IESET.
Hypotheses·labour·wfh_productivity_panel_2020_2024

Across OECD economies 2020-2024, sector-level work-from-home adoption is uncorrelated or weakly positively correlated with sector-level labour-productivity growth — i.e.

WFH is roughly productivity-neutral once compositional and selection effects are controlled, contradicting both strong-boost (Bloom) and strong-drag (Mortensen) priors.

INCONCLUSIVEengine/runs/wfh_productivity_panel_2020_2024

INCONCLUSIVE_DATA_PENDING — treatment '__interaction_telework_share_x_covid_pandemic_indicator' has no cross-country variation within years under year fixed effects

confidence cueResult card produced; verdict unclassified.

policy briefCoverage too thin

In ordinary language

Over a long period, do more market-oriented institutions translate into higher income or productivity, once the comparison looks beyond a single success story?

plain answer

This test cannot make a firm call yet. treatment '__interaction_telework_share_x_covid_pandemic_indicator' has no cross-country variation within years under year fixed effects

why it matters

Labor-market rules often help some workers while risking job loss or slower hiring for others. This test looks for that tradeoff in observable employment or unemployment data.

how the test works

It compares 18 country or place units from 2019 to 2024, using a panel fe design, with fixed effects for country and sector and year.

what was measured
What changed
  • Telework share
  • Covid pandemic indicator
What we checked
  • Labour productivity growth
  • Real value added per worker
what this does not prove

A single test is not the whole truth. It narrows the claim under a specific sample, time period, and method. Strong policy conclusions need the pattern to survive nearby tests, alternative data, and serious objections.

verification

0 input datasets, 0 unresolved missing series, provenance status: no input vintages recorded.

Results

engine/runs/wfh_productivity_panel_2020_2024
1007550250201920222024USAGBRDEUFRAITAESPNLD
illustrative sketch · run pending
No coefficients yet. When the model fires, this chart will show labour_productivity_growth across 18 sampled countries over 2019–2024.
The shapes above are stylised — none of the lines are real data.
Placeholder for wfh_productivity_panel_2020_2024. Published chart will be generated from engine/runs/wfh_productivity_panel_2020_2024/chart_data.json.

Pre-registration

pre-registered
first-spec commit 098ce96 · 2026-04-30T12:57:33Z
run generated · 2026-06-29T17:54:05Z

Across OECD economies 2020-2024, sector-level work-from-home adoption is uncorrelated or weakly positively correlated with sector-level labour-productivity growth — i.e. WFH is roughly productivity-neutral once compositional and selection effects are controlled, contradicting both strong-boost (Bloom) and strong-drag (Mortensen) priors.

Falsification criterion — what would disprove this

set before the run · honoured after

This hypothesis is considered falsified if:

OECD/EU country-sector panel 2019-2024. Run sector-level labour-productivity growth (real value-added per hour) on telework-adoption rate with country and sector fixed effects, plus pre-COVID productivity-trend control. SUPPORTED if the coefficient on telework-adoption rate is in [-0.3, +0.5] pp per 10pp WFH-share with p>0.10 (i.e. cannot reject zero in either direction). REFUTED if coefficient is outside [-1.0, +1.0] pp at p<0.05 (i.e. evidence of strong effect in either direction).

formal test & threshold
test:      oecd_panel_wfh_productivity_pooled_fe_2020_2024
threshold: SUPPORTED: |beta_wfh| < 0.5 pp per 10pp WFH share AND p>0.10. REFUTED: |beta_wfh| > 1.0 pp per 10pp WFH share AND p<0.05.

Method

Template
panel_fe
Fixed effects
country, sector, year
Clustering
country
Sample
18 countries · 2019 – 2024
Evidence type
associational

Two-way FE on country-sector panel with year effects. WFH coefficient identified off cross-sector variation in WFH-feasibility post-2020 interacted with country-level adoption intensity. Threshold designed to make the null (WFH wash) the supported case and either strong direction the refutation.

Data

VariableSourceTransform
labour_productivity_growth
outcome
oecd:OECD.SDD.STAtier 2
pct_change_yoy
real_value_added_per_worker
outcome
world_bank_wdi:NV.IND.MANF.KDtier 2
world_bank_wdi:NV.SRV.TOTL.KDtier 2
log_per_worker
telework_share
treatment
ilostat:EMP_TEMP_SEX_AGE_GEO_NBtier 2
oecd:OECD.SDD.TPStier 2
level_pct
covid_pandemic_indicator
treatment
constructed:0 pre-2020Q2, 1 from 2020Q2 onwardtier 5
indicator
pre_covid_productivity_trend_2015_2019
control
derived: country-sector 2015-2019 mean productivity growthlevel
gdp_growth
control
world_bank_wdi:NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZGtier 2
level
ict_capital_share
control
oecd:OECD.SDD.NADtier 2
level_pct

● ready  · ● pending  · ● reconstruct-needed

Detailed result card

Result card — wfh_productivity_panel_2020_2024

Verdict: INCONCLUSIVE_DATA_PENDING — treatment '__interaction_telework_share_x_covid_pandemic_indicator' has no cross-country variation within years under year fixed effects

Pre-registration

  • Claim: Across OECD economies 2020-2024, sector-level work-from-home adoption is uncorrelated or weakly positively correlated with sector-level labour-productivity growth — i.e. WFH is roughly productivity-neutral once compositional and selection effects are controlled, contradicting both strong-boost (Bloom) and strong-drag (Mortensen) priors.
  • Falsification rule: OECD/EU country-sector panel 2019-2024. Run sector-level labour-productivity growth (real value-added per hour) on telework-adoption rate with country and sector fixed effects, plus pre-COVID productivity-trend control. SUPPORTED if the coefficient on telework-adoption rate is in [-0.3, +0.5] pp per 10pp WFH-share with p>0.10 (i.e. cannot reject zero in either direction). REFUTED if coefficient is outside [-1.0, +1.0] pp at p<0.05 (i.e. evidence of strong effect in either direction).
  • Falsification test: oecd_panel_wfh_productivity_pooled_fe_2020_2024

Estimate

  • Error: treatment '__interaction_telework_share_x_covid_pandemic_indicator' has no cross-country variation within years under year fixed effects

Variables resolved

  • world_bank_wdi:NV.IND.MANF.KD; world_bank_wdi:NV.SRV.TOTL.KD → real_value_added_per_worker (outcome, publisher=world_bank_wdi, n=8624)
  • ilostat:EMP_TEMP_SEX_AGE_GEO_NB; oecd:OECD.SDD.TPS,DSD_LFS@DF_LFS_TELEWORK,1.0 → telework_share (treatment, publisher=constructed, n=108)
  • constructed: 0 pre-2020Q2, 1 from 2020Q2 onward → covid_pandemic_indicator (treatment, publisher=constructed, n=108)
  • world_bank_wdi:NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG → gdp_growth (controls, publisher=world_bank_wdi, n=13897)

Variables missing data

  • oecd:OECD.SDD.STA,DSD_PDB@DF_PDB_LV,1.0 (outcome, name=labour_productivity_growth) — vintage not on disk
  • derived: country-sector 2015-2019 mean productivity growth (controls, name=pre_covid_productivity_trend_2015_2019) — vintage not on disk
  • oecd:OECD.SDD.NAD,DSD_NAAG@DF_NAAG_KAPITAL,1.0 (controls, name=ict_capital_share) — vintage not on disk

Generated by scripts/run_panel_fe.py at 2026-06-29T17:54:05+00:00

Strongest opposing argument

Every hypothesis ships with its charitable opposing argument. The framework earns credibility by handling objections at their strongest, not weakest.

Notes

Tests the WFH-productivity wash hypothesis on OECD STAN / EU KLEMS sector-level productivity panel against ILOSTAT / OECD telework adoption. Identification is weak — relies on cross-sector, cross-country variation and pre-COVID trend controls.

Authored framework. Read the transparency note.