scorecardresearch
Saturday, April 27, 2024
Support Our Journalism
HomeEconomyModi govt denies Subramanian’s claims, says GDP estimates based on accepted methodologies

Modi govt denies Subramanian’s claims, says GDP estimates based on accepted methodologies

In a new research paper, former CEA Arvind Subramanian found that India’s GDP growth was overestimated by 2.5% between FY12 and FY17.

Follow Us :
Text Size:

New Delhi: The Narendra Modi government Tuesday rubbished claims made by former chief economic advisor Arvind Subramanian that India’s GDP growth 2011-12 and 2016-17 was overestimated by 2.5 per cent.

In a statement, the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation said its estimates were based on accepted procedures and methodologies, adding that it has from time to time released details explaining the complexities involved in GDP compilation.

India, it said, follows UN-adopted System of National Accounts 2008 (2008 SNA).

“As with any international standard, the data requirements are immense and diverse economies like India take time to evolve the relevant data sources before they can be fully aligned with the SNA requirements. In absence of data, alternate proxy sources or statistical surveys are used to estimate the contribution of various sectors to the GDP/GVA,” the statement said.

The ministry said the Base Year of the GDP Series was revised from 2004-05 to 2011-12 and released on January 30, 2015 after adaptation of the sources and methods in line with the SNA 2008.

“With any Base Revision, as new and more regular data sources become available, it is important to note that a comparison of the old and new series are not amenable to simplistic macro-econometric modeling. It may also be seen that the GDP growth projections brought out by various national and international agencies are broadly in line with the estimates released by MOSPI.

“The GDP estimates released by the Ministry are based on accepted procedures, methodologies, and available data and objectively measure the contribution of various sectors in the economy,” it added.

The statement came after former CEA Arvind Subramanian deduced in a new research paper that India may not have been the world’s fastest growing economy between 2011-12 and 2016-17.

India’s GDP growth rate between this period should be about 4.5 per cent instead of the official estimate of close to 7 per cent, Narendra Modi government’s former CEA said in the research paper, published by the Center for International Development at Harvard University.


Also read: No guns-blazing growth in India, GDP data overestimated by 2.5% points per year: Former CEA


‘India changed its data sources’

“India changed its data sources and methodology for estimating real GDP for the period since 2011-12. This paper shows that this change has led to a significant overestimation of growth,” he said. “A variety of evidence suggests that the methodology changes introduced for the post-2011 GDP estimates led to an over-estimation of GDP growth.”

Manufacturing is one such sector where the calculations have been largely mismeasured, wrote Subramanian, who quit as the chief economic adviser in August last year before his extended tenure was to end in May 2019.

Stating that his research paper by no means was the final word given the impossibility for researchers to reproduce the detailed methodology underlying the GDP estimates, he said, “That said, the evidence is too broad and robust, the anomalies and puzzles too numerous, the magnitudes of over-estimation too large, and the stakes for the economy and country too high for this evidence not to be debated seriously.”

He said if statistics are potentially misleading about the overall health of the economy, they influence the impetus for reform in serious and perverse ways.

The apparent puzzle of ongoing and intensifying corporate and financial system stress, weak new project announcements, and persistently low capacity utilisation in manufacturing point towards overestimation of GDP growth, he said.

The quality and integrity of data need to be improved and India must restore the reputational damage suffered to data generation across the board — from GDP to employment to government accounts — not just by conferring statutory independence on the National Statistical Commission, but also appointing people with stellar technical and personal reputations, he added.

“At the same time, the entire methodology and implementation for GDP estimation must be revisited by an independent task force, comprising both national and international experts, with impeccable technical credentials and demonstrable stature,” he said.

“If statistics are sacred enough to require insulation from political pressures, they are perhaps also too important to be left to the statisticians alone.”

Controversy over GDP series

The paper by former CEA comes amidst controversy over the country’s economic growth under the new GDP series. The revision in the methodology happened during the first term of the Modi government.

The BJP government had in January 2015 updated the base year for GDP calculation to 2011-12, replacing the old series base year of 2004-05. Using this, in August last year the growth numbers were recalibrated by the Sudipto Mundle Committee set up by the National Statistical Commission. This pushed up growth during the Congress-led UPA years based on the so-called production-shift method.

The government, however, dumped this calling the numbers experimental and not actual. It in November 2018 “recalibrated” the economy for the years 2004-05 to 2011-12, pulling down the GDP growth in UPA-era.


Also read: Lenders give equities a boost after RBI eases bad-debt rule


Subscribe to our channels on YouTube, Telegram & WhatsApp

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism

3 COMMENTS

  1. Arvind has estimated proxy for GDP based on data of 17 transactional variables. Not to be surprised, he is getting different(lower) ‘GDP’ estimates. The issue really is which methodology should one adopt? Since the revised methodology worked on during UPA and NDA times is an accepted international methodology, we need to review it or we may have to supplement it with transactional or expenditure based GDP estimates. In any case, the issue is wide open. So long as it is not politicised as UPA versus NDA, it is fine. Otherwise we will have Modi Hatao slogans from usual suspects who are clinging to anything that can stick! As regards Arvind’s observation that had it been known that growth rates are lower than published, Jaitley could have worked on banking or agriculture reforms, is bizzare. These reforms were pending for years and should have been taken up immediately after his first budget. In fact, failure of Jaitley is precisely this. Modi relied heavily on Jaitley for economic affairs and he indeed let him down. Hope Modi gets this right in his second term.

  2. A simple denial will not suffice. No one believes our official statistics any longer. Not the people who are responsible economic actors, take important investment decisions. Some things are okay for a 9 pm TV debate, not in the world of high finance. If several corrective actions are not taken, we will settle into a comforting, comfortable groove, as UPA II did in 2009, when it returned with an improved majority.

  3. Is Dr. Arvind Subramanian going to replace Arun Shourie or Yashwant Sinha in coming years?

    Anyway, Dr. Arvind Subramanian is already being countered.

    Dr. Surjit Bhalla has statistically countered in three tweets as follows:

    ————-
    1/n Glad that @arvindsubraman (AS) has re-opened the GDP debate with a very sound analysis; both @dravirmani and I have been working on this subject (individually & jointly) for the last decade+; AS contends that India GDP growth (fiscal years) averaged 7.5 % between 2001-2011

    2/n GDP growth averaged 4.5 % between 2012-2016; AS presents impressive set of indicators to support his controversial conclusion;Real wage data goes strongly counter to his conclusion; 2001-11 real ploughman (pman) & carpenter (carp) wages averaged 1.9 & 1.0 % ;

    n/n Between 2012-16 real pman wage growth averaged 3.3% & real carp wages averaged 4.3 %;can GDP growth reduce by so much (halving would mean 3.75 %) with wage growth more than doubling for semi-skilled labor & increasing 74 % for unskilled labor?More analysis to come

    ————-

    Dr Arvind Virmani has statistically countered on Twitter as follows:

    ————-

    ‏4/m Using Old 2004-5 base, the 7yr compound annual avg GDP Growth to 2011-2 was 8.2%. Using 2011-2 base the 7 yr GDP gr rt to 2018-9 was 7.1% ie -1.1%. If critics say that the decline could be -1.6%-2%, possible. But -3.8% to 4.5% is not credible!

    5/m A cross country regression of GDP on various indicators/variables is an econometric exercise not statistical data creation. It is useful for raising Ques, not for est GDP gr rt. On India I have used(<2010) high frequency indicators in GDPgr regressions, it didn’t help frcst.

    ————-

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular