China’s Q3 GDP Reportedly Slowed to 6.5%. Or is it 6.4%?

Share Button

October 19, 2018 —  Headlines today note a further slowdown in China’s growth. Newly announced GDP data give a preliminary estimate of 6.5 % in the 3rd quarter of 2018, relative to Q3 of 2017. The growth rate had been 6.7% previously.

The change is part of the long-term slowdown that, perhaps inevitably, followed the spectacular 10% average growth rate achieved by China from 1980 to 2010.

One thing that interests me in the reports is a particular (very wonkish) detail.  For the US and most other countries, the quarter’s GDP is routinely reported relative to the preceding quarter, not relative to four quarters ago.  Why do the media and markets routinely focus on the 1-quarter growth rate for the US but focus on the 4-quarter growth rate for China?

It is not because China’s National Bureau of Statistics fails to make the 1-quarter change available.  It’s there in footnote 2 of the NBS press release, as usual.  The number for the 3rd quarter relative to the 2nd quarter is 1.6 per cent;  to express that in terms comparable to US growth numbers, it is 6.4 % annualized.  In other words it is slightly lower this time than the 6.5% number everyone is focusing on.

This puzzle is a case for behavioral finance.  When the statistical agency has a practice of putting the 1-quarter or 4-quarter number at the top of the press release, that is the number to which the wire services, the rest of the media, and even the financial markets pay attention.

This phenomenon is not peculiar to China and its GDP statistics.  Ayako Saiki and I look at the reports of inflation numbers in “Does it Matter if Statistical Agencies Frame the Month’s CPI on a 1-month or 12-month Basis?”   In the United States, the Bureau of Labor Statistics consistently reports the 1-month change in the CPI on its web page and in the first sentence of its press release.  The 12-month change is reported in the second sentence of the full press release, but apparently many readers don’t get that far. The wire services Bloomberg/World Process and Reuters tend to give greater emphasis to the most recent month’s number from the US, and somewhat less to the 12-month inflation rate. Most other countries do this differently. Canada, Germany and the UK emphasize CPI changes on a 12-month basis in their official statistical reports.  Correspondingly, the 12-month change is what gets the emphasis in the wire service reports.

Surely efficient financial markets see through this, since each national statistical agency makes all its data available at the same time?  No.  The bond markets tend to react to whichever number, 1-month or 12-month, the statistical agency emphasizes at the top of its press release.  In theory such a small detail in government agency reporting practices shouldn’t make a difference.  But it does.

[Comments can be posted at Econbrowser.]

Share Button

After NAFTA

Share Button

Oct. 12, 2018 —  Donald Trump thinks he once again pulled off a smashing victory on October 1, delivering on his oft-repeated campaign promise to terminate NAFTA, “the worst trade deal ever,“ and replace it with something much newer and better.  One is tempted to say to oneself, “Let him think that.”  The US-Mexico-Canada Agreement may not be an improvement over the status quo, but at least it is an improvement over the end to free trade in North America which he had threatened.
Continue reading

Share Button

Bill Nordhaus & Paul Romer, Nobel Prize winners

Share Button

October 8, 2018 — Congratulations to Bill Nordhaus and Paul Romer on winning the ultimate prize in Economics.  When I first heard, I wondered what the two have in common, beyond both doing path-breaking Nobel-worthy research.  Then I remembered:  they are originally from neighboring Rocky Mountain states, New Mexico and Colorado (but then went to elite New England prep schools).

Actually, I think the Nobel Committee might have had in mind a symmetric pairing, as it has occasionally done in the past:
* Myrdal and Hayek (1974) had different views on socialism;
* Lewis and Schultz (1979) differed on whether peasants optimized;
* Fama and Shiller (2013) differed on whether financial markets were rational.
How do Romer and Nordhaus fit the pattern? Whereas traditional growth theory assumed constant returns to scale, Paul developed growth theory with increasing returns to scale and Bill is the father of modern environmental economics, which can be interpreted as growth with diminishing returns to scale.

But both are amazingly varied in the range of their intellectual interests.  Besides growth theory and endogenous technology, Paul also wrote on financial bubbles as looting and has been an entrepreneurial maverick in the two areas of cities and on-line learning.  He also originally coined the phrase “a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.”  Bill, besides the economics of global climate change (particularly DICE, a landmark Integrated Assessment Model), also pioneered the election-year theory of the business cycle, the Measure of Economic Welfare, energy economics, long-term measurement of productivity, a forecast of the cost of the war in Iraq, and much more.

Congratulations to both!

[Comments can be posted at Econbrowser.]

 

Share Button