Tuottavuus ja voimavarojen kohtaanto – Digitaalisten palveluiden tuottavuuden taso ja kehitys Suomessa heikko

Suomessa työn tuottavuus kuroi pitkään kiinni railoa suhteessa maailman eturintamaan, mutta kehitys kääntyi vuoden 2008 paikkeilla ja railo on sittemmin uudestaan levinnyt. Teollisuudessa työn tuottavuus on hyvää kansainvälistä tasoa, mutta monilla palvelualoilla kaukana vertailumaiden tasosta. Digitaalisesti intensiivisissä palveluissa tuottavuus Suomessa on yllättäen laskenut. Tuottavuuden hajonta Suomen yrityssektorilla on vähäisempää kuin verrokkimaissa, minkä taustalla näyttäisi olevan puute korkean tuottavuuden yrityksistä. Yrityssektorin uudistumisessa ei kuitenkaan vaikuttaisi olevan ongelmaa. Osasyy Suomen verrokkimaita alempaan tuottavuuteen ja huonompaan tuottavuuden kehitykseen on voimavarojen – työn ja pääoman – huonompi kohdentuminen korkean tuottavuuden toimipaikkoihin ja kohdentumisen heikkeneminen 2000-luvun alkupuolella. Kohdentuminen on kuitenkin parantunut noin vuodesta 2012 alkaen. Vaikka aggregaattitasolla työn tulo-osuus on supistunut, yritystasolla työn tulo-osuudet ovat yleisesti olleet kasvussa. Yritykset, joissa työn tulo-osuus on ollut pieni ja kannattavuus hyvä ovat kasvattaneet markkinaosuuksiaan, mikä näkyy työn tulo-osuuden pienenemisenä aggregaattitasolla. Suomen hintakilpailukyky vaikuttaisi nyt olevan suhteellisen hyvä historiaan verrattuna. Yhtäältä covid-19-pandemia ja toisaalta politiikkatoimet, joilla pandemian vaikutuksia on hoidettu, ovat kuitenkin johtaneet siihen, etteivät tilastotiedot tarjoa luotettavaa tietopohjaa viimeaikaisen kehityksen vertailulle

Productivity and resource allocation – Weak level and growth of productivity in Finland's digital services

The labour productivity gap between Finland and the world's leading countries narrowed consistently until 2008, when the trend took a downward turn. Since then the productivity gap has been widening. While labour productivity in manufacturing is at a healthy international level, it remains far behind the reference countries in many service sectors. Surprisingly, productivity in Finland has fallen in digital-intensive services. Finland's corporate sector shows a smaller dispersion of productivity than in the reference countries, which appears to be attributable to the lack of high-productivity companies. At the same time, however, the corporate sector seems to have been able to renew without any problems. One reason for the lower productivity and weaker productivity growth in Finland compared to the reference countries is the poorer allocation of resources and capital to high-productivity units, and further deterioration in allocation in the early 2000s. However, there has been an improvement in allocation starting from 2012. Although the aggregate labour income share has decreased, there has been a general increase in the corporate labour income share. Companies with a low labour income share and good profitability have increased their market shares, which translates into a lower aggregate labour income share. Finland's price competitiveness seems to be historically relatively strong. The COVID-19 pandemic on the one hand and the policy measures taken to deal with its impacts on the other have led to a situation where statistical data do not provide a reliable basis for comparing recent developments

Four Regional Marine Biodiversity Studies: Approaches and Contributions to Ecosystem-Based Management

We compare objectives and approaches of four regional studies of marine biodiversity: Gulf of Maine Area Census of Marine Life, Baltic Sea History of Marine Animal Populations, Great Barrier Reef Seabed Biodiversity Project, and Gulf of Mexico Biodiversity Project. Each program was designed as an "ecosystem" scale but was created independently and executed differently. Each lasted 8 to 10 years, including several years to refine program objectives, raise funding, and develop research networks. All resulted in improved baseline data and in new, or revised, data systems. Each contributed to the creation or evolution of interdisciplinary teams, and to regional, national, or international science-management linkages. To date, there have been differing extents of delivery and use of scientific information to and by management, with greatest integration by the program designed around specific management questions. We evaluate each research program's relative emphasis on three principal elements of biodiversity organization: composition, structure, and function. This approach is used to analyze existing ecosystem-wide biodiversity knowledge and to assess what is known and where gaps exist. In all four of these systems and studies, there is a relative paucity of investigation on functional elements of biodiversity, when compared with compositional and structural elements. This is symptomatic of the current state of the science. Substantial investment in understanding one or more biodiversity element(s) will allow issues to be addressed in a timely and more integrative fashion. Evaluating research needs and possible approaches across specific elements of biodiversity organization can facilitate planning of future studies and lead to more effective communication between scientists, managers, and stakeholders. Building a general approach that captures how various studies have focused on different biodiversity elements can also contribute to meta-analyses of worldwide experience in scientific research to support ecosystem-based management

Distribution and retention of effluent nitrogen in surface sediments of a coastal bay

Anthropogenic nitrogen (N) often causes coastal eutrophication, yet little is known about the fate and retention of effluent N in coastal waters and, hence, about the system’s ability to assimilate excess N loads. We used the spatial distribution of stable N isotope ratios and algal pigments in sedimentary organic matter from a Baltic bay receiving tertiary-treated effluent to evaluate the extent of effects and the role of nearshore marine environments as sinks of anthropogenic N. Surface sediments (0–2 cm and 2–4 cm) exhibited a pronounced spatial gradient of d15N, with the most elevated values (;8‰) near the outfall; values decreased linearly to values of;4 ‰ outside the bay. Sedimentary pigment concentrations were consistent with water-column data and showed that phytoplankton bio-mass was elevated in the inner reaches of the bay. In particular, diatoms were heavily labeled (d15N;10‰), reached maximum abundance near the effluent outfall, and were likely the main mechanism delivering effluent N to the sediments. Sediments within the bay removed;5–11 % of wastewater N inputs, with 50 % of the sequestered effluent N buried in the basin nearest to the outfall. Magnitudes of N removal by sediments (23–26 3 104 kg N yr21) were less than those estimated for denitrification (30–60 3 104 kg N yr21), but they were substantially greater than biological uptake by macroalgae (;2 3 104 kg N yr21). Taken together, these patterns demonstrate the idea that coastal sediments can be effective sinks of wastewater N, even after 30 yr of effluent input