The National Office of Statistics moved yesterday to dispel notions that Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data for the past 10 years had been “fiddled with”.
Earlier this week, certain sections of the media and financial commentators questioned the rationale behind the revision to GDP data going back to 1996, while two former finance ministers reportedly demanded an explanation.
NSO director general Gordon Cordina told a press conference yesterday that the revisions “made in the last statistical release were in line with standard practice locally and internationally.
“Revisions are an essential component of a properly-functioning statistical system. They are a bridge between the timeliness and accuracy of statistical results,” Dr Cordina said.
More importantly, the revised figures do not significantly affect the historical growth profile of the economy and the extent of the revisions is narrowing “indicating that results are tending towards greater stability”, he said.
Malta is committed to producing GDP data starting from 1995 in line with ESA95 procedures. The NSO’s releases also introduced data for new and back periods and revisions were effected as necessary.
GDP data for 2004 and 2005 had been revised upwards as information on activities, especially in the services sector, “that had been subject to conservative estimates”, became available.
Dr Cordina said the revisions also reflected downward adjustments to the output of manufacturing sector to align the system with Structural Business Statistics data that are becoming available and further alignment with ESA95.
He insisted the revisions were within acceptable limits and in Malta’s case were between 0.5 and one per cent, adding that the GDP figures were not very different from what they were seeing at the beginning of the year.
“This was in line with accepted statistical practices and commitments with Eurostat with regard to the implementation of ESA95. All revisions to GDP data, including the latest ones, are explainable in terms of information and methodological updates and are within acceptable limits,” said Dr Cordina.
With regard to the credibility of both the NSO and the data, he said that Malta’s GDP data is reviewed by Eurostat and subject to annual quality checks through the submission of the GNI questionnaire and the Quality Report. “Revisions improve the credibility of statistics,” said Dr Cordina.
Data up to 2003 will no longer be revised after the first quarter of next year when ESA95 data for the years 1995 to 2003 will be finalised. Dr Cordina said that three years of data will continue to be subject to revision in line with standard Eurostat practices.
National Statistics Authority chairman Reno Camilleri said the revisions were not “something extraordinary” but resulted from new data that the NSO had received.
He said Dr Cordina had asked for a board meeting to explain the revised data and the board, although it is not responsible for what data is published, is satisfied that the revisions to the GDP were carried out according to established Eurostat procedures.
“However, the board did note that not enough information was provided in the news release to explain the revisions made and the board discussed how the relationship between the NSO and those who use statistics can be improved,” he said.
Mr Camilleri said the board was happy with the work carried out by the NSO, adding that the office’s work was recently audited by officials from Eurostat and officials from the European Monetary Fund, who spent 15 days in Malta.
Replying to a question regarding the Lm80 million discrepancy in NSO data that surfaced in the budget, Mr Camilleri said that a genuine mistake had been made in 2004 that had gone unnoticed for two years. He insisted, however, that both the EU and Eurostat always received the correct figures.