"Government economists said the country’s gross domestic product rose by 6.9 per cent from the same quarter last year, the highest rate since 1990 [emphasis mine]..."One look at the NSCB Statistics (i.e. the 'Time Series' data) shows that we've had better performance as recently as three years ago, i.e. the first and second quarters of 2004 with 7.15% and 7.1% GDP growth respectively (as visualized in the bar graph below).
Unless my understanding is wrong, the above quote should then read:
...the country’s gross domestic product rose by 6.9 per cent from the same quarter last year, the highest rate since 2004...Any clarifications (from government economists or otherwise) would be greatly appreciated.
Update 1:30pm: Dave Llorito pointed out that the First Quarter GDP growth rate is 6.4% and Second Quarter GDP growth rate is 6.2% for the period 2003 to 2004. This is as reported in the NSCB's press releases here and here. Taking the underlying values from the press releases for First and Second Quarters of 2004 and comparing them to the GDP data populating the Time Series referred to above, the discrepancy can be traced to the difference in reported GDP values as follows:
It would seem that at some point after the original 6.4 and 6.2 percent GDP growth figures were published, a revision to the GDP figures for these quarters was made. By contrast, there is as yet no discrepancy between the GDP figures in the NSCB Press Release and the time series data for both the First Quarter 2006 and 2007. If this is the case, it's still odd that the government economists still use the old data for purposes of comparison. Perhaps i'm still missing something so any explanations on this practice are most welcome.
Update 01-15-2008: Over at Dani Rodrik, economist Arvind Subramanian raises similar questions concerning revisions in GDP Data of other countries.