Federal Reserve Economic Data

The FRED® Blog

Why manufacturing declines, at least in relative terms

Data on the stages of economic development

As economies develop from their agrarian roots into modern societies, they invariably go through a similar transition.

  • Agriculture: First, everyone works in the primary sector—agriculture—simply to survive. Food comes first.
  • Industry: As subsistence farming becomes more productive through innovation, some labor is free to engage in other productive activities. And this secondary, industrial sector rises in importance, with manufacturing as a major component. Consider the Industrial Revolution!
  • Services: Finally, as productivity in the industrial sector also improves, labor can be devoted more and more to the tertiary, services sector. It doesn’t produce anything tangible, but services are clearly still useful.

The FRED graphs in this post show the fraction of the labor force devoted to each of these three sectors for five countries: Japan, Chile, the United States, South Africa, and Mexico.

Some of the transitions from one sector to the next can be seen even in the relatively short period that FRED data can cover. It’s more noticeable, however, if you compare countries: The more advanced countries have a small primary/agricultural sector and a large tertiary/services sector. The importance of industry (e.g., manufacturing) really depends on the state of the economy. Poorer countries (with less data available from FRED) and richer countries both have much less industry; it’s the middle-income countries that have a fair share.

How these graphs were created: Start from the OECD Main Economic Indicators by country release table, click on the country of choice, find the labor survey (if available), select quarterly seasonally adjusted data, check the three sectors, and click on “Add to Graph.” Finally, from the “Edit Graph” panel, use the “Format” tab to chose graph type “Area” with “Percent” stacking. Sample dates may need to be adjusted in cases of missing data.

Suggested by Christian Zimmermann.

Is the decline in manufacturing economically “normal”?

Deciphering the phases of economic development

The FRED graph above tracks the proportions of employees working in three industries—construction, mining and logging, and manufacturing—since 1939. Construction (the blue line) has remained roughly horizontal. Mining and logging (the green line) has steadily declined. And manufacturing (the red line) has noticeably declined as well. This trend may look like weakness for the U.S. economy, but is it something to worry about?

Let’s take a step back: Historically, economic development has led to a declining share of workers in goods-producing sectors. The first sector to decline is agriculture,* whose workers moved to manufacturing and mining during the Industrial Revolution (which pre-dates our graph by a century or so). In the 19th century and beyond, the U.S. economy grew further and progressed to the next phases of development, with mining and manufacturing losing relative importance.

So if the U.S. economy is growing, where is it growing? The graph below shows the service sector has taken up the slack. At the start of the graph, in 1939, this sector had already made up 50% of non-farm employees, and it has continued to grow. The remaining sector, government, has remained relatively flat over the 80 years of this data series. Clearly, the U.S. economy is now much less focused on “making things.” Rather, the emphasis is now on education, health, leisure, retail, information, and finance.

How these graphs were created: Search the Current Employment Statistics release table and choose Table B-1 (seasonally adjusted); select the series you want and click “Add to Graph.” From the “Edit Graph” panel, for each line add series “All employees, non-farm” and apply formula a/b*100.

*Why don’t we show agricultural employment here? For one thing, it’s really hard to count: Many are part-time/seasonal workers and relatives that work on family farms.

Suggested by Christian Zimmermann.

View on FRED, series used in this post: CES0800000001, MANEMP, PAYEMS, USCONS, USGOVT, USMINE

A plateau for manufacturing?

After steady growth, manufacturing productivity seems at a standstill

The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ productivity and costs release provides data that can help us better understand the state of U.S. manufacturing. The graph above shows the evolution of manufacturing output since 1987. Notice the slow but steady growth in output since the Great Recession’s big dip.

What’s behind this slow and steady growth? The first suspect we’ll look at is manufacturing employment. The graph above shows there’s been a strong downward trend, which has accelerated during each recession. Yet, since 2010, manufacturing employment has been slowly making its way back up.

Next we’ll look at how much each worker produces in the manufacturing sector. Here, the story’s different: The general trend has been continuous increases in productivity per worker, but something seems to have broken with the Great Recession. First a major drop in productivity, then some progress getting back to trend, and then no progress since about 2010.

What if, since the Great Recession, manufacturing jobs have offered fewer hours of work or more part-time work? Maybe productivity per hour worked is growing. But the graph above, which shows productivity per hour instead of per person, shows no difference. The cause of this productivity standstill is thus either lack of technological progress or (more likely) a change in the composition of the manufacturing workforce toward lower-productivity work.

How these graphs were created: Search for “manufacturing sector” and each of the discussed series should be among the top choices. Simply choose them and click “Add to Graph.”

Suggested by Christian Zimmermann.

View on FRED, series used in this post: OPHMFG, OUTMS, PRS30006013, PRS30006163


Back to Top