FISHERY BULLETIN: VOL. 71, NO. 4 



Predicted with odjudad 

 linear equation 



Figure 5. — Observed and predicted labor productivity 

 (annual landings per fisherman) for the inshore American 

 lobster fishery, 19?0-69. Estimating equation: QIL = 

 -1290 - 0.003 E + 16.886 EIL - 2840L/A: + 158.435° F 

 + 76.9307. Variables: E = number of traps fished; 

 EIL = traps fished per fisherman; UK = crew 

 size; °F = seawater temperature; T = secular trend. 

 R2 = 0.69; D-W = 2.20; t values — E = 2.15; EIL = 

 1.73; LIK = 1.60; °F = 2.99; T = 1.85. Annual compound 

 rate of growth = -0.5%. Data source: Fishery Statistics of 

 the United States. 



in labor productivity over the 1950-69 period. 

 Also, the annual fluctuation of labor productiv- 

 ity varied significantly among the fisheries from 

 the Gulf of Mexico blue crab to the North 

 Atlantic groundfish fisheries. 



2. The construction of a productivity index 

 for all fisheries indicated that, for U.S. fisheries 

 as a whole, labor productivity increased by 

 approximately 2.5% per year over 1950-69. The 

 growth rate slackened, however, in recent per- 

 iods. 



3. Of great importance, labor productivity in 

 the U.S. fishing sector grew at a lower rate (i.e., 

 2.5% ) than the entire U.S. economy. However, it 

 was significantly below levels of labor produc- 

 tivity advances in poultry (9.8%) and meat 

 (3.8% ), which are fish's chief competitors for the 

 consumer's protein dollar. Preliminary interna- 

 tional comparisons revealed that U.S. advances 

 have not been keeping pace with labor produc- 

 tivity advances in other countries for the 

 groundfish and menhaden fisheries. 



4. In our detailed study of three selected fish- 

 eries, it was generally found that two forces 

 were at work: (a) increasing pressure on the 

 resource base and (b) attempts to increase the 



fishing effort per worker. We were successful 

 in isolating the quantitative effect of each factor. 

 Generally, it was found that increases in fishing 

 effort per worker offset the negative impact of 

 rising aggregate fishing effort on the resource, 

 thereby producing a rise in output per fisherman 

 over the period of analysis. We were also quite 

 successful in identifying the quantitative im- 

 pact of such other productivity determinants as 

 environmental, technological, and regulatory 

 factors. The productivity function developed to 

 explain changes in output per fisherman were 

 quite successful in explaining the trend in the 

 actual data. 



ACKNOWLEDGMENT 



We are greatly indebted to Fred Olson of the 

 Economic Research Division for his helpful 

 comments and suggestions dealing with the 

 comparisons between fishing and agricultural 

 productivity made in this article. 



LITERATURE CITED 



Bureau of Labor Statistics. 



1966. Output per man-hour measures: industries. 

 In Handbook of methods for surveys and studies, 

 p. 180-186. BLSBull. 1458. 

 Dow, R. L. 



1961. Environment, supply and yield in the Maine 

 lobster fishery. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Wash., D.C. 

 Inter- American Tropical Tuna Commission. 



Various years. Annual report. LaJolla, Calif. 

 International Pacific Halibut Commission. 



Various years. Annual report. Seattle, Wash. 

 Skud, B. E. 



1972. A reassessment of effort in the halibut fishery. 

 Int. Pac. Halibut Comm. Sci. Rep. 54, 1 1 p. 



APPENDIX 



Employment Figures in the 

 U. S. Fishing Industry 



The employment data utilized are from "Fish- 

 ery Statistics of the United States" compiled 

 by the Division of Statistics and Market News, 

 National Marine Fisheries Service. The numbers 

 of fishermen employed separated by the type 

 of fishing craft they work. The number of fisher- 

 men on vessels are gathered by field personnel 



918 



