Peru unemployment data
Something about this Peru urban unemployment data gives me the sneaking suspicion that these numbers are not reliable (beyond the common complaint of not measuring underemployment). From ECLAC:
2002: 9.4%
2003: 9.4%
2004: 9.4%
2005: 9.6%
2006: 8.5%
2007: 8.4%
2008: 8.4%
2009: 8.4%
2010: 8.0%
6 comments:
no shit sherlock
imho the stats out of Brazil, Chile and Colombia's State stats bodies are fair enough. The rest are 'ensaladas', very much including the utter BS we had to suffer all thru the García govt. Put Peruvian stats third behind Argentina's and Venezuela's on the bullshit league table.
It's one thing to report bad numbers, but another to just repeat the same number over and over...
...and expect a different result
The annual data for Peru (Lima) are the averages of the quarterly data (which vary, in a different manner, throughout the years)produced py INEI. Anyway, studies have shown that in Lima a large part of labor market adjustement happens through the participation rate, not open unemployment. Finally, CEPAL publishes not only open unemployment rates, but also (hourly) underemployment series (in the annex of its annual "Economic Survey").
Jurgen, thanks, though that does not address the question of whether the numbers are entirely cooked in the first place.
This is true, although it is not completely straightforward that relatively stable unemployment data shall have a higher probability of having been cooked than others, more volatile ones. For example, the unemployment data for the final quarters of three years with a constant average (2007-2009) were 7.3, 8.5 and 9.2. If these were the only data known on the Lima labor market, would we suspect cooking? In the case of Lima, other important labor market indicators (e.g. participation and employment rate) show more volatility than the open unemployment rate. Finally, it seems to me completely fine to doubt about official figures, but cooking (or problems of method and measurement) are not necessarily concentrated were they seem to be at first sight.
Post a Comment