Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “Unintended Consequences should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “Unintended Consequences is far smarter and more thought-provoking than most economics written for the general public” - Greg Mankiw, Harvard University, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “Unintended Consequences is full of substance, it is one of the must-read books of the year, and once I finish it I will be giving it a second read through right away.” - Tyler Cowen, Professor, George Mason University
  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

AI Summary. Construction labor productivity has been roughly flat or declining since the 1990s across most of Western Europe, Japan, and Korea, a pattern consistent with the flat US trend. Countries often held up as models — Sweden and Japan for prefabrication, China for infrastructure — show little or unremarkable construction productivity improvement.

Brian Potter Construction Physics
Date Posted:

The sharp contrast between soaring productivity in manufacturing and limited or no such growth in construction since the 1990s is not limited to the US, but largely holds across advanced countries, even those the US is “encouraged to emulate.”

Is flat construction productivity a problem across wealthy countries?

Core argument: Most Western European countries, along with Japan and Korea, have had flat or declining construction labor productivity growth since the 1990s, and the roughly flat US trend is fairly consistent with trends in other large, wealthy countries.

Most Western European countries, along with Japan and Korea, have had flat or declining labor productivity growth since the 1990s. The recent US trend in labor productivity — it staying roughly flat — is fairly consistent with trends in other large, wealthy countries. This includes countries whose construction practices the US is often encouraged to emulate. Sweden, for instance, is often praised for its high adoption of prefabricated construction, but since the 1990s Sweden has had roughly flat construction labor productivity, even as it has made more extensive use of prefabrication. Japan similarly makes wider use of prefabrication than the US does, and Japan has proved willing to experiment with technologies like automated skyscraper construction, but has seen virtually no construction productivity improvement since the 1970s. China is held up as an example of an infrastructure-focused nation that the US should emulate, but its construction productivity gains, while positive, don’t appear to be particularly impressive.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Most Western European countries, along with Japan and Korea, have had flat or declining construction labor productivity growth since the 1990s, and the roughly flat US trend is fairly consistent with trends in other large, wealthy countries.
  2. Sweden, often praised for its high adoption of prefabricated construction, has had roughly flat construction labor productivity since the 1990s even as its use of prefabrication became more extensive.
  3. Japan uses prefabrication more widely than the US and has experimented with technologies such as automated skyscraper construction, yet has seen virtually no construction productivity improvement since the 1970s.

Related Articles:

  • Five Decades of Decline: U.S. Construction Sector Productivity — U.S. construction labor productivity in 2023 was essentially unchanged from 1948, with real output per worker in 2020 more than 30% below its 1970 level, even as aggregate U.S. labor productivity tripled between 1950 and 2020. Construction accounted for about 4.5% of U.S. GDP in 2024.
  • The Strange and Awful Path of Productivity in the U.S. Construction Sector — U.S. construction sector labor productivity and total factor productivity grew faster than the whole economy in the 1950s and 1960s, then fell, ending 2020 below their 1950 levels while economywide labor productivity and total factor productivity were 290% and 230% higher. Construction labor productivity fell about 1% a year from 1970 to 2020.
  • Why Has Construction Productivity Stagnated? The Role of Land-Use Regulation — Homes built per construction worker boomed after World War II and fell after 1970, a decline the authors link to local land-use regulation that limits project size and keeps construction firms small and less productive. They estimate US residential builders would be roughly 60% more productive if their size distribution matched manufacturing.
Showing 489 database articles primarily about either Productivity, Cronyism, Incentives/Risk-Taking, Innovation/Research, Institutional Capabilities, Intangibles, Investment, Startups, or Workforce Reorganization