Hard work and economic growth

Many would say that working for long hours results in better output, and that it can utilise human resources in a more useful manner. To a layman this might seem right but does this hold true for the more keen-eyed? A closer look at how the mechanics of our economic system work can provide us with a suitable answer to this quiz. As far as working-efficiently-is-better-than-working-more argument is concerned, it is only partially true.
Each country in the world devises its own policies that regulate how its workforce is trained, utilised and given respite from fatigue and burnouts. Some would prefer a more relaxed environment if their economic situation is better or getting better. Still others would like to run on all cylinders if they deem their economic growth to be too slow.
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an average worker in Germany spends 1419 hours annually on his job whereas an average worker in Greece spends 2109 hours annually on his job. With where both the economies are headed, one can clearly see that working more does not always mean working better. Greece is not going upwards in its economic growth; instead, it has taken a hit and has only been rescued by a combined effort of the European Union members. Norway and the Netherlands have even shorter work hours though their economies have not shown a considerable dent in their wielding power despite a global recession.
An interesting question in this regard could be why the world does not follow German formula of efficiency. Why can’t the world follow a pattern of work ethics much like the Germans and be more efficient, more productive? The answer, though it requires more research in this regard, lies in the world’s system of economics. You see, one can be more efficient and thrifty, saving much more than consuming and thus work less for better economic rewards. Now if you have more savings, you can work less, export much, import even lesser, and create an economy that relies on exports rather than imports.
But if we continue along these lines, there is no rosy picture in sight. All countries cannot have more exports than imports and all countries cannot have more savings than borrowings. If they do so, the whole financial system would collapse on itself. Some countries have to be import-based or some consumption-based to keep the flow of financial assets on the move. A stagnant market, where there is no competition to take over one another, where one’s requirements need not be fulfilled by the other’s produce, a collapse of the whole economy is nothing but sure.
The stereotype that certain nations are more hardworking than others, has only as much credibility that the system allows them. In this regard, two examples stand out among the data compiled by OECD: the US and Japan. They are neither most hardworking nor most efficient. Still, their economic clout is beyond any doubt. The US is a major consumption based economy though its exports have a large footprint in the international trade, while Japan is heavily tilted towards an export-based economy. Both have almost the same number for work-hours their employment force clocks each year: the US 1778 and Japan 1733.
This can be true of certain nations, but not all. A poor country, howsoever we try twisting the statistics, has to work more than a rich country for the simple fact that the economic growth is an outcome of production and consumption, imports and exports taken altogether. Production or exports alone can provide only a good volume increase in economy, but it is the presence of consumption and imports as well that can bring the much needed economic growth.

The writer is Sub-Editor, Op-Ed, Pakistan Today.