The decision-making process, and consequently the formulation of policies, has both a technical aspect and a political aspect. The technical side relies on evidence and clues obtained through the collection of accurate and updated data, which must be summarized, analyzed, and interpreted correctly. It also depends on knowledge of national and international experiences and benefits from the opinions of experts in all fields related to the decision to be made. In contrast, the political aspect hinges on factors related to appropriateness, the political interests that can be achieved, the risks that must be avoided, the timing of the decision’s implementation, the popularity of that decision, the expected reactions from pressure groups, the issue’s positioning in the priority scale, and its cost compared to the costs of other alternatives. The decision-making process, which is supposed to be evidence-based, is a fertile ground for interaction between statistical work and political work.
Examples of Tensions:
Given that the profession of statistics seeks to quantify political phenomena, and because quantitative measures express reality in a neutral manner, modern history is replete with instances reflecting the tension between statisticians and politicians. Despite some gradual improvements in the regulations governing statistical work, political conflicts and competitions continue to affect the independence of statistical work. In the United States, political ideology clashes with methodological approaches to conducting the census. The methodology used for the census—which affects the distribution of congressional districts—becomes the center of political contention between the Republican and Democratic parties. The Democratic Party supports using a supplementary sample in the census to address shortcomings in registering the poorest segments of the population, while the Republican Party prefers to rely solely on results from the comprehensive method, which benefits it by reflecting fewer citizens living in poorer areas.
In Canada, in 2010, the Conservative government decided to replace the comprehensive census with a household survey, despite widespread opposition from most statisticians, sociologists, data users, and provincial governments. The crisis peaked with the resignation of Chief Statistician Munir Sheikh. Upon the election of a new Liberal government in 2015, a return to the previous census situation was announced, along with a promise of new legislation to enhance the independence of Statistics Canada. However, in September 2016, the situation repeated itself when Chief Statistician Wayne Smith resigned in protest against the new Statistics Act, arguing that it did not protect the independence of Statistics Canada and did not address what he considered a major threat—the agency’s loss of control over its information technology infrastructure.
The case of Greece exemplifies the tension between national and regional institutions, with a decade-long dispute arising between the Hellenic Statistical Authority (NSSG) and Eurostat over the accuracy of debt and budget deficit statistics. This conflict led to new statistical legislation in 2010, the restructuring of the National Statistical Service, and the appointment of a new head. These changes restored harmony between the Greek statistical system (ELSTAT) and European authorities, but the conflict shifted to Greek institutions. Since taking office, Andreas Georgiou, the head of the Greek statistical service, has faced accusations of data falsification—to benefit Greece’s creditors—and has undergone a series of investigations and trials. In France, several statisticians published a book in 2009 under the pseudonym “Lorraine Data” titled “The Great Fraud: How the Government Manipulates Statistics?” denouncing government fraud and manipulation of official statistics.
Naturally, the conflict between statistics and politics has been more intense in developing countries. In Argentina, direct government intervention in defining and calculating the cost of living index, along with replacing professional staff with trusted individuals during Cristina Kirchner’s presidency (2007-2015), eroded public confidence in the National Institute of Statistics and Census. During the first six months of 2016, the new center-right government announced that Argentina was in a state of “national statistical emergency” as the statistical agency ceased producing key indicators like GDP, inflation, and poverty rates until these indicators could be redefined according to internationally accepted definitions. Other examples are present in Turkey and Montenegro.
Moreover, the history of statistics records instances where the most extreme forms of violence have been inflicted upon statisticians, reaching the point of physical elimination, as was the case with Graciela Siedler, a young Argentine woman who published a statistical study about the conditions in Buenos Aires’ slums in 1976, which caused great embarrassment to the military dictatorship. General Jorge Videla described her work as an example of infiltrators leaking information to the government. Graciela subsequently disappeared shortly after (on September 25, 1976) at the age of 29.
In the same year, Carlos Noriaga, who was then the director of the Argentine statistical office, left his post. Unofficial reports from colleagues indicated that he was forced to resign because he refused requests from the new military government to manipulate the data released by the office. In February 1977, while vacationing in Mar del Plata with his wife and children, Carlos was detained by individuals believed to be government agents. The government never acknowledged his detention, and he is presumed dead.
Governance of Relationships:
The relationship between statistics and politics differs from the traditional relationship between producer and consumer, where supply and demand interact in a manner that can be modeled. In the relationship between statistics and politics, each party possesses a source of power and leverage that contributes to shaping this relationship, determining the ultimate winner and loser. On one side, statistics carry the allure of truth due to the magic numbers hold as “the title of truth.” Statistics are often seen as the blindfolded fair judge issuing abstract, unbiased judgments that serve as assessments of political performance. On the other side, politicians possess power, allowing them to influence the resources allocated for data collection, analysis, and dissemination. They have the authority—especially in countries lacking governance frameworks—to influence the status of national statistical agencies or other statistical offices and their ability to operate independently.
The legitimacy of statistics lies in its ability to describe social phenomena through numbers, reached by employing reliable scientific methods. Thus, it is expected to present the realities of these phenomena in an abstract manner. Conversely, politicians hope these figures align with their agendas or lend credibility to the policies and programs they implement or seek to implement, or document the achievements they claim to have made. The relationship between the statistician and the politician is governed by the statistician’s diligence in measuring social phenomena impartially and the politician’s desire for these measurements to yield favorable news; if this does not occur, the politician may mobilize countermeasures to influence the reported metrics, cast doubt on their integrity, or attempt to manipulate the figures to reveal unintended information. The politicians’ reaction depends on the strength of the statistical producer and the knowledge-generating institutions’ ability to withstand potential pressures from politicians. In the absence of an independent statistical system operating within a rule of law context and a separation of powers while applying accountability standards, politicians can manipulate information and disseminate it misleadingly or prevent the circulation of unfavorable information or obstruct data production, creating conditions of opacity that complicate accountability.
Priority of Independence:
Regardless of the calculations of gain and loss that govern the relationship between statistics and politicians, it can be asserted that independent statistics, free from political compromises, contribute to building the modern state by producing and providing information that aids in:
- Setting development priorities and resource allocation.
- Identifying and confronting challenges and risks.
- Taking advantage of available opportunities.
- Assessing levels of inequality and their distribution.
- Anticipating tensions.
- Managing crises and emergencies.
- Understanding citizens’ trends, expectations, and preferences.
- Monitoring and evaluating performance.
