Wednesday, 19 September 2012

Lazy Brits 2: Attack of the Zombies

[Starring Toby Young and Daniel Hannan MEP (title roles), Daniel Knowles and Chris Cook (data geeks), and Dr. Anna Hedge (punchline writer)]

As I hope is clear from the title, this is a nerdy post about statistics and research.  In his Sun column on Sunday, Toby Young said:
As [Daniel] Hannan points out in his book, Britain is the seventh largest economy in the world, the fourth largest military power and the fourth largest exporter.
The last point looked odd; surely the UK exports less than any of China, Germany, the US and Japan?  So I questioned it, via twitter.   First, Mr Hannan said:: "It is both true and surprising"; then, when I said that I didn't think it could possibly be right, he pointed rather vaguely to one of "the IMF, OECD, CIA Factbook".


Finally, he gave a source: none of these organisations, but rather a "briefing note" produced by an organisation called Global Britain, a "geopolitical thinktank" that "examines the feasibility of the UK leaving the EU".  This does indeed claim that:
"According to the IMF, the UK was the fourth-biggest global exporter of Goods,Services, (receipts of) Income & Transfers in 2009". And there's a table to prove it.
But of course there's something a bit odd here; the definition.  It's not entirely clear what "(receipts of) Income" means, but they don't come within any definition of "exports" normally used by the IMF, our own ONS, or anyone else. Investment income receipts and payments do indeed show up in the "balance of payments" accounts, but not as "exports" or "imports". That Global Britain are including things that nobody else does when they talk about exports is pretty obvious from the raw figures, which imply that UK "exports" are greater than 40% of GDP. This is much too high: about 30% is the figure that springs to mind, see for example World Bank data here.  [A secondary point is that 2009 is not exactly up to date, and was an odd year, seeing a huge collapse in world trade].

So what does the IMF actually say?  Daniel Knowles, formerly of the Telegraph and now of the Economist, pointed to their DataMapper, which gives reliable, generally accepted, and up to date data.  We are sixth, very slightly behind France, but well behind the other four countries mentioned above.  "Equal fifth" seems about right, given the usual data uncertainties/revisions. So fourth is just wrong; it's an invented statistic, used by no-one else that I know of.

So, to recap, Toby Young's "source": a book by a Conservative MEP, quoting a briefing note by a small and obscure anti-EU pressure group, that misintepreted and/or misrepresented out-of-date IMF data, in order to come up with the wrong answer.  If a 15-year old did this for a GCSE project, you'd hope they'd fail.  Even worse, this was totally unnecessary; one google search would take you quickly to the IMF data Daniel Knowles pointed to.

Mr Young's intervention in this debate was confined to the following tweet:
"You could lay all the economists in the world from end to end and they'd still never reach a conclusion"                 
Well, this may be true of the debate between Keynesians and Chicago-school economists, or proponents and opponents of accelerated fiscal consolidation, but we're talking about bog-standard data and definitions here. We tend not to disagree about those.  Essentially what Mr Young is saying is that it's fine for him or Mr Hannan to simply invent economic data and present it as fact.  If anyone points out that it's wrong, he can just point out that economists tend to disagree about lots of things. [In the US, this approach has been labelled "Niallism", in honour of Niall Ferguson's similarly cavalier attitude to the facts.]

Perhaps one of Mr Young's subsequent tweets, on a different topic, and presumably intended as sarcasm, is unintentionally revealing:
"Forget knowledge – that's just for public school toffs".
Indeed.  Why does this matter? Well, the odd thing that from an economic or analytic perspective it doesn't really.  The correct statistic that the UK is the world's sixth (or fifth) largest exporter is surely (almost) as compelling as the incorrect one.  So using correct, and properly sourced, statistics would not have detracted from the argument Mr Young and Mr Hannan were trying to make (the merits of which I'm not discussing here) in the slightest.   I don't think they were in any way deliberately misrepresenting the data; they didn't need to.

Instead, this matters because it's a symptom of the phenomenon I describe here; Mr Young and Mr Hannan are members of what I describe as the "political version of celebrity culture"; they think that entitles them to make statements about evidence and policy without bothering to do the basic research to back them up.  The public deserves better; it should be able to make up its own mind about their arguments, without having to check their facts.

Finally,  as a coda, Chris Cook, the FT's education correspondent, pointed out that one of the "signatories" to the Global Britain note, Lord Harris of High Cross, died in 2006, suggesting you might not be that interested in his (mis)-intepretation of IMF data on 2009 trade flows.  This, in, turn, allowed Anna Hedge to sum up the whole story:
"Now that's what I call a zombie statistic".

14 comments:

  1. John Quiggin's Zombie Economics comes to mind.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with the whole argument of your post, but think you are being very unfair in quoting Toby Young's tweet like that, and completely out of context. It wan't presumably sarcastic, it's obviously sarcastic, in that he is having a go at the critics of Michael Gove's reform of the exam system, and implying that they must think state school pupils only deserve a second class education. Whether you agree with this argument or not, I fail to see how this is unintentionally revealing

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did make clear it was out of context! I wasn't intending, and I don't believe, that Toby Young thinks "knowledge doesn't matter". Perhaps "unintentionally revealing" wasn't quite right. But I do think it is completely fair game for me to point out that he is very critical of others who he doesn't think care enough about facts/knowledge, but doesn't apply the same (or indeed any) intellectual rigour to the stuff he writes himself.

      Delete
    2. OK, fair enough, but then it was clumsily expressed, and by only quoting half the tweet it's meaning was changed to sound as though he was a Sun journalist on the side of the Yahoos, which knowing his interest in education and the "Free" School movement seems ridiculous.

      Delete
  3. a) You're being a bit harsh on a Sun columnist? He's not writing in The Economist after all. 4th, 5th equal, whatever? The thrust of his polemical opinion piece would have been unaffected.

    b) Toby Young, to repeat, a Sun opinion columnist, was quoting the book, he can't be expected to fact-check it surely? Yet you continue to bash him through your piece, not Hannan

    c) 'what Mr Young is saying is that it's fine for him or Mr Hannan to simply invent economic data and present it as fact.' - really unfair - Young quoted the book, he can't be expected to know the source.

    d) Of course Hannan should have got it right, and shouldn't cherry-pick data, esp from unreliable sources, but the book too is a polemic, any reader would expect selective behaviour, as we do from Greenpeace and the GWPF on global warming (even Krugman on demand stimulus on occasion it seems to me).

    e) It's up to Hannan to defend his numbers, and he clearly made a hash of it, an early and gracious acceptance of a correction (I assume he isn't an economist either?) would have been wise, especially since the difference between 4th and 5th equal doesn't change his arguments.

    f) Hannan's a professional politician, find me one who doesn't find nice data to support his ideological position.

    Storm, teacup, and I slightly wonder what it is about one or other or both of them that has got your goat? Young especially, since this isn't really his fight - he quoted someone's book - and yet you feel moved to say he doesn't apply ANY intellectual rigour to the stuff he writes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. a) I agree blame is shared.

      b) I do not think that writing for the Sun rather than the Economist justifies getting the facts wrong. If anything, the opposite: more people read the former. They have just as much of an entitlement not to be misled. When I write, I do not discriminate in the assiduousness of my fact-checking depending on who I'm writing for.

      c) My main gripe with Toby Young was his tweet above "You could lay all the economists in the world from end to end and they'd still never reach a conclusion". That is a wholly intellectually dishonest response to a data/stats issue. It was on that basis that I concluded that he thought it was OK simply to invent data.

      Ultimately, if either/both had said: "got it wrong, minor error, doesn't affect the main argument" then I wouldn't have written this. It's the total failure to accept any personal responsibility that I think is unacceptable.

      Delete
    2. Got it. I agree elegant admission of dodgy statistic, even accompanied by (correct) 'but argument re EU withdrawal unaffected' sorts the prob.

      (Re fact-checking, were Sun readers really 'misled' in this case? Para 14 of 19 contained a minor error?)

      I see his Tweets got your goat, agree with your 'lazy Brit syndrome' drives me crazy too, esp when it distracts / detracts from the core discussion. He could more politely have said 'book quote, please check with Daniel Hannan, I didn't verify independently, 4th or 5th equal same thing for my main point'.

      Hannan is, here, more dishonest, in rooting around (one imagines) for a stat that supports his argument, and eschewing more widely available league tables, such as the ones he was aware of, which were less supportive.


      OT - I was just reading Clive Crook's pro-QE3 piece http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-18/the-fed-s-best-rationale-for-qe3.html and wondered if the implication was for deliberate reverse-QE in boom times, or whether the budget surplus a la Clinton somehow auto-regulates?

      (I also wondered how far away the US unemployment rate is from its 'natural' level given the nature of blue-collar 'structural' unemployment, but that's a different matter I guess.)

      Delete
  4. I get similarly vexed when people tell me that you can prove anything with statistics. That offends me on so many levels.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "it's meaning was changed to sound as though he was a Sun journalist on the side of the Yahoos"

    Which he is.

    ReplyDelete
  6. As [Daniel] Hannan points out in his book, Britain is the seventh largest economy in the world, the fourth largest military power and the fourth largest exporter.guild wars 2 gold
    buy guild wars 2 gold
    cheap guild wars 2 gold
    cheapest guild wars 2 gold
    guild wars 2 gold for sale

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hannan is, here, more dishonest, in rooting around (one imagines) for a stat that supports his argument, and eschewing more widely available league tables, such as the ones he was aware of, which were less supportive. swtor gold
    buy swtor gold
    cheap swtor gold
    tor credits
    buy tor credits
    cheap tor credits

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is appropriate time to make a few plans for the longer term and it is time to be happy. I've learn this publish and if I could I desire to suggest you some attention-grabbing things or advice.
    More tags:
    wow gold buy cheap

    wow buy gold cheap

    wow buy cheap gold

    wow gold fast cheap

    cheap wow gold fast

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks. I always enjoy reading your posts - they are always humorous and intelligent.You can learn more: China Travel Agency | China tour operator | China tour packages

    ReplyDelete