UK productivity grew twice as fast as thought after 2008 financial crisis
ft.com
ft.com
Im asking because everywhere i look at the UK, i see the complete opposite. A perfect example is HS2, the price has more than doubled and they delivered far less than half.
I can't read the FT article, but there've been various sources recently suggesting that an upward revision of productivity stats is probably justified: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/aug/24/uk-producti...
(HS2 is a pathological case, where the problems are driven by an unprecedented level of political meddling. Contrast it with Crossrail, 3.5 years late, cost £18.5bn rather than £14.8bn - and a humongous success when it finally launched, beating all expectations despite the effects of Covid and the shift to WFH, and already planning expansion to meet demand. We're generally bad at estimating the value of infrastructure and would likely unleash a wave of productivity improvements if we were willing to invest a little more up-front and not micromanage projects to death)
I fail to see how those types of questions can possibly judge anything.
While HS2 is obviously worse, CR was also extraordinarily expensive for what was achieved. The Victorians built dozens of railway lines for considerably less cost than just CR. I know you are going to tell me about land costs, but anything and everythign that is built in modern London or Sydney big and small from hospitals to roads or rail or even a house costs many factors what it cost before.
Just look at the new modern buildings and compare them to Victorian buildings and yet the cost of the old is a lot less than the new. The old has a lot of artistic work while the modern is rushed and plain and yet stuff costs more.
Why am i saying comparing the old and new cost, because i believe its unfair to award or grade the modern as more successful and productive than the old, when its quite clear this isnt true. by examining the above mentioned examples.