How did Nigeria’s economy grow 30%? It did on paper, and to government agencies, that’s what counts.
Nigeria recently revised its method for calculating GDP, which revealed a presumably uncaptured 30% increase in the size of its economy. A 30% increase in GDP, based on a model that was updated only a decade ago, is extraordinarily large.
While it might appear irrelevant to the average American, this statistic reveals how governments adjust their macroeconomic data, a critical point given President Donald Trump’s current conflict with Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell over the Fed’s interest rates.
Nigeria’s drastic recalibration of GDP, the most cited and relevant macroeconomic statistic, raises pertinent questions about how much global macroeconomic statistics can be trusted.
This isn’t just an issue in developing nations. Even in the most advanced economies, macroeconomic statistics are subject to significant revisions.
For instance, in the United States, the Bureau of Economic Analysis revises quarterly GDP estimates multiple times throughout the year. The first estimate is released a month after each quarter ends, followed by first revisions, second revisions, and historical revisions.
The average adjustment from the initial estimate to the first revision is about half a percent. From the first to the second, the change is nearly a quarter point. And from the third to the final historical estimate, GDP is adjusted by about one and a half percentage points.
That’s not an insignificant adjustment for an economy like the U.S., which has had an average quarterly growth rate of 2.7% since 1974. It’s especially important for agencies like the Fed and the Treasury, which make decisions that hinge on just a few basis points (0.01%) difference in macrostatistics.
These revisions are a reminder that GDP, and many other macroeconomic indicators, such as unemployment, Gini coefficients, and inflation measures, are very rough snapshots of what is actually going on in the economy.
Americans have a vested interest in the reliability of macroeconomic statistics because these numbers directly affect the policies that govern their everyday lives, particularly when it comes to interest rates, taxes, and spending.
The Fed uses GDP, inflation, and unemployment data to make critical decisions on monetary policy, namely, how much to raise or lower interest rates. These decisions have ripple effects on other interest rates, notably mortgage rates, car loan rates, and credit card rates. It is no coincidence that the sluggish housing market in the U.S. is tied to rising mortgage rates, which are themselves driven by the Fed’s policy decisions.
These statistics also shape fiscal policy. Taxes, government spending, and entitlements such as Medicare and Medicaid are all influenced by macroeconomic indicators. For instance, the Office of Macroeconomic Analysis provides the Treasury with economic data to help shape policies related to infrastructure, labor force issues, and Social Security reform. The decisions made by policymakers, based on shaky statistics, can affect how much the average American pays in taxes or receives in their Social Security check.
The current debate over U.S. monetary policy brings these issues into sharper focus. Trump has repeatedly urged Powell to lower interest rates to stimulate the economy. But Powell’s decision-making is based on these same imperfect, often massaged, economic figures.
That’s problematic when these numbers are used as the foundation for decisions affecting millions of Americans. Worse, there’s historical evidence that the heads of key government agencies like the Fed and the Treasury are not immune to political pressure. This raises concerns about whether policy decisions are based on accurate and honest data or if they are influenced by political motivations.
TRUMP TARIFFS WILL REDUCE DEFICITS BY $4 TRILLION OVER NEXT DECADE, CBO SAYS
In light of these realities, GDP numbers and other key macroeconomic indicators are far from perfect. Consumers and policymakers must recognize that the numbers provided by statistical agencies often have significant flaws. When governments update or revise these models, businesses and the public must be cautious in interpreting the results.
These revisions reveal the imperfections and possible manipulations in how we measure economic growth. Trusting these numbers blindly can lead to misguided policy, skewed fiscal priorities, and a distorted view of a nation’s economic well-being. This is an opportunity to call for enhanced transparency, better methods, and more accountability in how governments handle economic data.
Julia Cartwright is a senior research fellow in law and economics at the American Institute for Economic Research.