By Anne O. Krueger
\xa0
Numbers might appear unexciting, yet they are essential. Without them, decision-makers — along with individuals responsible for executing these choices — would struggle to carry out their duties effectively. Accurate information serves as the basis for effective leadership, significantly influencing economic and financial policies, and aiding in predicting needs for transportation systems, resources, educational institutions, medical facilities, and clean water supply.
In the same way, private businesses depend on data regarding population increase, salary patterns, and various essential metrics to shape their investment choices and manufacturing plans. The higher the accuracy of this information, the greater its worth becomes.
However, when doubts arise about the accuracy of official data, ambiguity rises, resulting in ineffective choices. For instance, a census is beneficial only up to the point where individuals have confidence in its ability to reflect true demographic changes. Because of this, crucial statistics should be considered as public resources: their worth expands when they are trustworthy, available, and broadly disseminated.
The U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics serves as one of the country’s key providers of accurate economic information, influencing decisions made by government officials, companies, and financial analysts. Every month, the BLS releases figures regarding job market trends, inflation rates, wage levels, and more—covering both nationwide and localized areas such as states, regions, and cities. Over the years, the precision of this data has increased significantly, establishing it as a respected standard used globally by organizations and authorities. As reported by The Economist
recently noted
Trillions of dollars worth of worldwide assets adjust rapidly following a BLS announcement.
The carefully earned image suffered significantly—and possibly beyond recovery—when U.S. President Donald Trump suddenly
fired
BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer spoke mere hours following the publication of the agency’s July report, highlighting a significant decline in hiring rates and adjusted lower previous job creation figures. Trump
claimed
The numbers were “fabricated” and “manipulated” to portray him and the Republican Party negatively.
Of course, these claims had absolutely no foundation. In truth, BLS officials only view the finalized figures just prior to their official announcement. Additionally, the organization has improved its reporting procedures to tackle issues such as incomplete reporting and incorrect data submission.
Despite this, even well-known Republican economists have expressed disapproval of Trump’s decisions. Steve Hanke, who previously worked as a consultant for ex-President Ronald Reagan,
dismissed
Claims made by Trump regarding alleged political meddling in BLS figures. “Anyone at the top isn’t really important,” he said to the Financial Times. “Bureaucracy and the system determine what happens. The notion that you could openly alter the data is simply nonsense.”
By weakening the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Trump has put the United States alongside autocratic regimes that frequently alter or hide negative statistics. Perhaps most famously, data from the Soviet Union were often viewed as unreliable,
even by Soviet officials
Over the last twenty years, Russian leader Vladimir Putin has undermined the trustworthiness of Russia’s economic data, similar to methods used during the Soviet period.
Likewise, despite China’s
considerable efforts
Since liberalizing its economy to boost the reliability of official figures, it still seems hard to envision any statistician publicly resisting pressure from President Xi Jinping. This became clear in August 2023, when Chinese officials briefly
stopped publishing
younger people’s jobless statistics, following the commonly applied method, reached an all-time peak.
In various regions, especially within less-developed nations, financial limitations and significant informal economic activities frequently hinder the accuracy of official governmental figures. Reliable information is typically sourced from advanced economies such as the United States, where impartial experts produce precise assessments that aid in sound policy formulation, corporate strategies, and academic studies.
Trump’s choice to substitute McEntarfer with someone else
ultra-loyalist
E.J. Antoni presents a significant challenge to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ capacity to carry out its objectives. Not surprisingly, numerous individuals have raised doubts about Antoni’s credentials and objectivity. As Jessica Riedl from the right-leaning Manhattan Institute
observed
no reputable economist would accept a position where you could be dismissed for releasing factual information.
Even if Antoni was eligible (which he isn’t), significant concerns would persist regarding the reliability of BLS measurements. Erosion of trust in the agency’s data is expected to increase the ambiguity faced by both private and governmental stakeholders. Even more troubling, these uncertainties may go beyond employment metrics, particularly when numbers like inflation rates contradict Trump’s political objectives. The implications for the U.S. and world economy, let alone for democratic institutions, might be disastrous.
Anne O. Krueger, who previously served as chief economist at the World Bank and as first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, currently holds the position of Senior Research Professor of International Economics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and is also a Senior Fellow at the Center for International Development at Stanford University.
Supplied by SyndiGate Media Inc. (
Syndigate.info
).
