Doing business indeks: Manipulacije na najvišji ravni

O tem sem pisal pred leti, ko je tedanji glavni ekonomist Svetovne banke in nobelovec Paul Romer razkril manipulacijo glede indeksa kvalitete poslovnega okolja (Doing business) za Čile. Tega naj bi ekonomisti na Svetovni banki manipulirali z metodološkimi spremembami, da je indeks izkazoval pozitivni premik v času desnčarskih vlad in negativnega v času levičarskih vlad. Romer je to javno povedal in se Čilu opravičil. To priznanje je moral preklcai in čez dva tedna odstopil.

No, kasneje so odkrili resne metodološke probleme tega indeksa in uvedli revizijo sprememb metodologiji. Zdaj so odkrili “napake” za vsaj štiri države in umaknili objavljen indeks za dve leti. Vendar so problem očitno še globlji in celoten indeks temelji na zelo dvomljivi metodologiji. Da o politično motiviranih spremembah ne govorimo. Spodaj je izsek iz dobrega komentarja Jayatija Ghosha v Project Syndicate.

The World Bank should no longer publish its Doing Business index, owing to its flawed design and vulnerability to manipulation. The Bank also owes the developing world an apology for all the harm this misleading and problematic tool has already caused.

The Bank has already been forced to suspend publication of the index, owing to “irregularities” in its data. The latest brouhaha concerns straightforward number fudging. Apparently, data from four countries – Azerbaijan, China, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates – were inappropriately altered, at least for 2017 and 2019 (thus affecting the 2018 and 2020 Doing Business reports). Other irregularities may have occurred, too. The Bank has begun a “systematic review” of the last five years of data, launched an independent audit of the process, and pledged to correct the most-affected countries’ data.

But this is a minor issue compared to all the other concerns with the index. Paul Romer, then the Bank’s chief economist, highlighted some of these in a stinging 2018 criticism of the tool. According to Romer, most of the changes in country rankings over the previous four years had resulted from repeated methodological changes that gave more weight to national governments’ political orientation.

Specifically, Romer said that data for Chile appeared to have been manipulated to show that the country’s business environment had deteriorated under a left-wing government. Chile’s overall ranking fluctuated between 25th and 57th between 2006 and 2017, when the country’s presidency alternated between the socialist Michelle Bachelet and the conservative Sebastián Piñera.

Under Bachelet, Chile’s ranking consistently worsened, while it consistently climbed under Piñera. Romer even offered “a personal apology to Chile, and to any other country where we conveyed the wrong impression.” He implied that the Bank had manipulated the country’s rankings for political reasons, but was later forced to retract that allegation, and resigned from his position two weeks later.

Justin Sandefur and Divyanshi Wadhwa of the Center for Global Development compared the official Doing Business rankings with their own re-created rankings from 2006 to 2018, based on a constant sample of countries and a consistent methodology. They found that the decline in Chile’s ranking during the Bachelet presidencies and its rise when Piñera was in office resulted entirely from methodological tinkering. Chile’s laws and policies barely changed.

As with all cross-country comparisons, followers of Doing Business focus on a country’s rank rather than the value of the index, and the standings generate huge media coverage every year. Even academic researchers have (wrongly) used the rankings as indicators of government support for private investment. As a result, governments vie to improve their country’s ranking in the hope of attracting more foreign investment and boosting their domestic credibility.

Policymakers have sometimes resorted to desperate (and effective) measures to game the system. Most notoriously, the Indian government tweaked regulations in order to improve the country’s index score, enabling India to rise dramatically in the rankings, from 142nd in 2015 to 63rd in 2020.But again, India’s rise stemmed largely from methodological adjustments, as well as ranking changes caused by small differences in scores across similar countries. Ironically, India’s ranking improved even as its investment rate (as a share of GDP) declined continuously, from 40% in 2010 to around 30% in 2019. How could the Doing Business index be so off the mark in these two cases? True, strong conflicts of interest can potentially arise when the Bank calculates the index, whether because of its staff’s ideological inclinations or the need to placate big, financially important countries. But the index’s biggest problem is that its design is fundamentally flawed.

The index is supposed to measure a country’s overall business environment, but it really covers only government regulation (except for the tax indicator, which includes taxes as share of gross profit). It leaves out some regulations that affect businesses, such as financial, environmental, and intellectual-property rules. More important, the index does not measure all aspects of the business environment that matter to companies or investors, including macroeconomic conditions and policies, employment, crime, corruption, political stability, consumption, inequality and poverty.

Moreover, the index focuses entirely on the “ease” of doing business and the costs of regulation for companies. It gives no consideration to the benefits of these regulations and whether they create a better overall business environment. Likewise, Doing Business regards taxes only as a cost, and not as a source of revenue that can be used to deliver important economic benefits such as modern infrastructure and an educated workforce.

Vir: Jayati Ghosh, Project Syndicate

One response

  1. Bravo! Velika večina teh lestvic služi samo propagandi in aktualni politiki neoliberalnih krogov.

    Dovolite mi, da vam s tem predstavim mojo osebno izkušnjo.

    Kot člana AUKN (2010-2012) me je tedanji minister za finance Dr.France Križanič prosil, če bi “prevzel” ekipo World Bank, ki je delala intervju v zvezi zgoraj omenjenega indeksa. Kako je to izgledalo?

    Tip srednjih let in dve punčke od katerih noben o Sloveniji in poslovanju z njo ni imel pojma. Sem pa tja so postavili kakšno splošno vprašanje in kljukali nekakšen vprašalnik. Njihovo poznavanje Slovenije, njene ekonomije in še manj poslovnega okolja je bilo omejeno na ozek set splošno objavljenih informacij in sem pa tja kakšen članek v medijih (predvsem zahodnih), ki naj bi bil splošno veljaven komentar razmer v državi.Nobene resne temeljite raziskave ni zadaj.

    Če se tako dela te indekse (in tako se jih dela) potem je njihova vrednost zelo zelo vprašljiva.

    Najbolj zabaven (ali tragičen) del te zgodbe se zgodi po objavi indeksa. Naši novinarji, ki pokrivajo gospodarske zgodbe in od katerih večina (z redkimi izjemami) nima prav veliko znanja o tistem kar piše, vzame te indekse “uglednih” mednarodnih organizacij kot suho zlato, kot znak, sporočilo božje previdnosti in na veliko filozofira o njih in vsem po vrsti soli pamet kaj bi morali, v skladu s tem indeksi, v nacionalni politiki spremeniti. Politiki se prepirajo o njih v parlamentu, mnenje mednarodnih ustanov in navajanje podobnih indeksov je skoraj kot argument “uber alles”.

    Ko bi le od blizu videli kako nastajajo ti indeksi. Mogoče bi se potem vprašali: zakaj?

Oddajte komentar

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

Komentirate prijavljeni s svojim WordPress.com računom. Odjava /  Spremeni )

Google photo

Komentirate prijavljeni s svojim Google računom. Odjava /  Spremeni )

Twitter picture

Komentirate prijavljeni s svojim Twitter računom. Odjava /  Spremeni )

Facebook photo

Komentirate prijavljeni s svojim Facebook računom. Odjava /  Spremeni )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: