This is the 6^th edition of compilation of “Comparative Information on Productivity Levels and change in APO member Countries”. The purpose of the complication is to provide information on labor productivity on comparable basis among member countries, so that evaluations and comparison can be made at regional, national and sectoral levels. The period covered in the present edition is from 1981 to 1990, with statistical publications of the APO member government, the Yearbook of Labor Statistics by the International Labor Office (ILO), and the key indicators of member countries by Asian Development Bank (ADB).

The cooperation of the National Productivity Organizations (NPOs) in providing relevant data from the concerned Government offices and suggestion are hereby gratefully acknowledged.

This is the 5^th edition of compilation of “Comparative Information on Productivity Levels and change in APO member Countries”. The purpose of the complication is to provide information on labor productivity on comparable basis among member countries, so that evaluations and comparison can be made at regional, national and sectoral levels. The period covered in the present edition is from 1980 to 1989, with statistical publications of the APO member government, the Yearbook of Labor Statistics by the International Labor Office (ILO), and the key indicators of member countries by Asian Development Bank (ADB).

The cooperation of the National Productivity Organizations (NPOs) in providing relevant data from the concerned Government offices and suggestion are hereby gratefully acknowledged.

This is the 7^th edition of compilation of “Comparative Information on Productivity Levels and change in APO member Countries”. It provides information on Comparative labor productivity of member countries for the purpose of making evaluations and comparison at regional, national and sectoral levels. The period covered in the present edition is from 1985 to 1993, with 1985 at the base year. Data for this compilation are mainly rom the key indicators of developing member countries by Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Annual Reports on National Accounts, 1994, published by economic Planning Agency, Government of Japan.  

The APO co-organized the Study Meeting on Creative Entrepreneurship in Taipei, ROC, 18–21 May 2004, with the China Productivity Center. Since its inception in 1961, the APO has consistently placed great importance on the productivity and quality improvement programs and activities of its member countries. Small and medium enterprise (SME) development constitutes one of the APO’s thrust areas, and one key aspect of SME development is the fostering of entrepreneurs.

The study meeting, with the theme “Creative Entrepreneurship” was a timely event. Entrepreneurs often create significant breakthroughs and bold innovations in all fields of business. Entrepreneurial organizations similarly create new value and contribute to the economic growth of nations. The study meeting offered a valuable opportunity to examine not only creative entrepreneurship in SMEs but also in large corporations and how to foster creative entrepreneurs in the business sector.

The event brought together a panel of distinguished speakers, both from the ROC and overseas, to cover a broad range of issues ranging from the key success factors for entrepreneurial creativity in firms to implementing creative entrepreneurship in established firms, incubation of innovative enterprises, and new product development, which is an important aspect of value creation. The panel was chaired by Professor Tan Wee Liang, Singapore Management University, to discuss the following themes at the study meeting:

• Relevance of creative entrepreneurship for business growth and economic prosperity

• Critical examination of success factors for entrepreneurs

• Role of stakeholders, especially the government or NPOs, in promoting entrepreneurship

• Measures available to access entrepreneurial activities in an economy and their economic impact

• Development of enterprise “ecosystems”

This volume is a compilation of the papers and views presented at the study meeting. The APO greatly appreciates the efforts of Professor Tan in editing this volume. We hope that the contents will provide information on policies, best practices, and current developments that will be of use to policymakers, entrepreneurs, and enterprises engaged in fostering creative entrepreneurship.

Asia thrives on a diet of constant change. Big new undertakings draw governments and the private sector together in constructive ways. They encourage experimental give-and-take. That is the case with corporate governance, which is increasingly seen as a crucial instrument not just for enterprise reform, but more so for sustained economic growth.

In an Asian context, good corporate governance means unlearning pre-crisis corporate practices, getting concentrated ownership under control, keeping shareholders and consumers satisfied, and keeping stakeholders constantly informed. In a region as varied as Asia, that is not an easy task to do.

Within the Asian Productivity Organization alone, a variegated club of 19, the member countries may share the same corporate governance goals only in general terms. The notion of countries assembling together on a theme as important as corporate governance in different formations is surely inevitable. Some adopt the shareholder model of corporate governance, holding shareholder rights as inviolable; most embrace the stakeholder model, which holds that the interests of the community are as important as those of the shareholders. Yet practically all are still wedded to a relationship-based system, although that has not stopped many from pursuing avant garde forms that are more associated with the market-based, at-arms length system. Such is an Asia of diverse groupings, moving in different directions and at different speeds, with many countries hard at work at catching up with the region s leaders. Indeed this is a healthy trend, a source of pluralism and innovation within the region.

Despite the differences, the common ground among the APO member countries seems to rest on a consensus to adopt principles of corporate governance that hew more closely to generally-accepted global benchmarks. Whether widely-held or closely-held (by families), Asia s listed firms are heading toward a convergence that is going to make them better equipped to make their way in the global corporate market. This globalizing trend is shifting the balance of interests between private owners, shareholders and society at large. Tensions have flared around key public policy concerns. Asian countries face huge challenges when re-designing and implementing corporate policy at all levels. As the policy options for these nations to use corporate governance in support for their broader growth and productivity strategies are being rapidly narrowed down, many experts are questioning the one-size fits all approach to corporate discipline and are advocating a rebalancing of the corporate regime.

Asian nations as a whole will emerge the stronger for all this, if good corporate governance principles encourage them to push harder for national policies that make the firms work better. For those with threadbare institutions, their interests should lie in insisting on policies that keep the costs of business low, barriers to transparency down, and markets accessible.

The world has always wanted to keep investing in Asia. The task now is to keep investors excited about the prospects for corporate reform in the years ahead. Asian firms do want changes in rules every now and then, since it is the only way they can keep up with a constantly shifting global environment.

And change will happen, one way or the other, especially now that economies in Asia are enjoying growth again, although slowly. In order to sustain this momentum, the urgent need is to constantly assess recent developments in corporate governance in the region. As this publication shows, there is more to corporate governance than simply adherence to a code of good conduct: it is the sine qua non for improving corporate productivity and performance.

To say that corporate governance reforms only bring uncertainty runs counter to the evidence presented in this book. They are the very engine of stability and continued progress for Asian firms.

The Japan productivity Center for Socio- Economics Development (JPC-SED) annually publishes a volume in the series international comparison of labor productivity and analyzes labor productivity trend in Japan in comparison with those in other OECD member countries using public data from the OECD. The analysis generated by the JPC-SED in the series are very helpful in understanding internationally comparable labor productivity trends, policy implication, and the influence of important economic indictors. This is an English translation of the volume published by the JPC-SED in 2006. This translated version is published by the APO to provide its member countries with an example of the best practices in labor productivity Data analysis.   

“Productivity” normally means “Labor Productivity”. Labor productivity has now become an efficiency index of enterprise and of the macro economy. Increase in labor productivity propel economic growth and wage increase. Thus, labor productivity has become an important index for enterprise and the macro economy.

This 2003 version of “International Comparison of Labor Productivity” compiled and published by Japan Productivity Center for Socio-Economy based on statistical data for 2000 represents its 14^th edition. The following is the major framework for the current issue.

              I.      International Comparison of Labor Productivity of OECD Countries.

           II.      International Comparison of Labor Productivity by Data of World Bank and Other Organizations.

Beginning the last year, the number of countries involved in international comparison has been increased taking advantage of the World Development Indicators published by the World Bank. It is hoped that this report will present an opportunity to objectively recognize what position in the world Japanese labor productivity occupies.

This international comparison of productivity is an ever-present issue with a long history. The improvement of productivity is universally recognizes as a driving force in a national economy and an essential force for enhancing the standard of living, which is the ultimate goal of economic activity. Countries measure productivity with their own methods and use it as a guideline for formulating economy policy.

This international comparison of productivity has long been merely a comparison of the rates of increase in labor productivity. Although a number of studies on international comparisons of productivity have been connected, no consensus methodology has been developed. Still, there are many technical problems to be solved in the areas of data collection and analysis. Now that the world economy is increasingly interdependent and an increasing number of people are interested in relative levels of living standards, there is growing demand for multifaceted global comparisons of living standards for the sake of developing an adequate economic policy.

Productivity statistics: productivity indexes and level in APO Member countries,

1996 (from title Comparative Information on Productivity levels and Changes in APO Member Countries) is an annul publication of the APO.

The current publication is the eight editions. It comprises four parts:

Part I presents: Comparison of productivity Indexes;

Part II:   Comparison of productivity Levels in Current Prices

Part III: Comparison of productivity Levels in Constant Prices

Part IV :  Country-wise Compilation.