The term “Lies, Damned Lies, and
Statistics” was popularized by the great US author Mark Twain, who attributed
it to the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. Weak arguments are
bolstered by the use of statistics, to the point that the credibility of
quantitative economics is often seen to be undermined by datamining.
It would seem that there is an even
stronger form: Lies, Damned Lies, and FDI Statistics.
In recent work for the forthcoming
African Economic Outlook 2016, my colleagues Birte Pfeiffer, Robert Kappel and
I found that the statement applies to FDI inflows to Africa in particular.
There are two main official sources for numbers on recent FDI flows: the IMF World Economic Outlook database, and
the UNCTAD Global Investment Trends
Monitor. Consider the differences
provided by these prominent sources:
FDI inflows
(USD billion) to Africa
Source
|
2014
|
2015
|
IMF_WEO
|
28.2
|
51.5
|
UNCTAD
|
55.0
|
38.0
|
Difference
|
- 26.8
|
+ 23.5
|
The lower UNCTAD
estimate for investment in Africa in 2015 reflects a sharp drop into Mozambique
(-21%), Nigeria (-27%), and South Africa (-74%). FDI inflows form an important
part of the roughly USD 200 billion financial flows (including remittances, the
most important inflow ahead of ODA) to Africa. The reported differences
are so striking that, according to the FDI source chosen, total net financial
flows in 2015 to Africa rose by 5.9% (IMF-based), that total inflows dropped by
12.8% (UNCTAD-based) or that inflows dropped by 7.4% if erratic FDI data are
ignored altogether.
Choose the Africa
narrative you like, the poor quality of FDI data is a convenient element for
your more or less fairy tales…