Saturday, September 8

You cannot manage what you cannot measure - National Statistics in the UK

Interestingly enough, in all my years of following national accounts and economies, I have never come across any country who is happy with its national statistics. They are invariably wrong or lacking in some place or other. Whether it is actual and deliberate falsification as in China, or incompetence or complexity such as in India, too much spin in the UK and many other European countries, too fragmented as in the USA, or none as in Saudi Arabia and many other countries, we always have had problems.

But the problems in the UK are quite curious, given that we have the longest history of collecting and producing national statistics. National Statistics are vital for managing the country, knowing who is doing well and who isnt, who is getting stuff and who isnt, who is producing stuff and who isnt, who is watching what where, and so on and so forth.

Recently, there have been 3 issues with National Statistics in the UK. The first is the fact that the New Labour emphasis on control, performance management and funding by statistics meant that a blizzard of statistics needed to be produced and people started managing to numbers rather than common sense and objectives.

Second problem was the propensity of New Labour to "spin", so you have had situations where bad statistics would be released to be buried in a fast moving news day such as a major accident/death. The fact that it worked a bit in the short term but destroyed trust in the long term is something that the country will suffer for a long period of time. Nobody trusts the national statistics even if they are accurate.

And then the final problem was the rather ill-judged desire to move away from London to some godforsaken grotty tiny place in Wales. All for a very good reason, too much concentration of government in one city, London, meant that it was costly as London is very expensive, government investment was lopsided and control was lopsided as well. So given the increase in technology, blah blah blah, a decision was taken to move government departments outside London into smaller locations around the country.

But unlike the department of works and pensions resources, national statistics require specialised professional knowledge, and I speak as an ex Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society, you dont want to work outside where rest of your peers are. More importantly, the British are notoriously difficult to move once they have purchased their first home.

So to get new, highly qualified, professional and specialised blood into the organisation from the local catchment area of Wales was very difficult. End result? Total chaos in the department, people revolting, resigning, refusing to move, unable to hire people, etc. etc. And because this is a civil service job, you cannot pay more to cover the downside. Stiffed!.

So now comes this report in the Independent that seems to aim to resolve the first two issues at least. I quote:

First Issue

"One of the strengths [of the new arrangements] is that it will allow people to check objectively whether departments are meeting their promises and hitting their targets or not ... Government sets targets for its performance and there needs to be an independent audit of that. I believe it will be part of the board's work to enable Parliament and public to make judgements about these things". However he clearly regrets that the existing system of "pre-releasing" official statistics to ministers ahead of their opposition counterparts and other MPs has not yet been reformed, a matter of "intense controversy" to which he may return.

Second Issue

"The board will become operational next April. In the most far-reaching reform in decades, Sir Michael pledged all of the figures produced by the state – from hospital waiting lists and school league tables to crime and economic data – would be subject to an independent assessment of whether they offer an "accurate, comprehensive, and coherent picture", building on "established quality and integrity". It is essential, he added, that such a review be completely open and that he and his board should directly report to Parliament. "Without transparency, we'll have diminished strength.""

As for the third issue, I understand that the migration has been stopped and is currently being rethought. Best of luck!

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!!!

No comments: