2018：虛假數(shù)據(jù)之年？

If 2017 was the year of fake news, 2018 is shaping up to be one of fake data. And just as fake news comes in many varieties — real news dubbed by the US president as fake, as well as nonsense gaining huge audiences on social media — so does fake data.

如果2017年是假新聞之年，那么2018年將成為假數(shù)據(jù)之年。就像假新聞以多種不同形式出現(xiàn)一樣——既有被美國總統(tǒng)稱為假新聞的真新聞，也有在社交媒體上吸引眾多觀眾的無稽之談——假數(shù)據(jù)也是如此。

Today, the Financial Times reveals the fake gross domestic product data routinely released from many northern Chinese regions. There, solid alternative evidence suggests the authorities have “smoothed” the economic growth figures. They artificially boosted growth figures between 2012 and 2016, masking a real downturn, and last year covered up a genuine recovery.

近日，英國《金融時報》披露了中國北方很多地區(qū)例行公布的關于國內生產(chǎn)總值(GDP)的虛假數(shù)據(jù)。在那些地區(qū)，可靠的替代證據(jù)表明，地方政府“抹平”了經(jīng)濟增長數(shù)字。他們人為地推高了2012年至2016年期間的增長數(shù)字，掩蓋了真實的低迷期，去年又掩蓋了真正的復蘇。

Chinese growth figures have long been known to be artificially smooth, but now the economy is easily the world’s largest on purchasing power exchange rates, the statistical massages have wider consequences.

長期以來，中國增長數(shù)據(jù)的人為平穩(wěn)廣為人知，但以購買力平價匯率計算，如今中國毫無疑問是世界第一大經(jīng)濟體，因此這些統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)傳達的信息帶來了更廣泛的影響。

Everyone was hugely cheered that global greenhouse gas emissions were flat between 2014 and 2016, even though recorded global growth was OK. The trouble is that this wasn’t the improvement in global economic efficiency everyone celebrated, but just a slowdown in northern China. As this part of the world recovered its economic mojo in 2017, carbon dioxide levels began to rise again.

2014年至2016年期間，雖然全球增長數(shù)據(jù)不錯，但全球溫室氣體排放量持平，所有人都為此歡欣鼓舞。問題是，其原因并非是所有人慶祝的全球經(jīng)濟效率提升，而僅僅是中國北方的經(jīng)濟增長放緩。隨著這部分地區(qū)在2017年恢復了經(jīng)濟增長勢頭，二氧化碳排放量開始再次上升。

In other words, we’ve just had a false dawn on the climate change front.

換句話說，我們看到的只是氣候變化方面的虛假黎明。

Closer to home, fake official data are just as prevalent. The UK’s Office for National Statistics on Tuesday reported that British inflation, measured by its longstanding retail prices index, rose to 4.1 per cent in December. This number is nonsense and the ONS knows it. It tells people the RPI “does not meet the required standard” to be given a quality stamp, yet it has refused since 2012 to take steps to improve the measure and bring it closer to the lower headline measure of 3 per cent.

至于英國，官方虛構數(shù)據(jù)同樣盛行。英國國家統(tǒng)計局(Office For National Statistics)周二公布，以由來已久的零售價格指數(shù)(RPI)衡量，去年12月英國通脹率上升至4.1%。該數(shù)字純屬胡扯，英國國家統(tǒng)計局對此心知肚明。該機構告訴人們RPI“沒有達到規(guī)定標準”，不能作為合格的通脹指標，但自2012年以來該機構一直拒絕采取措施來改善該指標并使之貼近3%的整體通脹率。

The consequences are more parochial than those of Chinese data distortion. British law requires the ONS to produce the RPI and, given that it refuses to improve the measure, its fiddling affects hundreds of billions of pounds of contracts which continue to be linked to the RPI.

其造成的影響范圍比中國數(shù)據(jù)失真要小。英國法律要求英國國家統(tǒng)計局計算RPI數(shù)據(jù)，鑒于該部門拒絕改善算法，這種數(shù)據(jù)造假行為影響了繼續(xù)與RPI掛鉤的總值達數(shù)千億英鎊的合同。

British statisticians’ unwillingness to correct known errors in the clothing price component of the RPI redistributes many billions every year from students, recent graduates, taxpayers and rail commuters to index-linked UK government bondholders, wealthy pensioners with RPI-linked pensions and rail companies.

英國統(tǒng)計學家不愿糾正RPI服裝價格部分的已知錯誤，每年把巨額資金從學生、新畢業(yè)生、納稅人和鐵路通勤者重新分配給了與該指數(shù)掛鉤的英國政府債券持有人、領著與RPI掛鉤的退休金的富裕退休金領取人、以及鐵路公司。

Let’s now travel to Greece. There, Andreas Georgiou, the head of its statistical agency between 2010 and 2015, faces prosecutions for his part in uncovering fake Greek public finance data for 2009 and setting the record straight. This week 40 groups, led by the American Statistical Association, and 651 individuals signed a statement in support of Mr Georgiou.

現(xiàn)在讓我們去希臘。在2010年至2015年期間擔任希臘統(tǒng)計局(Elstat)局長的安德烈亞斯•耶奧爾耶歐(Andreas Georgiou)，因揭露希臘2009年公共財政虛假數(shù)據(jù)并更正數(shù)據(jù)而面臨指控。本周，以美國統(tǒng)計協(xié)會(American Statistical Association)為首的40個組織和651名個人簽署聲明，支持耶奧爾耶歐。

Producing fake data, it appears, is condoned at official levels. Publishing real data lands you up in court. Much more of this and the public will be right to lose trust in official statistics.

看起來，數(shù)據(jù)造假會在官方層面得到寬容。公布真實數(shù)據(jù)會把你送上法院的被告席。如果還有更多這類情況發(fā)生，公眾不再信任官方統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)將是正確的。

The writer is the FT’s Economics Editor

本文作者為英國《金融時報》經(jīng)濟編輯