Double check the statistics!
Published by Yazad Jal May 13th, 2005 in EconomicsOmkar Goswami blows the lid of West Bengal’s supposedly high growth rate.
Here lies the rub. The official data published by the state shows it to be the second most powerful growth engine of the nation — not only in terms of growth rates but also in their sheer consistency. Moreover, the rulers claim that this growth has been driven by agricultural reforms. Yet, the rural heartland of the state is abysmally poor in terms of expenditure, assets and amenities. So, what is true?
This reminds me of a seminar some years back when a prominent left economist claimed that life expectancy in Russia had fallen after the collapse of communism. As a callow student, I timidly questioned the unbiasedness of data during Communist times (i.e. life expectancy figures during communist times were “padded”). I was given a public tongue lashing. In retrospect, I think I was lucky. During the hey days of the USSR, that kind of statement would have earned me a one-way ticket to a gulag in Siberia.
I read this too. I just wanted to know how are the figures used to calculate GDP collected? Is it ultimately a statistical measure? I can understand the West Bengal Government wanting to massage the data to make it look good, but all governments have that desire . To what extent can governments - state or central -influence this process? What level of confidence can we have in the GDP figures?
Ravi,
The state administrations are responsible for putting out the state domestic product based on data from Block Development officers (I am not 100% sure about the latter). That the West Bengal government systematically overstates growth has been known for a long time. I cant recall the exact study right away. If I find it in my files, I will post it. States have an incentive to understate growth. their share of central government money is partly dictated by their relative income level. In fact, Tamil Nadu apprently understates growth. You have to keep in mind that the governments care about what their constituents think. Now most people voting in India hardly know anything about State Domestic Product or state growth rates. So, there is little incentive to overstate. India’s GDP, if anything is understated according to most people in the know. West Bengal is unique. Communists, as we know from experience in USSR and CHina, are congenitally inclined to exaggerate topline numbers. In WB, it is not for election purposes. They are foregone winners. Burnishing growth numbers is mainly for propoganda purposes.
Regards
Srinivas
GDP statistics and “growth rates” are totally meaningless. the former includes the “government sector” and ADDS it to GDP as a positive, while this should actually be SUBTRACTED as producing “bads” (not “goods”).
growth rates are averages. here too there are problems sceptics like me have when the PM, say, says “agriculture is growing at 6.2%”, “industry at 7.8%” and so on, for the precision is surely FALSE.
disraeli said “there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”
winston churchill put it even better: “the only statistics i believe are those i falsified myself.”
Hi Srinivas,
Could you please tell me how do the statisticians collect the sector wise GDP data. Can the agricultural data be inconsistent with the FCI procurement data for instance
Regards
When it comes to statistics in India, everyone has an agenda. Just as the Left Front wants to gloss up its figures, Left detractors to “prove” that the Left failed try to find holes in them. The truth is thus sacrificed at the altar of political leanings.
Whatever be the “statistical perceptions and misinterpretations” by both sides - Kolkata and West Bengal are doing pretty well in terms of economy.
Not because the Left did a revolution, but because the people did it for themselves. The credit goes to the people not to the political parties.
I think there has been so much media brainwashing against West Bengal, Bengalis and the Left Front, that most people when they see anything good published once or twice jump up saying it cannot be true.
Anytime there is a factory closure - it is militant unions - but not a single newspaper will have the guts to say how the mill owners exploit workers - low wages or no wages, pf chori etc etc. Why because many of the mill owners are also shareholders of our media groups or are part of the buddy club.
It is much like the stereotyping of India in the world community - poor, hungry, backward, people riding elephants and worshipping cows. Just as that ain’t completely true, neither Guruswami or Omkar ji come clean on the scale of truthfulness.
Cheers
I just noticed a problem with Omkar’s argument. A growth rate is a comparison with a previous year. But when he talks of social indicators, he is comparing with the rest of the country. To make sense, his argument should see how the other indicators have been doing over the past ten years, during which he alleges that the growth numbers have been fudged.
Corrector of maladies,
FCi procurement data are used only as one of the inputs for estimating prices. they are not used for estimating output as far as I know. Check out this methodology paper from the CSO: http://mospi.nic.in/nas_snm.htm
Data reported by State Revenue Officers is a major input!
Sourav,
I dont think you can put down everything to an agenda against West Bengal or the Leftists. There is a lot of truth to it unfortunately. And i can say this from first-hand experience. I grew up in Calcutta in the 1970s and father came to Calcutta in the early 1960s. At that time Madras was a village compared to Calcutta and the difference was still palpable even when I was growing up. Check for yourself the contrast today. I need not talk about the relative performance of Bombay. That is too dramatic.
As for the rural side. I have been there too. As a child I used to go to Gurup in Hoogly district and to my native village in TN. I have seen their evolutions. And because I have travelled a lot by bus, I have a broad-brush view of the rural areas. I can tell you categaorically, West Bengal may have improved, but the pace of change is glacial compared to the more progressive states, like Gujarat, TN, and Maharashtra.
Btw, take a look at the new paper by two economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of New york on West Bengal:
http://www.econ.ucla.edu/people/papers/Lahiri/Lahiri319.pdf
Regards
Srinivas
Thanks Srinvas,
I was trying to figure out what data will one see to detect if the agriculture growth data has been fudged. This link is interesting
Srinivas
I would like to believe that West Bengal’s improvements have been glacial because I believe the Left Front is the worst thing to have happened to West Bengal (barring Mamata didi). There mistakes have been numerous and I don’t like them.
But here are some things to note.
The latest GOI stats [2002-2003] for the major states show (the same ones that we refer to since 1990’s) West Bengal overtaking Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh in the per capita field. And if you refer to the 1993-1994 stats you will see West Bengal was closer to Uttar Pradesh.
Of course there is the question of fudging. But then the fudge factor would have been the same in 1990s and 2000s.
2002-2003 Net Per Capita State wise
Haryana 26632
Maharashtra 26386
Punjab 25855
Gujarat 22047
Kerala 21853
Tamil Nadu 21433
West Bengal 18756
Andhra Pradesh 18661
Karnataka 18521
Rajasthan 12753
Chattisgarh 11893
Assam 11755
Madhya Pradesh 11438
Orissa 10340
Uttar Pradesh 10289
Jharkhand 9955
Bihar 6015
http://img221.echo.cx/img221/4608/statepercapita0yr.jpg
West Bengal’s Net GDP is now at number three. Ofcourse West Bengal has more population than all states except UP, Bihar and Maharashtra. But it was the same case in 1993-1994. In that year WB’s state GDP was number five behind UP, Maharashtra, TN and AP.
State Net GDPs [2002-2003]
Maharashtra 263225
Uttar Pradesh 176076
West Bengal 153781
Andhra Pradesh 143975
Tamil Nadu 135252
Gujarat 114405
Karnataka 100406
Rajasthan 75048
Madhya Pradesh 71387
Kerala 71064
Punjab 64621
Haryana 57937
Bihar 51345
Orissa 38737
Jharkhand 27358
Chattisgarh 25094
Uttaranchal 11361 (2001-2002)
http://img202.echo.cx/img202/7108/stategdp9mz.jpg
And here is a question. How many of you have been to Kolkata after 2000? The changes have been dramatic. The Left Front’s worst critics [including me] have been somewhat silenced after seeing the changes first hand. But of course if we read the Telegraph or the Statesman, those things won’t show up.
You will never find the Telegraph reporting West Bengal’s per capita going up although it used to write huge editorials till the other day about how WB was falling behind “progressive states”. That’s what is called hypocricy.
The thing to note here is that some people find it difficult to accept that West Bengal may be improving in some areas. If the statistics show West Bengal is languishing they will happily agree but if it shows West Bengal showing improvements, they disagree. That was my whole point about Mr Omkar’s article.
There is another point that I missed to add. Mr Omkar blasts the Master Blaster state. High growth rates have nothing to do with what Mr Omkar claims are the “problems” or “flaws”. It is easier for a state with lower base to have higher growth rates than a state with higher base. He should have presented instead the growth rate of various heads over the same period. That would have been more interesting.
For example what was West Bengal’s and India’s rural poverty level in 1977. What is it today?
As per World Bank, rural poverty in West Bengal fell from 73 to 31 per cent between 1973 and 1999.
BTW does anyone have the latest data of NSS. Or is 2000 the best we have in 2005?
A few ground realities. Large proportion of slum dwellers and prostitutes of mumbai are from West Bengal. I don’t think flesh traffic is generally sourced from prosperous areas.
Thanks a lot for the info guys
Wanderr
I would suggest that you look up migration data to Mumbai. Migration from West Bengal to Mumbai is amongst the lowest. Southern states, Bihar and UP make up the bulk of migration and slum dwellers in Mumbai. Bangladeshis also exist in sizeable numbers. As for the trade you are referring too, there is no statistical evidence to prove your “ground” realities. If you have such results let us see them.
Now from offical GOI data:
On an all India basis, Maharashtra has the largest number of migrants (born in other states) at 7.9 million, followed by Delhi with 5.6 million and West Bengal with 5.5 million.
Between 1991 and 2001 Maharashtra received the largest net migration of 2.3 million followed by Delhi (1.7 million), Gujarat, Haryana and West Bengal.
The states with maximum outflow of people were Uttar Pradesh (2.3 million), Bihar (1.7 million), Tamil Nadu (Surprise!), Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan.
Thanks for the eye openers.
where can i have the state wise rankings in different economic parameters?
Rajib