Oh, and just in case you might think there are real calculations used anywhere later in the paper in relation to this table, don't be fooled - the entire computational burden here is that of adding percentages! Too bad they never attached a detailed breakdown of their costs that went to cover this glossy production...
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Economics 25/04/2010: Forfas' mathematical modeling powers
Name and shame, folks. The table below is reproduced from Forfas' "Profile of employment and unemployment" publication from February 2010. The research paper itself is not really worth covering in any depth, as it contains broadly speaking nothing new. But the table below is worth one's attention. Irony has, it is sourced as "CSO Quarterly National Household Survey, Forfás calculations". One can really see the quality of 'calculations' deployed from the sophisticated mathematical Scribbling Model developed by the 3-year olds in a Montessori University and adopted by Forfas research staff. Superb!
Oh, and just in case you might think there are real calculations used anywhere later in the paper in relation to this table, don't be fooled - the entire computational burden here is that of adding percentages! Too bad they never attached a detailed breakdown of their costs that went to cover this glossy production...
Oh, and just in case you might think there are real calculations used anywhere later in the paper in relation to this table, don't be fooled - the entire computational burden here is that of adding percentages! Too bad they never attached a detailed breakdown of their costs that went to cover this glossy production...
"Name and shame, folks."
ReplyDeleteDead right
http://sify.com/news/us-officials-watched-internet-porn-during-recession-news-international-keylEccghdi.html
Surely, they are percentages of each cohort not of the total therefore they shouldn't add up.
ReplyDeleteThe squiggles aren't very professional, but the very next paragraph does explain how they relate to four cohorts with varying age/education characteristics.
ReplyDeleteBefore jumping on Forfas for producing something like this, you might consider who their chief customers are: a pack of extraordinarily unqualified "ministers", drip-fed on a diet of savoury bullet points by armies of grossly overpaid A/Secs.
Oh yes, as I do state - there are explanations to the 'bubbles'... alas, these explanations are so trivial, one wouldn't bother calling them 'calculations' either.
ReplyDeleteMore to the point - this 'research' (or as I would put it - rehashing of the CSO-released figures) was conducted by 3 (yes - 3!) researchers, whose names are shown at the back of the document. Irrespective who their audience might be, the quality of this research is poor. The cost of it is massive (just think average wages in Forfas). And Forfas is our official research body informing policy formation in this country.
I am simply amazed at their own lack of measure - they replicate this table 3 times in the document!
Constantin, what's the issue though? It's a very useful table, nicely presented. You can be sure the CSO data does not pull as much information into one table.
ReplyDeleteThey obviously have to say "Forfas calculations" as there are calculations involved, however simple.
Most of your criticism is very valid, but this is not!
Conor, the issue is: as taxpayers we are paying for this research. In all of our talk about the bankers waste (plenty of it to go) and senior public sector employees failures (also plenty to go) we are forgetting the issue of the competency of the mid-rank-and-file staff. You can get better level of research from the blogs that you read for free, while we are paying hundreds of thousands of euros for the folks in the public sector to repackage information.
ReplyDeleteUnquestioned, intellectually 'lazy' replication of secondary research by official research bodies! This then is fed into policy-making. And there are no secondary tests, checks, etc. What is being fed is being consumed. Mediocrity begets more mediocrity, until the entire process is mechanically reduced to making rounds.
Occasionally, policy bodies 'add salt' to this bland porridge of secondary research. They ask academics to comment on this. And the funny thing, they expect these academics to be original. For free. While paying their own staff for banality.
You get the point - either we do reform our public sector to produce real quality stuff, or we are doomed to flowing with the current - from one crisis to another.
Constantin
ReplyDeleteI agree, the unemployment figures are suspect. If 400 000 people are unemployed out of a total work force of approx. 2 million, it translate to 20% unemployment. However, official figures are based on a quarterly survey, not very accurate I think. But it does give some room for interpretation when needed.
the report probably cost Forfas a lot of money to produce. I am aware of 2 reports costing substantial amounts of money to the taxpayer. One of those reports (Evaluation of Irish Membership of EMBL) cost the taxpayer €55k, that is not to mention Forfas staff wages. The shocking fact is that the stats produced in the report are retrievable free of charge from EMBL. In addition, another "evaluation" the evaluation of Irish participation in framework programme 6 (the fees paid to consultants were in excess of €80k.
ReplyDelete