Print or save as PDFBack to Insights
Grupo Datamétrica
Datametric Insights
Working paper · DI series · No. 09
DI-2026-09Economics & finance · Productivity

Seventy years of productivity: the gap that will not close

Labour productivity in the region grew 2.6% a year between 1951 and 1980. Over the last six years it grew 0.3%. This is the underlying constraint behind low growth.

PublishedAugust 31, 2026
Version1.0 · English
AuthorsAnalytics Unit
Reading time6 min read

Executive summary

01

Labour productivity in Latin America grew 2.6% a year between 1951 and 1980. Between 2019 and 2025 it grew 0.3%. In between there were two periods of contraction and one of near-complete stagnation.

02

Against the OECD, the region went from 46% of average productivity in 1990 to 37% in 2023. Against the United States, from 36% to 27%. The gap did not stabilize: it widened.

03

Informality explains much of the phenomenon. It fell from 54.5% to 48.0% of employment between 1990 and 2025, but almost all of that progress happened before 2013 and the process has since stalled.

04

The firm-size cut is the most severe. A small firm's productivity equals 23% of a large firm's, and a micro-enterprise's 6%: a difference seven times wider than the European one.

Headline figure0.3%annual growth in regional labour productivity between 2019 and 2025, against 2.6% in 1951-1980.
48.0%of regional employment was still informal in 2025
37%of average OECD productivity, down from 46% in 1990
23%productivity of a small firm against a large one
6%productivity of a micro-enterprise against a large firm

Context

The region's low growth is usually explained by the external cycle: commodity prices, international interest rates, demand from trading partners. The long productivity series suggests something else.

Periods of greater dynamism always coincided with more investment and more productivity, and periods of slowdown with less of both. The constraint is structural and survives every favourable cycle intact.

Growing without productivity gains means hiring more people to do the same thing.. It works while the external push lasts and stops working the moment it runs out. The difference between a company that survives a turn in the cycle and one that does not usually sits in that account, not in its size.

Figure 1 · Labour productivity by firm size

% of a large firm's productivity
Large firm
100%
Small firm
23%
Micro-enterprise
6%
Source: ECLAC, MSMEs in Latin America: fragile performance and new challenges for development policies (LC/TS.2019/20), figure I.11; reference year 2016. The report notes that the gap between micro-enterprises and large firms is on average seven times wider than the one recorded in Europe.

Table 1 · Latin American labour productivity by period

average annual change, in percentages
PeriodAnnual changeContext
1951-1980+2.6%Industrialization and infrastructure investment
1981-1990−1.7%Debt crisis and macroeconomic adjustment
1991-2002+0.1%Growth without productive transformation
2003-2013+1.6%Commodity price boom
2014-2018−0.9%Investment slowdown
2019-2025+0.3%Limited recovery, no structural change
Source: ECLAC, Economic Survey of Latin America and the Caribbean 2026 (20 August 2026), chapter II. ECLAC notes that in the latest period gains came almost entirely from improvements within each sector, with a practically nil contribution from reallocation of resources between sectors.

Business implications

Measure output per hour, not total output. It is the only indicator that separates growing by volume from growing by efficiency, and the one that anticipates what happens when the cycle turns.

If your supply chain is made of micro-enterprises, that gap is yours. The productivity of the smallest link caps the cycle time and the quality of the whole chain, not only its own.

Prioritize investment over hiring in already saturated functions. The seventy-year pattern is clear: where there was no capital accumulation, there were no sustained productivity gains.

Methodology & data

Labour productivity and informality series: chapter II of ECLAC's Economic Survey of Latin America and the Caribbean 2026, built on official figures from the national statistical offices of fifteen countries. International comparison: Latin American Economic Outlook 2025, by the OECD, CAF and the European Union.

The firm-size data have 2016 as their reference year. The ILO publishes informality close to 47% for 2025 across twelve countries; the difference from ECLAC's 48.0% is explained by country coverage.

References

ECLAC (2026). Economic Survey of Latin America and the Caribbean, 2026: growth and productivity in a context of high informality, chapter II. · OECD, CAF and European Union (2025). Latin American Economic Outlook 2025. · ECLAC (2019). MSMEs in Latin America: fragile performance and new challenges for development policies (LC/TS.2019/20). · ILO (11 December 2025). Labour Overview 2025 for Latin America and the Caribbean.

Next stepLet's review your operation and where the impact is.Data · Automation · Custom software
contacto@grupodatametrica.comdatametricgroup.comSuggested citation: Datametric Group (2026). Seventy years of productivity: the gap that will not close. Datametric Insights, DI-2026-09.
datametricgroup.com · Datametric InsightsDI-2026-09