FISHERY BULLETIN: VOL. 71, NO. 4 



facturing and service industries, must exploit 

 a resource which has a fixed biological maxi- 

 mum that has a tendency to depress labor pro- 

 ductivity (see discussion below). 



Average annual percent change 

 12 



Figure 2. — A comparison of the rates of growth in labor 

 productivity for the total private economy, agriculture, 

 meat, poultry, nonagricultural. and fishing industries. 

 1950-69. (Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of 

 Labor Statistics; U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Agri- 

 cultural Statistics'"; and Economic Research Division. 



COMPARISON OF PRODUCTIVITY 



IN FISHING WITH OTHER 



SECTORS OF THE ECONOMY 



Figure 2 shows a comparison of the growth 

 in labor productivity over the 1950-69 period in 

 the total economy, and specific categories en- 

 compassing all agriculture, meat, poultry, 

 nonagriculture, and fishing industries.'" The 

 rate of growth in fishing was less than that for 

 the U.S. economy as a whole. However, the rate 

 of growth of labor productivity in agriculture 

 was nearly twice that of the entire economv. Of 



special significance, changes in productivity in 

 fishing lagged considerably behind that in the 

 poultry industry and over one percentage point 

 (per annum) in the meat industry. Since labor 

 productivity is a prime ingredient in relative 

 price changes, it may be concluded that these 

 trends were generally adverse to the fishing 

 industry.'! That is, the more rapid advance in 

 agriculture (including meat and poultry) 

 lowered the price ratio of agricultural to fishery 

 products. For example, the annual rate of 

 growth (1950-69) in the wholesale price index 

 of processed finfish was 3.9% while the whole- 

 sale price index for processed foods and feeds 

 was 0.9% , partially reflecting the differential 

 gains in productivity. '^ The consumer may then 

 substitute the less expensive agricultural pro- 

 ducts for fishery products, and the share of the 

 total food markets will decline for fish. This is 

 reflected in the data that show 0.8 and 3.6% 

 increase in per capita consumption of meat and 

 poultry, respectively, while the per capita con- 

 sumption of fish remained constant over the 

 1960-69 period. 



Data are not readily available on fishing labor 

 productivity in other countries. For illustrative 



'<* The aggregate productivity index based upon 18 fish- 

 eries will be used throughout the remainder of this article. 

 Furthermore, we are comparing annual productivity in 

 other sectors (as opposed to output per man-hour) with 

 that in U.S. fisheries. 



'1 Some have contended that the relatively lower price 

 of poultry has resulted from a reduction in cost of feed. 

 According to the Economic Research Service of the U.S. 

 Department of Agriculture, feed grain and high protein 

 feeds have increased over 319?^ over the last decade. Of 

 course, technical improvements in genetics, breeding, 

 nutrition, and feed formulation have increased feed con- 

 version ratios in broilers, and this has been the proximate 

 cause of the striking rise in labor productivity in the poul- 

 try industry. Hence, labor productivity is the prime factor 

 or indicator which is used to assess the impact of changing 

 technology in changing relative prices. This is the reason 

 labor productivity is monitored so closely in each sector 

 of the economy in our battle against inflation. 



'2 Some have suggested that price support programs 

 in agriculture have been a factor in lowering the price 

 advance of agricultural commodities. Admittedly, agri- 

 cultural price support programs have had an effect on 

 agricultural prices, but the major effect has been reducing 

 price fluctuations and stabilizing prices rather than a 

 direct effect on the fundamental change in agricultural 

 costs and price structures. Trends in any statistical series 

 will depend to a certain extent on when the series is start- 

 ed. In the case of agriculture, prices were low in 1950 and 

 picked up with the Korean conflict and dropped in 1953- 

 54. Agricultural policy was to support prices starting in 

 195 3-54 — a continuation of their earlier policy in 1950. 

 Prices in 1951-52, however, received little or no support. 

 Consultation with the Economic Research Service of the 

 U. S. Department of Agriculture indicated that the lower 

 rate of advance in processed foods and feeds has been due 

 to sizeable increases in agricultural production (from 

 1950), attributable largely to the rapid increase in agri- 

 cultural labor productivity contrasted with a reduction in 

 aggregate farm inputs (i.e., farm output grew at 1.89c per 

 annum while inputs remained constant). 



914 



