Economic and Social Reports
The COVID-19 pandemic and gross domestic product per capita growth in Canada

Release date: May 25, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25318/36280001202200500002-eng

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has been affecting Canadians’ daily lives since the second quarter of 2020. During the pandemic, many economic activities have been restricted, fully or partially, to help slow down the spread of this contagious disease. As a result, production and employment were cut back substantially, leading to a sharp decrease in income and a rise in the unemployment rate. While gross domestic product (GDP) had largely recovered to pre-pandemic levels by the end of 2021, GDP per capita has not. GDP per capita of a country is often used for assessing the standard of living. Since 2020, Canada’s GDP per capita growth has averaged a decrease of 1.3% per year, down from its long-term annual average of 1.2% from 1981 to 2019 and of 1.0% per year from 2010 to 2019.

For a better understanding of the sources of Canada’s GDP per capita growth, GDP per capita is decomposed into labour productivity, work intensity, the employment rate, the participation rate and the share of the working-age population. The results show that, in the long run, labour productivity growth is the major source of Canada’s GDP per capita growth, although the contribution of other factors is also significant. However, during the pandemic, the decline in GDP per capita was driven by drops in work intensity, the employment rate and the participation rate. The drops in the participation rate and employment rate were largely driven by young people and seniors, and the drop in work intensity was mainly driven by male workers. If all three ratios had not been affected by the pandemic and had kept their momentum from 2010 onward, GDP per capita in Canada could have been 4% higher than it actually was in 2021.

Author

Weimin Wang is with the Economic Analysis Division at Statistics Canada.

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly affected economic activities in Canada for past two years. Since the second quarter of 2020, nonessential economic activities such as travel, hospitality and personal services were closed or restricted to help slow down the spread of COVID-19. These restrictions were relaxed or tightened at times to try to reach a good balance between saving lives and saving the economy. As a result, production and employment were significantly cut back in the second quarter of 2020. Both production and employment have been recovering gradually since then.

This study analyzes the trends in Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP) per capita^Note and its sources, and examines how these trends are influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic. GDP per capita is often used for assessing the standard of living and for making cross-country comparisons in the economic standing of a country (Easterlin, 2000; Maddison, 1983).^Note Canada’s GDP per capita decreased by 1.3% per year during the pandemic from 2020 to 2021, decelerating from its long-term trend of 1.2% per year over the period from 1981 to 2019. Although Canada’s GDP has almost reached its pre-pandemic level, Canadians may not feel the recovery of the economy since GDP per capita is still lagging.

There are three sources of GDP per capita growth. The first is the improvement of production efficiency often indicated by (labour) productivity growth; the second is the change in work intensity measured as hours worked per employment; and the third is the increase of the wide measure of employment, which is defined in this paper as the ratio of total employment to population. Any change in the wide measure of employment is a result of interaction between labour demand and labour supply, and also a reflection of demographic characteristics.

Productivity growth and GDP per capita growth have been widely used interchangeably in growth theory and empirical applications under the assumption of full use of resources. Krugman (1990) claimed that productivity growth is the only way to sustain improvements in living standards or quality of life. Tang and Wang (2004) pointed out that productivity is the fundamental determinant of differences in GDP per capita across a country or region since it provides the economic base for health, education, environmental improvement, infrastructure, poverty reduction and social security. Nevertheless, Marattin and Salotti (2011) showed that it is important to recognize the difference between productivity growth and GDP per capita growth, and failing to recognize the difference can be misleading.

The most important aspect of dynamics in the wide measure of employment is the increase in the female participation rate in past decades (see, for example, Beaudry and Lemieux [1999] for Canada from 1976 to 1994, Euwals et al. [2011] for the Netherlands in the 1980s and 1990s, and Jaumotte [2003] for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries from 1985 to 1999).

For a better understanding of the sources of GDP per capita growth in Canada, this paper decomposes GDP per capita into five ratios: hourly labour productivity measured as GDP per hour worked, work intensity measured as hours worked per employment, employment rate measured as employment per labour force, participation rate measured as the labour force to working-age population ratio and the share of the working-age population in the total population. The last three ratios together give the ratio of employment to population, which is termed “wide measure of employment” in this paper. To examine the role of women in the labour market, the wide measure of employment and its three components were decomposed into contributions by men and women.

The results show that over the long term from 1981 to 2019, 92.5% of GDP per capita growth was attributable to hourly labour productivity growth that was partly offset by a 14.5% decline in work intensity, and 22.0% came from growth of the wide measure of employment during the same period. During the pandemic, work intensity, the employment rate and the participation rate decreased significantly, leading to a large drop in GDP per capita. At the same time, hourly labour productivity increased by 0.7% per year on average. Without the gain in hourly labour productivity, the drop in GDP per capita in the past two years could have been 50% more than reported.

Also, the drops in the participation rate and the employment rate during the pandemic were largely driven by young people and seniors, and the drop in work intensity was mainly driven by male workers. Had the steady momentum of all ratios from 2010 onward not been interrupted by the pandemic, GDP per capita in Canada could have been 4% higher than reported in 2021.

Gross domestic product per capita: A three-term decomposition

Let $Y$ be real GDP, $P$ be the total population, $h$ be total hours worked and $E$ be the employment of people aged 15 and older. GDP per capita can then be written as

\frac{Y}{P} = (\frac{Y}{h}) (\frac{h}{E}) (\frac{E}{P}) (1)

Each of these three ratios gives different information about the economy. Hourly labour productivity ( $Y / h$ ) indicates the efficiency level of the employed resources in production, which relies on both the capital–labour ratio and multifactor productivity level^Note . The hours worked per employment ratio ( $h / E$ ) provides information on labour supply and work intensity. Its trend over time largely reflects the social progress in work–life balance. The employment per population ratio ( $E / P$ ) reflects a result of labour market conditions and demographic characteristics.

Chart 1 presents trends in GDP per capita, GDP per hours worked, hours worked per employment (work intensity) and employment per population (the wide measure of employment) from 1981 to 2021. As expected, GDP per capita and hourly labour productivity moved up closely together before the start of the pandemic in 2020. Meanwhile, the wide measure of employment increased at a much slower pace, and work intensity trended down moderately. The chart clearly shows that before the pandemic, productivity growth was the major source of growth in GDP per capita, although the contribution of the increase in the wide measure of employment is also not negligible.

Since 2020, economic activities in Canada such as travel, hospitality and personal services have been significantly affected by the pandemic-related restrictions and regulations implemented to help slow down the spread of COVID-19. The initial impact of these restrictions and regulations was a large drop in production and employment in the second quarter of 2020. The economy has recovered gradually since the initial shock. Chart 1 shows that GDP per capita, work intensity and the wide measure of employment dropped significantly in 2020, then partly recovered in 2021. At the same time, hourly labour productivity deviated from its long-term relationship with GDP per capita and moved in the opposite direction. It moved up in response to the shock in 2020, but moved down when the economy was recovering in 2021.

Chart 1 Trends in gross domestic product per capita and its components, 1981 to 2021

Data table for Chart 1

Data table for Chart 1
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for Chart 1 GDP per capita, GDP per hour, Hours per employment and Employment per population, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
	percent
	GDP per capita	GDP per hour	Hours per employment	Employment per population
1981	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
1982	95.7	101.4	98.6	95.7
1983	97.2	103.7	98.3	95.4
1984	102.0	106.5	98.8	96.9
1985	105.8	107.5	99.4	99.0
1986	107.0	106.6	99.4	101.0
1987	109.9	107.1	100.2	102.4
1988	113.3	108.2	100.5	104.1
1989	113.9	108.4	100.4	104.6
1990	112.3	108.4	99.9	103.8
1991	108.6	109.3	98.7	100.7
1992	108.3	111.4	98.7	98.5
1993	110.0	113.5	99.0	97.9
1994	113.7	115.4	99.6	98.9
1995	115.5	116.7	99.4	99.6
1996	116.2	116.5	100.2	99.5
1997	120.0	119.8	99.5	100.6
1998	123.6	122.0	99.1	102.3
1999	128.9	125.0	99.2	104.0
2000	134.4	129.0	98.6	105.6
2001	135.3	131.0	97.7	105.7
2002	137.9	133.2	96.7	107.1
2003	139.1	133.4	95.9	108.7
2004	142.1	134.5	96.5	109.4
2005	145.2	137.5	96.2	109.8
2006	147.6	139.1	96.1	110.4
2007	149.2	139.3	96.0	111.6
2008	149.0	138.8	95.9	112.0
2009	143.0	139.4	94.2	108.9
2010	145.8	140.9	94.8	109.2
2011	148.9	143.2	94.7	109.8
2012	149.9	143.7	95.0	109.8
2013	151.8	145.8	94.6	110.0
2014	154.6	149.8	94.3	109.5
2015	154.5	149.5	94.4	109.4
2016	154.3	150.1	94.4	108.9
2017	157.0	152.5	93.8	109.8
2018	159.1	153.0	94.6	110.0
2019	159.8	154.3	93.4	110.9
2020	149.7	165.6	87.0	103.9
2021	155.7	156.3	92.0	108.3
Note: GDP = gross domestic product. Sources: Common Output Data Repository tables 36-10-0207, 14-10-0022 and 17-10-0060.

For having an exact growth accounting framework, decomposition can be rewritten in its logarithm form:

Δ \ln {(\frac{Y}{P})}_{t} = Δ \ln {(\frac{Y}{h})}_{t} + Δ \ln {(\frac{h}{E})}_{t} + Δ \ln {(\frac{E}{P})}_{t} (2)

Decomposition suggests that the growth in the natural logarithm (“growth” or “log growth” hereafter) in GDP per capita is additive on the log growth in GDP per hour worked, hours worked per employment and employment per population.

Table 1 shows the results of decomposition for Canada in the long term before the pandemic (1981 to 2019), in the medium term after the financial crisis (2010 to 2019) and during the pandemic (2019 to 2021). As shown, Canada’s GDP per capita dropped by 1.3% per year on average over the two years during the pandemic, down from an increase of 1.2% per year on average over the long term before the pandemic. The drop in GDP per capita growth during the pandemic was largely driven by both the wide measure of employment and work intensity. It was slightly improved by the increase in hourly labour productivity. In the long term before the pandemic, GDP per capita trended up by 1.2% per year on average from 1981 to 2019, of which 92.5% came from hourly labour productivity growth and 22.0% came from the increase in the wide measure of employment, and the decreasing work intensity lowered GDP per capita growth by 0.2 percentage points per year, or by 14.5%. Annual average growth of GDP per capita and its sources for the medium-term period after the financial crisis (2010 to 2019) are similar to those in the long run.

Table 1
Annual average growth of gross domestic product per capita and its components, 1981 to 2021
Table summary
This table displays the results of Annual average growth of gross domestic product per capita and its components Before the pandemic (1981 to 2019), After the financial crisis (2010 to 2019) and During the pandemic (2019 to 2021), calculated using percent and percentage point units of measure (appearing as column headers).
	percent
	Before the pandemic (1981 to 2019)	After the financial crisis (2010 to 2019)	During the pandemic (2019 to 2021)
GDP per capita growth	1.2	1.0	-1.3
	percentage point
Source of GDP per capita growth
GDP per hour	1.1	1.0	0.7
Hours per employment	-0.2	-0.2	-0.8
Employment per population	0.3	0.2	-1.2
Total	1.2	1.0	-1.3
	percent
Source of GDP per capita growth
GDP per hour	92.5	98.8	-50.2
Hours per employment	-14.5	-15.6	60.9
Employment per population	22.0	16.8	89.3
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0
Note: GDP refers to gross domestic product. Sources: Author’s calculations based on Common Output Data Repository tables 36-10-0207, 14-10-0022 and 17-10-0060.

Employment per population: A three-term decomposition

With $L F$ as the number of people in the labour force aged 15 and older, and $P 15$ as the population aged 15 and older, employment per population can be written as

\frac{E}{P} = (\frac{E}{L F}) (\frac{L F}{P 15}) (\frac{P 15}{P}) (3)

Thus, employment per population equals the product of three ratios: the employment rate ( $E / L F$ ), the participation rate ( $L F / P 15$ ) and the share of the working population ( $P 15 / P$ ). The employment rate reflects the aggregate demand for labour in an economy in which many individuals who are looking for a job can actually have one. The participation rate indicates how many people out of the working population are looking for a job, and the share of the working population is a demographic feature of an economy.

Chart 2 presents the trends in employment per population and its three components. As shown, both employment per population and the share of the working population trended up at a similar pace, while the participation rate and the employment rate did not demonstrate a trend. It seems as though the trend in employment per population is mainly driven by the share of the working population, and its variations are driven by the variations in the participation rate and the employment rate. These relationships can also be seen from their movements during the pandemic. As expected, the movement in the share of the working population was not interrupted by the pandemic, because this ratio is a reflection of demographic characteristics. The other three ratios experienced a large drop in 2020 and a partial recovery in 2021.

Chart 2 Trends in employment per population and its components, 1981 to 2021

Data table for Chart 2

Data table for Chart 2
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for Chart 2 Employment per population, Employment rate, Participation rate and Share of working population, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
	percent
	Employment per population	Employment rate	Participation rate	Share of working population
1981	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
1982	95.7	96.3	99.0	100.4
1983	95.4	95.2	99.5	100.7
1984	96.9	96.0	100.0	101.0
1985	99.0	96.9	101.0	101.3
1986	101.0	97.9	101.6	101.6
1987	102.4	98.7	101.9	101.8
1988	104.1	99.8	102.4	101.9
1989	104.6	100.1	102.5	102.0
1990	103.8	99.4	102.2	102.1
1991	100.7	97.1	101.6	102.1
1992	98.5	96.1	100.4	102.0
1993	97.9	95.9	100.0	102.1
1994	98.9	97.0	99.7	102.2
1995	99.6	98.0	99.3	102.4
1996	99.5	97.8	99.1	102.7
1997	100.6	98.4	99.3	103.0
1998	102.3	99.3	99.8	103.3
1999	104.0	100.0	100.3	103.6
2000	105.6	100.8	100.7	104.0
2001	105.7	100.4	100.8	104.4
2002	107.1	99.9	102.2	104.8
2003	108.7	100.0	103.3	105.1
2004	109.4	100.5	103.2	105.5
2005	109.8	100.9	102.7	105.9
2006	110.4	101.4	102.4	106.4
2007	111.6	101.7	102.9	106.7
2008	112.0	101.5	103.1	106.9
2009	108.9	99.2	102.5	107.2
2010	109.2	99.5	102.2	107.4
2011	109.8	100.1	102.0	107.6
2012	109.8	100.3	101.7	107.7
2013	110.0	100.5	101.6	107.8
2014	109.5	100.7	100.9	107.8
2015	109.4	100.7	100.8	107.8
2016	108.9	100.6	100.4	107.8
2017	109.8	101.3	100.5	107.9
2018	110.0	101.8	100.0	108.0
2019	110.9	102.0	100.5	108.1
2020	103.9	97.9	98.0	108.2
2021	108.3	100.2	99.7	108.4
Sources: Common Output Data Repository tables 14-10-0022 and 17-10-0060.

Similarly, to obtain the associated growth accounting results, decomposition can be rewritten in its logarithm form as

Δ \ln {(\frac{E}{P})}_{t} = Δ \ln {(\frac{E}{L F})}_{t} + Δ \ln {(\frac{L F}{P 15})}_{t} + Δ \ln {(\frac{P 15}{P})}_{t} (4)

Table 2 presents the results of decomposition for Canada from 1981 to 2021. During the pandemic, the wide measure of employment declined by 1.2% per year, of which 79.1% came from the drop in the employment rate and 33.2% came from the drop in the participation rate. In the long term, the wide measure of employment increased steadily by 0.3% per year on average, mainly driven by the increase in the employment rate and the share of the working population. There was little change in the participation rate in the long run.

Table 2
Annual average growth of employment per population and its components, 1981 to 2021
Table summary
This table displays the results of Annual average growth of employment per population and its components Before the pandemic (1981 to 2019), After the financial crisis (2010 to 2019) and During the pandemic (2019 to 2021), calculated using percent and percentage point units of measure (appearing as column headers).
	percent
	Before the pandemic (1981 to 2019)	After the financial crisis (2010 to 2019)	During the pandemic (2019 to 2021)
Employment per population growth	0.3	0.2	-1.2
	percentage point
Source of employment per population growth
Employment rate	0.1	0.3	-0.9
Participation rate	0.0	-0.2	-0.4
Share of working population	0.2	0.1	0.1
Total	0.3	0.2	-1.2
	percent
Source of employment per population growth
Employment rate	19.5	166.1	79.1
Participation rate	4.7	-109.3	33.2
Share of working population	75.8	43.2	-12.3
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0
Sources: Author’s calculations based on Common Output Data Repository tables 14-10-0022 and 17-10-0060.

Participation rate, employment rate and work intensity by gender

Although productivity growth is the major driving force of GDP per capita growth in the long run, the participation rate, the employment rate and work intensity play an important role in the short run, especially during the pandemic. This subsection examines the extent to which women contribute to changes in the participation rate, the employment rate and work intensity during the pandemic and in the longer term.

Participation rate

As shown in Table 2, the participation rate dropped by 0.4% per year during the pandemic, but it was hardly changed over the period from 1981 to 2019. However, the stable overall participation rate is a result of the increasing female participation rate and the decreasing male participation rate. As shown in Chart 3, the female participation rate rose rapidly in the 1980s and 1990s, from 50.8% in 1981 to 60.0% in 2003, and remained stable thereafter. Meanwhile, the male participation rate declined steadily over the whole sample, from 76.4% in 1981 to 67.6% in 2021. The female participation rate was 59.0% in 2021, 8.6 percentage points lower than that of men.

Chart 3 Trends in participation rate, by gender, 1981 to 2021

Data table for Chart 3

Data table for Chart 3
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for Chart 3 All, Male and Female, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
	percent
	All	Male	Female
1981	100.0	100.0	100.0
1982	99.0	98.2	100.2
1983	99.5	98.0	101.8
1984	100.0	97.8	103.3
1985	101.0	97.9	105.5
1986	101.6	97.9	107.0
1987	101.9	97.6	108.2
1988	102.4	97.3	109.9
1989	102.5	97.0	110.7
1990	102.2	96.2	111.3
1991	101.6	94.8	111.6
1992	100.4	93.7	110.4
1993	100.0	93.1	110.2
1994	99.7	92.8	110.0
1995	99.3	92.1	109.9
1996	99.1	91.8	109.9
1997	99.3	91.8	110.5
1998	99.8	91.8	111.6
1999	100.3	92.1	112.6
2000	100.7	92.0	113.5
2001	100.8	91.8	114.0
2002	102.2	92.8	116.2
2003	103.3	93.3	118.1
2004	103.2	92.9	118.3
2005	102.7	92.4	117.7
2006	102.4	91.8	117.8
2007	102.9	92.1	118.7
2008	103.1	92.4	118.9
2009	102.5	91.4	118.8
2010	102.2	90.9	118.7
2011	102.0	90.8	118.4
2012	101.7	90.3	118.3
2013	101.6	90.1	118.4
2014	100.9	89.7	117.3
2015	100.8	89.8	116.9
2016	100.4	89.3	116.8
2017	100.5	89.2	117.0
2018	100.0	88.6	116.7
2019	100.5	89.0	117.2
2020	98.0	87.2	113.8
2021	99.7	88.5	116.1
Sources: Common Output Data Repository tables 14-10-0022 and 17-10-0060.

To examine the contribution by gender, the log growth of a particular measure can be written as the weighted sum of the log growth of the measure by gender as follows:

Δ \ln X_{t} = w_{t} Δ \ln X_{t}^{female} + (1 - w_{t}) Δ \ln X_{t}^{male} (5)

The weight ( $w_{t}$ ) can then be solved as

w_{t} = \frac{Δ \ln X_{t} - Δ \ln X_{t}^{male}}{Δ \ln X_{t}^{female} - Δ \ln X_{t}^{male}} (6)

Substituting into enables the decomposition of the log growth of a particular variable into the contributions by men and women. Table 3 presents the corresponding decomposition results for the participation rate. As shown, the female participation rate declined by 0.4% per year during the pandemic and declined by 0.2% per year over the period from 2010 to 2019. Women and men contributed almost equally to the decline of the participation rate during these two periods. However, over the long run before the pandemic, from 1981 to 2019, the rising female participation rate led to an increase of 0.2 percentage points per year in the overall participation rate.

Employment rate

The employment rate declined during economic downturns (the early 1980s recession, the early 1990s recession, the 2008/2009 financial crisis and the current economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic), then recovered gradually after each downturn, as shown in Chart 4. Also, there are no significant differences between male and female employment rates in terms of their patterns over time.

Chart 4 Trends in employment rate, by gender, 1981 to 2021

Data table for Chart 4

Data table for Chart 4
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for Chart 4 All, Male and Female, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
	percent
	All	Male	Female
1981	100.0	100.0	100.0
1982	96.3	95.6	97.3
1983	95.2	94.4	96.4
1984	96.0	95.5	96.7
1985	96.9	96.5	97.5
1986	97.9	97.5	98.4
1987	98.7	98.5	99.0
1988	99.8	99.7	100.1
1989	100.1	99.8	100.5
1990	99.4	98.9	100.2
1991	97.1	96.1	98.4
1992	96.1	94.8	97.9
1993	95.9	94.8	97.4
1994	97.0	96.0	98.3
1995	98.0	97.2	99.1
1996	97.8	97.1	98.9
1997	98.4	97.8	99.3
1998	99.3	98.5	100.3
1999	100.0	99.3	101.0
2000	100.8	100.2	101.7
2001	100.4	99.6	101.5
2002	99.9	99.0	101.2
2003	100.0	99.2	101.2
2004	100.5	99.7	101.5
2005	100.9	100.2	102.0
2006	101.4	100.7	102.4
2007	101.7	100.8	102.8
2008	101.5	100.6	102.8
2009	99.2	97.5	101.3
2010	99.5	98.2	101.0
2011	100.1	99.1	101.3
2012	100.3	99.4	101.5
2013	100.5	99.6	101.8
2014	100.7	99.7	102.0
2015	100.7	99.6	102.1
2016	100.6	99.4	102.1
2017	101.3	100.4	102.5
2018	101.8	101.1	102.9
2019	102.0	101.1	103.2
2020	97.9	97.4	98.7
2021	100.2	99.4	101.1
Sources: Common Output Data Repository tables 14-10-0022 and 17-10-0060.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the employment rate declined sharply because of the full or partial closure of many nonessential businesses. As shown in Table 3, the employment rate dropped by 0.9% per year from 2019 to 2021, of which 0.4 percentage points came from the drop in the male employment rate and 0.5 percentage points came from the drop in the female employment rate, suggesting that men and women more or less equally contributed to the drop in the employment rate during the pandemic. However, over the period after the 2009 financial crisis and before the pandemic, Canada’s employment rate increased steadily by 0.3 percentage points per year on average, totally driven by the rise in the female employment rate.

Table 3
Annual average growth in various measures and their sources, by gender, 1981 to 2019
Table summary
This table displays the results of Annual average growth in various measures and their sources Log growth , Contribution , Male and Female, calculated using percent and percentage point units of measure (appearing as column headers).
	Log growth	Male	Female
	Log growth	Contribution
	percent	percentage point
Participation rate
2019 to 2021	-0.4	-0.2	-0.2
2010 to 2019	-0.2	-0.1	-0.1
1981 to 2019	0.0	-0.2	0.2
Employment rate
2019 to 2021	-0.9	-0.4	-0.5
2010 to 2019	0.3	0.0	0.3
1981 to 2019	0.1	0.0	0.0
Work intensity
2019 to 2021	-0.8	-0.6	-0.2
2010 to 2019	-0.2	-0.2	0.0
1981 to 2019	-0.2	-0.2	0.0
Sources: Author’s calculations based on Common Output Data Repository tables 14-10-0022, 17-10-0060 and 14-10-0030.

Work intensity

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many workers had their hours reduced involuntarily, leading to a large decline in work intensity. As shown in Table 3, work intensity dropped by 0.8% per year from 2019 to 2021, of which about three-fourths were attributable to male workers and one-fourth were attributable to female workers.

Over the long term, work intensity also trended down, but at a much smaller pace. Over the longer period (1981 to 2019) and the more recent period (2010 to 2019), work intensity declined by 0.2% per year. In both periods, the drop in work intensity was totally driven by male workers, and female work intensity remained almost unchanged, as shown in Chart 5. This finding may be because male workers worked longer hours than female workers. Average hours worked were 41.6 in 1981 and 38.7 in 2021 for male workers aged 15 and older, while they were 33.3 in 1981 and 33.9 in 2021 for female workers aged 15 and older.^Note

Chart 5 Trends in work intensity, by gender, 1981 to 2021

Data table for Chart 5

Data table for Chart 5
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for Chart 5 All, Male and Female, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
	percent
	All	Male	Female
1981	100.0	100.0	100.0
1982	98.6	98.8	98.8
1983	98.3	98.7	98.4
1984	98.8	99.1	99.3
1985	99.4	99.9	99.7
1986	99.4	99.9	100.1
1987	100.2	100.6	101.2
1988	100.5	101.1	101.5
1989	100.4	100.7	101.9
1990	99.9	100.1	101.8
1991	98.7	99.2	100.7
1992	98.7	99.3	100.4
1993	99.0	99.6	100.6
1994	99.6	100.4	101.1
1995	99.4	99.9	101.3
1996	100.2	100.9	102.0
1997	99.5	100.2	101.3
1998	99.1	99.6	101.2
1999	99.2	99.4	101.8
2000	98.6	98.4	101.9
2001	97.7	97.3	101.3
2002	96.7	96.4	100.4
2003	95.9	95.6	99.6
2004	96.5	96.2	100.4
2005	96.2	95.8	100.1
2006	96.1	95.5	100.3
2007	96.0	95.3	100.4
2008	95.9	95.1	100.3
2009	94.2	93.4	98.9
2010	94.8	94.1	99.3
2011	94.7	93.8	99.6
2012	95.0	94.1	99.9
2013	94.6	93.5	99.6
2014	94.3	93.2	99.2
2015	94.4	93.1	99.7
2016	94.4	93.0	99.8
2017	93.8	92.2	99.5
2018	94.6	93.0	100.2
2019	93.4	91.7	99.3
2020	87.0	85.2	92.6
2021	92.0	89.8	98.3
Sources: Common Output Data Repository tables 14-10-0030 and 14-10-0022.

Participation rate, employment rate and work intensity by age group

Different age groups may respond differently to changes in labour market conditions because of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this subsection, changes in the participation rate, the employment rate and work intensity by age group during the pandemic are reviewed and compared with long-term trends. All workers are divided into three age groups: young (aged 15 to 24 years), prime (aged 25 to 54 years) and senior (aged 55 years and older).