CALL FOR PAPERS
International Productivity Monitor Symposium on
Productivity and Well-Being – Measurement and Linkages
The Centre for the Study of Living Standards (Canada) and The Productivity Institute (UnitedKingdom) are inviting proposals for papers on Productivity and Well-Being – Measurement andExplanations. Accepted papers, which should represent new and original work, will be
published in a theme issue of the International Productivity Monitor, which is the joint flagshippublication of both organizations in the Spring of 2022. An authors’ workshop with first draftsof the paper will be held in November 2021.
FramingRecent decades have seen an active debate on the adequacy (or inadequacy) of GDP as a metric
to track changes in living standards and well-being over time or difference between places with
important implications for how we measure, interpret and analyze productivity. Not only thenumerator (output or GDP) may be affected by our changing views on what should bemeasured, whether it is health or well-being outcomes or environmental values. The
denominator (inputs) may also be affected as some inputs, e.g. various intangibles, will matter
more for creating those broader or more fundamental outcomes compared to GDP andproductivity as traditionally measured.
An important strand of this narrative has focused on the need for broader measures that more
fully capture well-being or social welfare than GDP currently does. At one end of that debate,some have argued that GDP is an outdated measure that should be scrapped and replaced,
while at the other end some have defended GDP as a valuable measure and suggested
improvements or extensions. Possible extensions include better measurement of prices (bothshadow prices of “free” goods and prices of difficult-to-measure products), shifts in theproduction boundary, or satellite accounts that connect specific economic, social or welfare
domains (such as health, human capital or environment) to the core GDP concepts as permitted
in the SNA.

Possible changes in the concept of GDP—whether that be improving measures within thecurrent framework, extending the current framework, or completely scrapping GDP—raisefundamental questions about how productivity should be measured and about how
productivity and well-being are linked. This Symposium will investigate these questions froma range of perspectives.
To frame issues, we start with the idea that the concept of “productivity” can be broadened tothe idea of outcomes and resources needed to achieve those outcomes. This broad concept canbe operationalized in terms of a numerator which measure outcomes that go beyond theconventional measure of output as expressed by GDP and, similarly, a denominator which
includes a wider range of inputs, leading to a potentially quite broad definition of productivity.
This framework connects to the literature on well-being and social welfare given that thosemeasures can be the outcome measure. Even with a focus on a broad measure of well-being as
the appropriate outcome, it still is important to consider the resources necessary to achievethat outcome. Ultimately, whatever type of outcomes we aspire to, we should aim for
optimizing the usage of scarce resources (human, physical or natural capital), reduce waste andincrease the scale at which those resources can be employed. From a policy perspective, thislatter step is crucial.
An alternative to broadening the outputs and inputs is to retain the more traditional view ofGDP as the preferred measure of economic performance. From this perspective, one would
tend toward more conventional (or perhaps extended) measures of GDP in the numerator andlabor (and perhaps capital) inputs in the denominator, and develop complementary andpossibly broader measures reflecting non-economic outcomes and better understand how they
can be achieved through economic means.
Symposium Outline
To facilitate the discourse on this important topic, the Centre for the Study of Living Standards
and The Productivity Institute will launch a symposium of productivity and well-being withpapers around a set of common questions. We hope that each paper will contribute to one ormore elements of the debate outlined above and result in a thematically unified symposium, of
which the final results will be published in International Productivity Monitor.
•Questions:o What concept of outcomes is most appropriate for the numerator of a broad
productivity calculation? Something closer to a broad measure of well-being or
something closer to GDP? Should GDP be improved, extended, or replaced? IfGDP should be replaced, what should its replacement look like? If GDP should beimproved or extended, what changes should be made?

o What concept of resource use (inputs) is most appropriate? Why does that
preferred alternative dominate other possibilities?
o Within the framework you prefer, what are the linkages that run fromproductivity (however defined) to well-being (however defined)? What are thelinkages that run from well-being to productivity?
o Would you advocate that NSOs produce any of these measures (outcomes,resources or inputs needed to achieve those outcomes, or the ratio) or otherrelated measures?
We are inviting proposals for papers around one or more of those questions. However,submitters should not let these questions limit the range of what they want to cover on thetopic of productivity and well- being.
Following the selection of proposals, a virtual authors workshop will be organized to discuss
first drafts of the papers. Based on input from the workshop, authors will then submit revised
papers for consideration for inclusion in the special issue of the International Productivity
Monitor on productivity and well-being. These papers will then go through the standard IPM
refereeing process.
Timeline and process••••••••

Paper proposals (max 3 pages) by July 15th
Editorial decision on acceptance of proposals by July 20stFirst draft of papers by October 31st
Virtual authors workshop on November 16th and 17th 2021 (total 6-8 hours)
Submit papers to International Productivity Monitor by January 15th 2022
Review reports in by mid-March 2022
Final version by April 30th 2022
Publication June 2022

The editorial team which selects proposals, organizes the workshop and oversees editorial
process consists of Prof. Dan Sichel (Professor of Economics, Wellesley College & Chair of the
BEA Economy Advisory Committee), Dr. Andrew Sharpe (Executive Director, Centre for the
Study of Living Standards) and Bart van Ark (Managing Director, The Productivity Institutes &Professor of Productivity Studies, University of Manchester).
Proposals (max 3 pages) should be submitted before July 15th to andrew.sharpe@csls.ca.