 0.8% in 2008 compared to 1.4% in 2007.

Capital input grew at a lower rate of 2.9% in 2008 compared to 8.3% in 2007 (Table 2.1).
3.2 Productivity trends 5 Figure 4: Trends in productivity indices – Manufacturing sector, 1998 to 2008 0 0 1 = 0 0 0 2 x e d n I 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 Multifactor productivit y Capital productivity Labour productivit y 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 During the period 1998 to 2008, labour productivity in the manufacturing sector registered an average annual growth of 3.3% while capital productivity declined by an average of 2.3% annually.
This was the result of growths of 1.6% and 4.0% in real output and capital input respectively and a decline of 1.7% in labour input.

During the same period, multifactor productivity decreased by an average of 0.4% per annum (Table 2.2).

In 2008, labour productivity in manufacturing grew by 2.4%, higher than the growth of 0.8% in 2007.
Capital and multi-factor productivity for year 2008 witnessed increases of 0.3% and 0.8% respectively, whereas a year earlier, the sector witnessed declines of 5.7% and 3.7% in capital and multifactor productivity respectively.
3.3 Unit Labour Cost (ULC) Figure 5: Trends in Unit Labour Cost – Manufacturing sector, 1998 to 2008 0 0 1 = 0 0 0 2 x e d n I 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 Average compensation ULC Labour productivit y 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year 6 Figure 5 shows the trend of the ULC index in the manufacturing sector for the period 1998 to 2008.
During that period, ULC grew at an average annual rate of 5.7% due to a higher growth in average compensation of employees (9.2%) compared to labour productivity (3.3%).

However, in Dollar terms, ULC increased at an average annual rate of 4.0% due to an annual average depreciation of 1.7% of the local currency against the Dollar (Table 2.4).

In 2008, ULC for the manufacturing sector grew by 10.1% compared to 11.2% in 2007.
In Dollar terms, ULC increased by 21.8% compared to 10.4% in 2007; the increase being due to a high appreciation of the rupee by 9.6% in 2008.

3.4 International comparison of Unit Labour Cost in Manufacturing – 2007 An international comparison of growth in ULC in the manufacturing sector for the year 2007, in national currency and in US Dollar is given in table C and figure 6.
Table C: Manufacturing Unit Labour Cost of selected countries, 2007 France Germany Country National currency US $ USA -1.1 -1.1 0.3 9.5 -3.1 5.7 Italy 2.6 12.0 UK Mauritius -1.9 6.5 11.2 10.4 Taiwan -5.2 -6.2 Korea -0.9 1.8 Figure 6: International comparison of ULC in Manufacturing – Growth rate (%), 2007 ) % ( e t a r h t w o r G National currency US $ Italy 12.0 9.5 Germany 5.7 2.6 M auritius 11.2 10.4 UK 6.5 USA 0.3 -1.1 France -3.1 -1.9 Korea 1.8 -0.9 Taiwan -5.2 -6.2 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 -5.0 -10.0 Source: U.S Bureau of Labour Statistics and CSO estimates 7 It is observed that, in 2007, ULC in the manufacturing sector, expressed in national currency, fell in five of the eight economies compared, the steepest declines being in Taiwan (-5.2%) and Germany (-3.1%).
Among the three economies where increases were registered, Mauritius registered the highest increase (+11.2%).

Expressed in US Dollar, manufacturing unit labour cost declined in two countries, namely USA (-1.1%) and Taiwan (-6.2%).

Among the countries registering increases, Italy and Mauritius registered high increases of (+12.0%) and (+10.4%) respectively, explained by high appreciation of their currencies relative to the US Dollar.
3.5 International comparison of Hourly Labour Cost (HLC) The HLC is another indicator of international competitiveness.

Table 2.5 compares the evolution of HLC in the Mauritian manufacturing sector with available hourly labour cost for some other countries.

In 2007, the HLC for Mauritius was 1.57 US Dollar.

Among countries being compared the HLC for Sri Lanka was the lowest (0.61 US Dollar) while Germany had the highest HLC (37.66 US Dollar).

In 2008, the HLC for Mauritius was 1.75 US Dollar.


2008 data for the other countries are not yet available.

4.
Indicators for Export Oriented Enterprises (EOE) Table D below shows the main indicators for the Export Oriented Enterprises Table D: Productivity and competitiveness indicators for Export Oriented Enterprises Indicator Output (Value added at constant prices) Labour input Capital input Capital – Output ratio Capital – Labour ratio Labour productivity Capital productivity Multifactor productivity Average compensation of employees Unit Labour Cost (Mauritian Rupees) 11 Unit Labour Cost (US Dollars) Growth rate (%) Annual average 1998 - 2008 2007 2008 -0.1 -2.8 4.6 4.7 7.6 2.8 -4.5 -1.6 8.5 5.6 3.8 8.0 1.7 16.7 8.0 14.7 6.2 -7.4 -3.7 11.9 5.4 4.6 3.6 1.1 -1.3 -4.7 -2.3 2.5 5.0 7.1 6.0 3.4 14.4 4.1 Output and inputs 8 In 2008, the share of export oriented enterprises in the economy was 6.8%.
The contribution of the textile and non-textile subsectors in the total output of the EOE sector was 69.4% and 30.6% respectively.

During the period 1998 to 2008, real output of the EOE sector declined at an average annual rate of 0.1%.

Within the sector, the real output of non textile establishments grew by 6.9% while that of textile establishments declined by 1.4%.
During the same period, labour input registered an annual decrease of 2.8% while capital input registered an average annual increase of 4.6%.

In 2008, labour input grew by 1.1% compared to 1.7% in 2007, while capital input fell by 1.3% after a high growth of 16.7% in 2007 (Table 3.3).
4.2 Productivity trends Figure 7: Trends in productivity indices – Export Oriented Enterprises, 1998 to 2008 0 0 1 = 0 0 0 2 x e d n I 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 Multifact or product ivit y Labour product ivity Capital productivity 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2003 Ye ar Figure 7 shows the trends in the labour, capital and multifactor productivity indices of export oriented enterprises for the years 1998 to 2008.
Labour productivity grew at an average annual rate of 2.8% while capital productivity declined by 4.5%.

This is explained by an annual decline of 2.8% in labour input and a growth of 4.6% in capital input along with a fall of 0.1% in real output during the period under review.

Multifactor productivity fell at an average annual rate of 1.6% (Table 3.4).

In 2008, labour productivity in EOE grew by 2.5% compared to a growth of 6.2% in 2007.
Capital productivity witnessed an increase of 5.0% in 2008 and multifactor productivity 7.1%, after declines of 7.4% and 3.7% in 2007.
9 4.3 Unit Labour Cost (ULC) Figure 8: Trends in Unit Labour Cost – Export Oriented Enterprises, 1998 to 2008 0 0 1 = 0 0 0 2 x e d n I 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 Average compensat ion ULC Labour productivit y 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year From 1998 to 2008, average compensation of employees in the EOE sector increased by an average annual rate of 8.5% and labour productivity by 2.8%.
The higher growth in average compensation of employees compared to labour productivity caused ULC to increase at an average annual rate of 5.6% during that period.

In 2008, ULC increased by 3.4% compared to a growth of 5.4% in 2007 (Table 3.5).

In Dollar terms, ULC witnessed an average annual growth of 3.8% during the period 1998 to 2008.

In 2008 ULC in Dollar terms registered a rise of 14.4% compared to 4.6% in 2007, as a result of high appreciation of 9.6% of the rupee.
Central Statistics Office Ministry of Finance and Economic Empowerment Port Louis.

April 2009 Contact person Mrs. D. Ramphul Productivity Unit Central Statistics Office L.I.C Centre, Port-Louis Tel: 2122316/17, Fax : (230) 211-4150 Concepts and definitions 10 Technical Notes Productivity expresses the relationship between the output of goods and services (real output) and the various inputs required for production (e.g.

labour and capital).


Two important productivity indicators used are: labour productivity, that is, the ratio of real output to labour input, and capital productivity, the ratio of real output to stock of fixed capital used in the production process.

However, these indicators are limited in the sense that they indicate the influence of only one factor of production at a time on productivity.
An improvement over these partial indicators is the multifactor productivity which takes into account the simultaneous influences of several factors on production, including qualitative factors such as better management, improved quality of inputs and higher quality of goods.

Unit Labour Cost (ULC) is another important indicator of competitiveness which is defined as the remuneration of labour for producing one unit of real output.
Using compensation of employees, which is more readily available from national accounts data as a proxy for labour costs, ULC can hence be expressed as the ratio of average compensation per person engaged to labour productivity.

This ratio indicates how improvement in productivity offsets increases in average compensation per worker.

1.

Output The term output in this publication refers to real output, that is value added at constant prices.
Output index = Value added (constant price) in year n x 100 Value added in base year 2.

Employment/Labour input Employment/Labour input is most appropriately measured by hours worked and its price by average compensation per hour.

However, due to lack of data, the total number of persons engaged, defined as employers, own account workers, contributing family workers and employees in any type of economic activity is used.
Prior to 2000, employment for year n was calculated as the average of employment at June of year (n) and June of year (n+1).

As from 2000, average employment for a given year is available and thus the data has been used for the computation of labour input.

Labour input index = Average number of persons engaged in year n x 100 Average number of persons engaged in base year 3.

Capital input Capital refers to the net stock of investment in reproducible fixed assets.
Reproducible fixed assets are investments in residential and non-residential building (excluding land), infrastructural work, machinery and equipment.

Capital input index = Stock of fixed capital in year n x 100 Stock of fixed capital in base year 4.

Labour Productivity Labour productivity index shows the rate of change in output per person engaged.

Labour Productivity Index = Output index x 100 Labour input index 5.
Capital productivity 11 The capital productivity index shows the rate of change in output per unit of capital.

Capital Productivity Index = Output index x 100 6.

Multifactor/Total factor productivity Capital input index Multifactor productivity (MFP)/Total factor productivity (TFP) index shows the rate of change in “productive efficiency”, and is obtained as the ratio of the output to a weighted combination of labour and capital inputs.
The limitation of partial productivity measures is that they attribute to one factor of production, changes in efficiency that are attributable to other factors.

MFP reflects many influences including qualitative factors such as better management and improved quality of inputs through training and technology.
Multifactor productivity index = Output index x 100 Multifactor input index A (t) = Q(t) x 100 where {WL(t) x L(t)} + {WK(t) x K(t)} A(t) = Multifactor Productivity index in time t Q(t) = Output index in time t WL(t) = Labour’s input share in time t (ratio of compensation of employees to value added) L(t) = Labour input index in time t WK(t) = 1- WL(t) K(t) = Capital input index in time t 7.
Unit Labour Cost Unit labour cost is the remuneration of labour (compensation of employees) to produce one unit of output.

It is computed as the ratio of the labour cost index to an index of production.

The index shows the rate of change in labour cost per unit of output.

Unit Labour Cost Index = Labour Cost Index x 100 or Average Compensation Index x 100 Output Index Labour Productivity Index For Competitiveness purposes, the exchange rate effect has to be taken into account.
ULC is therefore computed both in local currency and in US dollar.

ULC index (US $) = ULC index (MUR) / Exchange rate index of MUR/ US $.

8.

Hourly Labour Cost Hourly labour cost is the ratio of compensation of employees to total hours worked, inclusive of overtime.

Compensation of employees comprises wages & salaries in cash and in kind, bonus, overtime and social contribution incurred by employers.

The source of data is the Survey of Employment, Earnings and Hours of work.
12 Table 1.1 Trends in output and inputs - Total economy, 1998 - 2008 Real output Labour input (Index 2000 = 100) Capital input Index 89.3 91.2 100.0 105.2 107.1 111.8 117.2 119.9 126.0 132.8 139.8 Growth rate (%) 5.8 2.1 9.7 5.2 1.8 4.4 4.8 2.3 5.1 5.4 5.3 Index 98.5 99.5 100.0 101.5 101.7 102.9 104.0 104.6 106.3 108.0 112.0 Growth rate (%) 1.4 1.0 0.5 1.5 0.2 1.2 1.0 0.6 1.6 1.6 3.7 Index 88.6 94.8 100.0 104.9 109.9 115.6 121.4 126.6 133.7 141.5 149.7 Growth rate (%) 5.4 7.1 5.4 4.9 4.8 5.2 5.1 4.3 5.6 5.9 5.8 growth rate 1998 - 2008 4.6% 1.3% 5.4% Table 1.2 Trends in productivity - Total economy, 1998 - 2008 Labour productivity Capital productivity Index 90.6 91.6 100.0 103.7 105.3 108.6 112.7 114.6 118.5 122.9 124.9 Growth rate (%) 4.3 1.1 9.2 3.7 1.6 3.2 3.7 1.7 3.4 3.7 1.6 Index 100.8 96.1 100.0 100.3 97.5 96.8 96.5 94.7 94.2 93.8 93.4 Growth rate (%) 0.4 -4.6 4.0 0.3 -2.8 -0.7 -0.3 -1.9 -0.5 -0.4 -0.5 Index (Index 2000 = 100) Multifactor productivity Growth rate (%) 1.5 -2.5 5.0 0.5 -1.5 0.5 0.4 -0.8 -0.6 0.1 0.4 97.6 95.2 100.0 100.5 99.0 99.5 99.9 99.1 98.5 98.6 99.0 Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Average annual Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Average annual growth rate 1998 - 2008 3.3% -0.8% 0.1% Table 1.3 Average compensation of employees, Labour productivity and Unit Labour Cost - Total economy, 1998 - 2008 13 Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Average annual Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Average annual Average compensation of employees Labour productivity Unit Labour Cost (Index 2000 = 100) Index 85.1 91.7 100.0 106.8 114.3 125.0 135.4 144.0 153.5 169.8 187.4 Growth rate (%) 10.6 7.9 9.0 6.8 7.1 9.3 8.4 6.3 6.6 10.6 10.4 Index 90.6 91.6 100.0 103.7 105.3 108.6 112.7 114.6 118.5 122.9 124.9 Growth rate (%) 4.3 1.1 9.2 3.7 1.6 3.2 3.7 1.7 3.4 3.7 1.6 Index 93.9 100.2 100.0 103.0 108.5 115.0 120.2 125.7 129.5 138.1 150.1 Growth rate (%) 6.0 6.7 -0.2 3.0 5.4 6.0 4.5 4.6 3.0 6.7 8.7 growth rate
 1998 - 2008 8.2% 3.3% 4.8% Table 1.4 Unit labour cost in Mauritian Rupees (MUR) and US dollar - Total economy, 1998 -2008 (Index 2000 = 100) Index Index Index (%) Change* Unit Labour Cost (MUR) Exchange rate MUR/US $ Unit Labour Cost (US $) Growth rate (%) -6.9 1.8 -4.4 -7.0 2.3 11.8 6.9 -0.7 -3.3 5.9 20.2 Growth rate (%) 6.0 6.7 - -5.3 -2.2 5.3 6.6 0.7 -9.6 4.8% 1.7% growth rate 1998 - 2008 * + : depreciation, - : appreciation of the MUR vis -a- vis the US $ 3.1% 14 Table 2.1 Trends in output and inputs - Manufacturing sector, 1998 - 2008 Real output Labour input (Index 2000 = 100) Capital input Index 90.9 92.7 100.0 104.4 101.9 101.9 102.5 96.9 100.7 103.0 106.3 Growth rate (%) 6.1 2.0 7.9 4.4 -2.4 0.0 0.6 -5.5 4.0 2.2 3.2 Index 103.0 102.1 100.0 99.1 96.3 93.0 88.2 84.5 85.1 86.3 87.0 Growth rate (%) 3.9 -0.8 -2.1 -0.9 -2.8 -3.5 -5.2 -4.2 0.7 1.4 0.8 Index 89.5 95.2 100.0 103.5 107.9 109.5 114.7 118.9 118.9 128.8 132.5 Growth rate (%) 5.1 6.3 5.1 3.5 4.2 1.5 4.8 3.7 -0.1 8.3 2.9 growth rate 1998 - 2008 1.6% -1.7% 4.0% Table 2.2 Trends in productivity - Manufacturing sector, 1998 - 2008 Labour productivity Capital productivity Index 88.3 90.7 100.0 105.4 105.8 109.6 116.3 114.6 118.4 119.3 122.2 Growth rate (%) 2.1 2.8 10.2 5.4 0.4 3.6 6.1 -1.4 3.3 0.8 2.4 Index 101.5 97.4 100.0 100.8 94.4 93.0 89.3 81.4 84.8 80.0 80.2 Growth rate (%) 0.9 -4.0 2.7 0.8 -6.4 -1.5 -4.0 -8.8 4.1 -5.7 0.3 Index (Index 2000 = 100) Multifactor productivity Growth rate (%) 1.5 -1.1 5.9 2.5 -3.6 0.4 -0.9 -6.1 2.2 -3.7 0.8 95.5 94.5 100.0 102.5 98.8 99.2 98.3 92.3 94.3 90.8 91.6 Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Average annual Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Average annual growth rate 1998
 - 2008 3.3% -2.3% -0.4% Table 2.3 Average compensation of employees, Labour productivity and Unit Labour Cost - Manufacturing sector, 1998 - 2008 15 Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Average annual Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Average annual Average compensation of employees Labour productivity Unit Labour Cost (Index 2000 = 100) Index 80.2 90.1 100.0 108.9 117.1 126.3 139.4 149.8 153.6 172.2 194.0 Growth rate (%) 9.5 12.3 11.0 8.9 7.6 7.8 10.4 7.4 2.6 12.1 12.7 Index 88.3 90.7 100.0 105.4 105.8 109.6 116.3 114.6 118.4 119.3 122.2 Growth rate (%) 2.1 2.8 10.2 5.4 0.4 3.6 6.1 -1.4 3.3 0.8 2.4 Index 90.8 99.3 100.0 103.3 110.7 115.2 119.9 130.7 129.7 144.3 158.8 Growth rate (%) 7.3 9.3 0.8 3.3 7.2 4.0 4.1 9.0 -0.7 11.2 10.1 growth rate 1998 - 2008 9.2% 3.3% 5.7% Table 2.4 Unit labour cost in Mauritian Rupees (MUR) and US dollar - Manufacturing sector, 1998 - 2008 (Index 2000 = 100) Index Index Index (%) Change* Unit Labour Cost (MUR) Exchange rate MUR/US $ Unit Labour Cost (US $) Growth rate (%) -5.8 4.2 -3.5 -6.7 4.0 9.8 6.5 3.4 -6.8 10.4 21.8 Growth rate (%) 7.3 9.3 0.8 3.3 7.2 4.0 4.1 9.0 - -5.3 -2.2 5.3 6.6 0.7 -9.6 growth rate 1998 - 2008 5.7% 1.7% 4.0% * + : depreciation, - : appreciation of the MUR vis- a - vis the US $ Table 2.5 - Hourly labour cost of selected countries in US Dollar - Manufacturing sector, 1998 - 2007 Country 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Australia France Germany Hong Kong (S.A.R) 1 5.58 5.37 5.45 5.74 5.66 5.54 5.51 5.65 5.78 5.78 Japan Korea Mauritius Mexico Portugal
 Singapore Sri Lanka Taiwan United Kingdom 17.04 17.33 16.84 16.75 18.36 21.29 24.37 25.36 26.36 29.73 Canada USA 15.60 15.58 16.48 16.23 16.72 19.60 22.25 24.40 26.28 28.91 18.64 18.78 19.65 20.58 21.33 22.48 23.12 23.81 24.15 24.59 Source : U.S. Bureau of Labour Statistics and CSO estimates 1 Special Administrative Region of China 17 Table 3.1 Trends in output and inputs - Export Oriented Enterprises (EOE), 1998 - 2008 (Index 2000 = 100) Capital input Labour input Real output Index 89.0 94.3 100.0 104.4 98.1 92.2 86.0 75.4 78.9 85.2 88.2 Growth rate (%) 6.9 6.0 6.0 4.4 -6.0 -6.0 -6.8 -12.3 4.6 8.0 3.6 Index 98.6 100.3 100.0 101.3 95.4 89.1 79.7 72.9 72.4 73.6 74.4 Growth rate (%) 5.4 1.8 -0.3 1.3 -5.8 -6.7 -10.5 -8.5 -0.8 1.7 1.1 Index 87.7 95.1 100.0 103.9 103.2 101.1 110.7 116.4 119.3 139.2 137.4 Growth rate (%) 6.1 8.4 5.2 3.9 -0.7 -2.0 9.5 5.2 2.5 16.7 -1.3 growth rate 1998 - 2008 -0.1% -2.8% 4.6% Table 3.2 Trends in productivity - Export Oriented Enterprises (EOE), 1998 - 2008 Labour productivity Capital productivity Index 90.3 94.1 100.0 103.0 102.8 103.5 107.8 103.4 109.0 115.7 118.6 Growth rate (%) 1.5 4.2 6.3 3.0 -0.2 0.7 4.1 -4.1 5.4 6.2 2.5 Index 101.4 99.2 100.0 100.5 95.1 91.3 77.7 64.8 66.1 61.2 64.2 Growth rate (%) 0.7 -2.2 0.8 0.5 -5.4 -4.0 -14.9 -16.6 2.0 -7.4 5.0 Index (Index 2000 = 100) Multifactor productivity Growth rate (%) 1.3 1.5 3.1 1.6 -2.3 -1.0 -9.4 -9.1 -2.2 -3.7 7.1 95.6 97.0 100.0 101.6 99.3 98.4 89.1 81.0 79.3 76.3 81.7 Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Average annual Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Average annual growth rate 1998 - 2008 2.8% -4.5% -1.6% Table 3.3 - Trends in output and inputs - Textile and non textile subsectors of EOE, 1998 - 2008 Real output Labour input Capital input Total Textile Non-textile Total Textile Non-textile Total Textile Non-textile (Index 2000=100) Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 1998 - 2008 Year 2007 Year 2008 98.6 100.3 100.0 101.3 95.4 89.1 79.7 72.9 72.4 73.6 74.4 89.0 94.3 100.0 104.4 98.1 92.2 86.0 75.4 78.9 85.2 88.2 -0.1 8.0 3.6 89.3 94.6 87.1 92.3 100.0 100.0 104.3 105.0 96.4 89.8 81.7 69.5 70.4 76.8 77.2 -1.4 9.0 0.5 111.3 110.5 118.3 121.5 142.7 149.7 169.6 6.9 4.9 13.3 Annual growth rate (%) -2.8 1.7 1.1 -3.8 1.3 - -1.3 87.8 95.1 89.6 95.0 100.0 100.0 104.1 105.0 103.3 107.3 101.3 104.2 1 8 111.1 115.3 117.2 121.4 120.1 126.2 140.5 145.8 139.1 144.7 4.7 17.0 -1.0 4.9 15.5 -0.7 Table 3.4 - Trends in productivity - Textile and non textile subsectors of EOE, 1998 - 2008 Labour productivity Capital productivity Multifactor productivity Total Textile Non-textile Total Textile Non-textile Total Textile Non-textile (Index 2000=100) Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 1998 - 2008 Year 2007 Year Annual growth rate (%) 2.5 7.6 2.8 3.9 1.3 -2.7 -4.5 -7.4 5.0 -5.9 -6.9 1.5 101.7 99.5 97.3 97.2 100.0 100.0 100.2 100.0 93.3 88.7 73.6 59.3 58.7 54.6 55.5 103.8 106.0 102.6 100.0 113.1 102.7 117.2 1.9 -9.2 14.1 95.6 97.0 100.0 101.6 99.3 98.4 89.1 81.0 79.3 76.3 81.7 -1.6 -3.7 7.1
 95.9 96.7 92.2 98.6 100.0 100.0 100.9 104.4 97.7 98.4 89.6 80.7 76.8 74.9 82.5 -1.5 -2.4 10.1 1 9 108.3 100.3 94.8 95.5 108.0 101.1 110.5 1.8 -6.5 9.3 Table 3.5 - Average compensation of employees, Labour productivity and Unit labour cost - Textile and non textile subsectors of EOE, 1998 -2008 Average compensation of employees Labour productivity (Index 2000=100) Unit Labour Cost Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Textile Non-textile Total Textile Non-textile Total Textile Non-textile Annual growth rate (%) 1998 - 2008 Year 2007 Year 2008 8.5 11.9 6.0 8.9 11.4 5.8 6.1 15.2 8.8 2.8 6.2 2.5 2.5 7.6 2.8 3.9 1.3 -2.7 5.6 5.4 3.4 6.3 3.5 2.9 2.1 13.7 11.8 Table 3.6 - Unit labour cost in Mauritian Rupees (MUR) and US dollar - Textile and non textile subsectors of EOE, 1998 - 2008 (Index 2000=100) Unit labour cost (MUR) Exchange Rate MUR/US $ Unit labour cost (US Dollar) Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 1998 - 2008 Year 2007 Year 2008 Total Textile Non-textile Index % Change* -5.3 -2.2 5.3 6.6 0.7 -9.6 87.4 109.7 100.0 118.8 105.8 74.0 58.5 84.7 84.8 96.4 107.8 91.3 95.8 100.0 110.7 114.1 108.1 105.7 111.3 118.6 119.5 108.0 Annual growth rate (%) 2.1 13.7 11.8 1.7 0.7 -9.6 Total
 97.8 103.1 100.0 95.0 101.1 113.8 119.9 128.9 118.5 124.0 141.9 3.8 4.6 Textile Non-textile * + : depreciation, - : appreciation of the MUR vis -a- vis the US $