Dear Editor,
Responding to me, Joel Bhagwandin (JB) wrote “I would be happy to be edified by Mr. Ramesh Gampat on some of the underlying premises upon which the credibility of the dataset produced by the Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Finance, and the Bank of Guyana, is questioned” (SN, July 17). To begin with, I did not question data produced by any given agency. Instead, I questioned the data JB used in his letter (SN, July 12).
JB’s request suggests he accepts his data as correct, error-free, and mine as incorrect, error-riddled. Yet he failed for a second time to cite the source(s) of his data. Knowing the “underlying premises” requires an understanding of the methodologies agencies use to collect, clean and process data, but agencies do not make these available to the public. Instead, I shall give some reasons why the data must be questioned and has been questioned. The first indication that something is amiss is the huge difference – in terms of amounts – between the data used by JB and I; the former did not supply his source(s), but I did. Is it credible that Guyana’s real GDP rose from US$200M in 1992 to US$4B in 2014? That’s 20 times as large or an increase of 1,900 percent in 23 years. Similarly, it is implausible that international reserves rose from US$15M to US$652. That’s 43.5 times as large or an increase of 4,246.7 percent. I am hard pressed to come up with a country that has performed such an economic miracle; perhaps JB knows at least one.
Two examples suffice to demonstrate the poor quality of Guyana’s data. First, the World Bank has developed a tool called “Statistical Performance Indicators (SPI),” which gauges the quality of a country’s statistical systems and efforts to improve them. The SPI framework assesses the maturity and performance of national statistical systems in five key areas: data use, data services, data products, data sources and data infrastructure. The SPI allocates a score from 1 to 100. Of the 174 countries assessed for 2019, Guyana scores 41.5, which places it at 22 from the bottom. Norway is at the top with a score of 90.1 on the SPI. Of the 174 countries rated in 2017, Guyana’s SPI was 31.7, which placed it at the 12 position from the bottom. That is, the quality of Guyana’s statistical systems find a place in the bottom of the SPI quintile of the 174 countries rated in both years. These two abject ratings are two reasons to question the quality of data produced.
The second example comes from the World Economic Research (WER), London, which rates data produced by countries around the world. Data rankings are produced from scores in five areas: base year recency; System of National Accounts (SNA) version; informal economy size; research resources available; and likelihood of Government interference. Scores are based on a 0-100 scale. How does Guyana score? Official – repeat “official” – GDP data has been awarded the quality rating of E – extremely poor. Guyana’s GDP data quality ranks 129th on a global scale and 21st in the Americas, while population and demographic data are ranked 113th and 21st, respectively. The ratings by the WB and the WER show that Guyana’s statistical systems and the data they produce are appallingly dismal.
In terms of problems with the data, I shall supply a few. First, a 1986 World Bank report observed: “Since 1981, the quality of the national accounts, consumer price index and population has deteriorated considerably. These data sets are marked by internal inconsistencies in the accounts and even editing problems. The estimate of GDP deteriorated because of under/non-reporting and the huge parallel market; according to a 2017 IDB study, the underground economy was more than a third of the formal/real economy, which affects import/export data. Undoubtedly, some attention has been given to these problems and they have been somewhat mitigated. Yet they persist and are compounded by the lack of skilled staff and meagre wage, which helps to drive the brain drain.
Second, perhaps the most glaring reasons for suspecting the quality of the country’s data is this: different agencies report different statistics for the same variable for the same year. These variables include population (sometimes the data in the BoG’s annual report is different from that reported by the Bureau of Statistics, BS), births and death, infant, under-5 and maternal mortality, among others. For an indepth discussion of these and related issues, the interested reader may wish to consult my book “Guyana’s Great Economic Downswing, 1977-1990. Socio-economic Impact of Co-operative Socialism” (2020).
The disparity in collecting, cleaning, processing, and publishing data reported by various agencies suggests that agencies do not collaborate and share data. Perhaps these agencies work independently or the job of putting together the various data on a given variable into a consistent series is poorly done. That should not be the case for various reasons, some of which may be political.
Third, there is apparent data massaging. Inflation offers an excellent example: it is extremely low, 1.2 percent from 1992 to 2014, according to JB. From 2015 to 2021, inflation averaged 1.6 percent. How can such an extraordinarily low rate of inflation be tenable during a period of rising share of imported food, global supply shock, price-gouging by companies, and the rising cost of producing and transporting food produced in the country? One possible reason is that the data refers only to Georgetown, but even then the inflation rate is too low to be tenable. I do not have access to the methodology used by the BS, nor do I know what comprises the basket of goods and its base year, how the data is collected, cleaned and processed, and whether collectors are sufficiently trained. It is probable that the methodology is correct, but the data is massaged to conjure up – abracadabra like – a rosy state of material living standard in Guyana.
Fourth, perhaps the most important reasons for suspecting the quality of data produced in Guyana is a simple one: unlike numerous other countries, the various agencies that collect, clean, process and publish data do not make their “underlying” methodology available for public scrutiny. Nor do these agencies conduct and publish research and studies that assess data methodologies, data quality and timeliness, and suggest way to improve them. In the absence of such a critical pillar of data systems and quality, it is reasonable to view data produced by Guyana with a skeptical eye.
Finally, Guyana does not produce provisional data and revise such data as do other countries. What explains this anomaly? There is no explanation except that the data is massaged.
Hopefully, I have supplied convincing reasons for questioning the quality of data produced by Guyana. One wonders if the policies of and decisions the government makes are based on quality data or any data at all. Otherwise, some of the issues I raised would have been addressed, but the fact of the matter is that neither the PNC nor the PPP cares about the quality of the country’s data; they have no need for data-driven processes, policies, or decisions. That’s another legacy of Guyana’s tribal politics.
Yours truly,
Ramesh Gampat
