Shopping Cart -

Your cart is currently empty.
Continue Shopping
This website use cookies and similar technologies to improve the site and to provide customised content and advertising. By using this site, you agree to this use. To learn more, including how to change your cookie settings, please view our Cookie Policy
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
Pocketmags Digital Magazines

Confessions of a number cruncher

The head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies on how damned lies get served up with statistics

I trade in numbers, and am passionate about them. From crime rates to the climate, we need them to describe and make sense of the world around us. But I’ve also learned to be very cautious in their company. They don’t just help us to interpret the world, they can be powerful enough to change it too—and not always for the better.

A focus on one number, a shock balance of trade deficit that was published three days before a general election, is said to have done for Harold Wilson’s premiership in 1970. A particular measure of public borrowing caused the British government to bring in the IMF to bail it out in 1976. More recently, a net immigration figure in June 2016 played a role in the EU referendum decision, as of course did the most famous number of recent years: the £350m a week that we supposedly send to Europe.

Numbers, then, can and do disrupt the course of political history— that’s real power. With that power comes danger, especially where numbers are arbitrary or misleading, which is—in fact— what all those examples of politically powerful numbers were.

That alarming trade deficit, released in the run-up to the 1970 general election, was puffed up by a one-off purchase of two jumbo jets, not by any underlying economic problem. The borrowing figures that led directly to the IMF intervention of 1976 were later revised down. Net immigration figures can be driven as much by the numbers of retired Brits moving to the Costa del Sol as they are by the thing that many voters actually worried about, the numbers of migrants coming to the UK for work. As for £350m a week, the less said the better.

Numbers don’t even have to be wrong to mislead. They just have to distract attention from other things that do matter, but can’t be counted or aren’t included in one particular figure. We go through fashions of fetishising particular measures—trade deficits in the 1970s, money supply in the 1980s, public sector borrowing more recently—to the exclusion of all else, crowding important information out of the debate.

Purchase options below
Find the complete article and many more in this issue of Prospect Magazine - Mar-18
If you own the issue, Login to read the full article now.
Single Issue - Mar-18
Or 499 points
Annual Digital Subscription
Only $ 4.10 per issue
Or 4099 points

View Issues

About Prospect Magazine

In Prospect’s March issue: A series of writers turn their thoughts to the developing war over words in the UK and the US. Lionel Shriver, Afua Hirsch, Simon Lancaster, Hugh Tomlinson, Tom Clark and two students ask if free expression is truly compromised? What’s really going on in our universities? And what do voters think? Elsewhere in the issue: Michael Ignatieff questions why today’s left-wing leaders can’t live up to the high mark set by FDR, Sameer Rahim shows how western powers have been trying to dictate what Islam should be, and Mary Beard asks “How do we look?” as our perceptions of what is beautiful have changes over the centuries.