Chris Sinckler, Minister of Finance (l), Owen Arthur, Opposition Leader (2l), Clyde Mascoll, BLP spokesman of economic matters (3l) and Delisle Worrell, Governor of the Central Bank (4l)
BU has defended the need for the Central Bank of Barbados to zealously guard its reputation. The Governor of the Central Bank has suffered from the tongues of fellow economists Owen Arthur and Clyde Mascoll over his method of communicating on the economy. In light of the recent decision by the Central Bank of Barbados to depart from the trusted approach of using statistics produced by the Barbados Statistical Service (BSS) – in this instance the unemployment number – it has inflicted serious harm to its reputation.
In the current climate the decision has provided political fodder for the struggling Barbados Opposition Party to raise it’s voice. What we have in Barbados these days is smoke and mirrors politics. On the government side we are witnessing the distasteful promotion of the late David Thompson’s memory to deflect focus on its economic performance to date. On the side of the Opposition every opportunity to gain political mileage is being seized. The political scientists explain that this is Westminster politics at its brilliant best, others suggests the counter view that extraordinary times call for extraordinary action by our leaders; a no show to date.
The decision by the Central Bank of Barbados to report a lower unemployment figure to that of the BSS was mischievous to be generous in description. Whether the number is 11% as reported by the Central Bank after completing its additional research or the BSS’s 12.1 %, the statistical methodology used by the BSS number is a margin of error +/- 1.9%. The conclusion therefore is that the revised number by the Central Bank falls within the range of 12.1% +/- 1.9%. More and more very simple issues are becoming highly politicised at the expense of the national interest. The Governor using a modicum of commonsense should have anticipated how his decision to depart from the BSS reported number would confuse an already fickle political climate in Barbados. What value has the Central Bank’s decision lend to the economic performance of Barbados?
In the same way our import cover has taken a one week dip so too the reputation and integrity of the Central Bank. It must be said that an error in judgement by the Governor of the Central Bank in this instance could have been ameliorated if our media practitioners and political animals would have taken the responsibility of apprising the public of the statistical possibility both numbers could be correct given the margin of error. Instead what we have witnessed since the economic 9-month review is smoke and mirrors stuff. The people like sheep assume party positions and in the midst of it all the truth of the matter is sacrificed at the altar of political expediency.
Could it be the Governor felt some political pressure to intervene given the political stakes?
Barbados Underground 
1. The unemployment rate had essentially been unchanged for the six or even nine month period prior to the second quarter of 2011.
2. Anthony, how all of a sudden you are interested in the details of jobs added and/or lost during the quarter or previous quarters. The basic argument on this thread has been that those possible details are irrelevant, the BSS is the authority charged to come up with unemployment figures, they have been consistent in their use of an accepted methodology, hence their number should be accepted as the unemployment rate.
3. In terms of my previous scenario, the Courts hiring would have been a news story as well.
Well we will get nowhere on this.
The point is that people have a well known tendency to latch on to research findings that support their own prior convictions and resist, ignore or rubbish ones that go against such.
Parties of all kinds are guilty of this. Methinks the BSS and central bank would have been accused of fudging the numbers in the scenario i outlined. I suspect we would have had a long debate on where the jobs were added and how no one noticed these new jobs.
I look forward to when such an outcome occurs to see if the pundits will then insist on the purity of the Bss’s methodology.
Q3 repot 11.2 Q4 report 10.5 Q1 report 10 Q2 report 12.1 or 11. that hardly unchanged. like i said their basis of unemployment meant the report is justified and won’t be reflected till Q3 report
TRAINED ECONOMIST I REFRAINED FROM COMMENTING ON THE LIGHT AND POWER DEBATE ON THE FORUM BECAUSE TO QUOTE MR BARROW I DO NOT EXERCISE MYSELF IN MATTERS WHICH ARE TOO HIGH FOR ME; BUT YOU SEEM TO TO KNOW A LOT ABOUT THESE THINGS AND I NEED YOUR ADVISE. RECENTLY I BEGAN TO ANALYSE MY LIGHT BILLS AND AFTER AN ASTRONOMICAL BILL FOR THE LAST PERIOD I WENT INTO THE COMPANY SEEKING EXPLANATIONS. A VERY NICE EMPLOYEE DEALT WITH ME AND EXPLAINED TO ME THAT OUT OF A BILL TOTAL OF $909.57, ONLY $252.70 WAS GOING TO THE COMPANY; THE REMAINING $544.67 IN RESPECT OF FUEL CHARGE W AS GOING TO THE BNOC. IS THAT TRUE AND IF SO SHOULDN’T THE PROTESTS BE FOCUUSED IN THAT DIRECTION AND NOT THE LIGHT AND POWER?
MILLERTHEANNUNAKI, I HOPE YOU CAN HELP ME BECAUSE MY REQUEST TO TRAINED ECONOMIST SEEMED TO HAVE FALLEN ON DEAF EARS. IN CHECKING ON MY ELECTRICITY CHARGES I WAS TOLD BY A CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE BIGGEST COMPONENT OF MY ELECTRICITY BILL GOES TO THE GOVT THROUGH THE BNOC. IS THIS SO?
@balance: “IN CHECKING ON MY ELECTRICITY CHARGES I WAS TOLD BY A CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE BIGGEST COMPONENT OF MY ELECTRICITY BILL GOES TO THE GOVT THROUGH THE BNOC.
WELL, DUHHH!!!
You do understand the maths. Don’t you?