News
DN
NoodleNews
ANALYSIS
12 OCT 2026
Economy · productivity

A new ONS method halves the size of Britain's productivity slowdown since 2009

Counting hours worked from several sources, rather than one household survey, lifts estimated output-per-hour growth for 2009 to 2019 from 0.7% a year to 1.3%. The figures are indicative and not yet official, and the ONS plans to adopt the method from November 2026.

1.3%
Annual growth in output per hour, 2009 to 2019, on the new method (0.7% on the current one)
11.1%
Total hours worked in 2024 above the 1997 to 2007 average, new method (18.5% on the current one)
1.9%
Output per worker in 2024 above its 2019 level, new method (2.4% on the current one)
What the data shows

The slowdown after 2009 is about half as large

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) currently measures labour input mostly from the Labour Force Survey, a household survey. Its new component approach builds the same total from three separate parts, hours, filled jobs and workers, each taken from the source judged strongest, such as business surveys, employer-reported pay data and administrative records.1

Before the financial crisis the two methods agree. Output per hour grew by 2.1% a year from 1997 to 2007 on the current measure and 2.0% on the new one. From 2009 to 2019 they diverge: 0.7% a year on the current measure, 1.3% on the new one.1 The drop from the pre-crisis rate is therefore 1.4 percentage points on the current measure and 0.7 points on the new one, exactly half. The ONS says improved hours measurement explains roughly half of the slowdown as previously measured.1

Exhibit 01
The two methods agree before 2008 and part ways after
Source: ONS, component approach to measuring labour productivity, UK 1997 to 2024. Average annual growth in output per hour. Indicative estimates, not official statistics.1
Key finding. A slowdown remains on either method. Growth after 2009 is still well below the pre-crisis rate. What changes is the size of the gap, not its existence. Most growth since 1997 still happened before 2008.1
Why the numbers move

The difference is in hours, not in output

Output is the same under both methods, so every change comes from the denominator. On the new method total hours worked in 2024 were 11.1% above the 1997 to 2007 average, against 18.5% on the current one. The number of jobs is almost identical, up about 19.9% against 19.7%. The difference is in hours per job: the new method has average hours per job 7.4% below the base period, the current one only 1.1% below.1

That is why output per job and per worker barely change between methods. For 2009 to 2019 output per job grows 1.0% a year on both, and output per worker 0.9% on the current measure against 1.0% on the new.1 Only the measure that divides by hours moves.

Exhibit 02
The new method finds fewer hours worked
Source: ONS, component approach to measuring labour productivity, UK 1997 to 2024. Total actual hours worked in 2024 relative to the 1997 to 2007 average.1
A cross-check

Payroll data sits closer to the new method

The ONS compares both methods with an administrative measure built from PAYE Real Time Information. Output per worker in 2024 was about 2.4% above its 2019 level on the current measure, 1.9% on the new one and 1.5% on the payroll data. The new method is closer to the administrative figure, but still above it.1 On both ONS measures, output per job is above its 2019 level but below its 2022 peak.1

Exhibit 03
Output per worker since 2019, three measures
Source: ONS, component approach to measuring labour productivity, UK 1997 to 2024. Output per worker in 2024 relative to 2019; the payroll measure is the ONS's administrative comparator.1
What we don't know

The ONS labels the component-approach figures indicative and not official statistics. It plans to adopt the method for whole-economy figures in November 2026, with industry detail to follow in February 2027, and the numbers could change before then.1 This piece does not show industry detail, where the effects of the change may differ. Nor does it say why hours per job fell more on the new method than the survey suggested, beyond the ONS's own explanation of better source data.

Caveat. The strongest objection is that this is a change in measurement, not in the economy. Productivity has not become faster, and the headline halving depends on the start and end of the window: 2009 to 2019 is chosen by the ONS table, and the pandemic years are outside it. Over the whole period from 1997 to 2024 the difference is smaller, 1.1% a year against 1.3%. The finding is also from one source, the ONS itself, with no independent estimate of hours.1
Method. All growth rates and levels are transcribed from the ONS methods document, retrieved 12 October 2026. They are annual-average growth in real output per hour, per job and per worker, on the ONS's current (Labour Force Survey-based) method and on the indicative component approach. The slowdown gap (pre-2008 rate minus 2009 to 2019 rate) and its ratio, and the 7.4-point difference in hours, were computed in code. A cross-check of the published cumulative 1997 to 2024 changes from the published annual rates agreed within rounding. No projections are used.
Sources.
  1. T1Office for National Statistics, Component approach to measuring labour productivity, UK: 1997 to 2024, published 17 September 2026 (indicative, not official statistics); retrieved 12 October 2026.
Corrections. None. Material corrections will be logged here with date.
Figures to 12 Oct 2026. Noodle News · v1.0 · uk-productivity-component-approach.