Are Economic Forecasts Accurate? | RDP 8302: Economic Forecasts and their Assessment (2024)

(a) The issues

The most common criticism of economic forecasts is that they are usually wrong. In a literalsense this is, of course, true; forecasters cannot hope to get things right to the last decimalpoint. In a general sense, however, the proposition is wrong; some economic variables can beforecast to a reasonable degree of accuracy most of the time. To illustrate this point,Table 1 shows recent forecasts of real GDP by the OECD and by the large U.S. forecasting firm,Data Resources Inc (DRI).^[2]These were chosen because they are respectively the best-known forecaster of the internationaleconomy and of the U.S. economy.

On the surface, the forecasts are astonishingly accurate. Judged by this sort of performance, itis hard to see why there should be such scepticism about the efficacy of economic forecasting.Unfortunately there is more to the story than appears from Table 1.

• GDP is one of the easier variables to forecast.^[3] Even though economistsgive pride of place in their forecasting effort to GDP, and, to a lesser extent, inflation,businesses often have greater need for forecasts of more specific variables. These specificvariables include components of GDP, such as housebuilding, and key prices such as interestrates, exchange rates, commodity prices etc. In these areas the forecasting record isgenerally much poorer.
• These forecasts are only for one year ahead. It was no doubt useful to know in 1979 that GDPgrowth was going to be negligible in 1980. However, the really important thing to have knownwas that it was going to remain negligible for three years. Forecasters who correctly pickedthe 1980 turning point have been justifiably criticised for failing to see that the worldwas entering the longest recession in the post-war period. It has been established onnumerous occasions (Zarnowitz (1967 and 1979), Christ (1975), Fromm and Klein (1976), McNees(1976), Su (1978)) that, in general, the accuracy of the forecast declines the further aheadis the forecasting period.^[4]
• The period shown in Table 1 is flattering to the forecasts as it did not include a majorshock i.e. an outcome for any one year outside the range of recent experience. It ispossible to find one by going back a few years further. Between 1973 and 1974 GDP growth inthe OECD area fell from 6.1 per cent to 0.9 per cent, by far the sharpest turnaround in thepost war period. In 1974 all the major forecasting groups failed to predict the severity ofthe downturn. (The OECD forecast was 3–1/2 per cent).

This third point is the crucial criticism of economic forecasting. Economic forecasts, at leastof real GDP growth, are usually quite good; they are near the mark in most years and overreasonable periods they outperform simple extrapolative methods. The problem is, that whensomething really large occurs, economic forecasts either fail to pick it or grosslyunderestimate its size.^[5]

A better way of illustrating this is to look at some history. Between the first world war andthe Great Depression there was a flourishing economic forecasting industry in the U.S.^[6] Its failure topredict the latter event led to its demise. Forecasters that depended for revenue on the sale oftheir forecasts went out of business; others, such as those associated with banks, continued inspite of an equally poor performance.

In the post-war period there have also been a number of major failures by economic forecasters.The main ones were:

• the false prediction of a recession immediately after World War II;^[7]
• the failure to predict the magnitude of the acceleration in inflation in the earlyseventies;
• the failure to predict the severity of the fall in output and employment in 1974;
• over recent years, the failure to predict the duration of the international recession (seeabove), and to predict the rise in interest rates (see below).

In summary, the legitimate criticism of the accuracy of economic forecasts is that they are onlygood at predicting the predictable. When the movements of economic variables are within therange of recently observed movements, forecasting accuracy can seem to be quite good. Whenmovements are outside the range of recent experience, forecasts look poor. All the failures offorecasting listed above, except for the post-World War II recession, are examples of thistendency. It could be claimed that, as most years do not contain an extreme movement in aneconomic variable, economic forecasts are good most of the time. Unfortunately, users ofeconomic forecasts have a disproportionate need to be alerted to the extreme movements.

It is not much comfort to have been correctly told that GDP growth was going to rise from 2–1/2per cent to 3–1/2 per cent, if you were not told that interest rates were going to rise toan all-time record.

(b) Some Australian results

This section looks at an interesting sub-set of Australian forecasts to illustrate some of thepoints made above; for reasons which will be made apparent later, it is not an assessment of therelative worth of different forecasters. The sub-set of forecasts is that collected each Januaryover the last six years by Terry McCrann of The Age. This collection has covered over twentyforecasters in some years, twelve of whom have replied to all five of the completed yearsanalysed in this paper. The calculations in this section are confined to this constant group oftwelve forecasters and the five variables shown in diagram 1, namely, real GDP growth, thechange in the CPI, the level of unemployment, the current account defict and the bond rate. Thetwelve forecasters include private forecasting companies, a university-affiliated economicinstitution, the economic departments of trading banks, other financial institutions and apublic company. The forecasts made by the Treasury and published in Budget Statement No. 2 arenot included in this list as they refer to financial years.^[8]

Diagram 1 shows the range of forecasts for each year for each variable, along with theoutcome.^[9] It waspossible to compare the outcome with the range of forecasts for the five variables for fiveyears. In these twenty-five observations the outcome was outside the range of forecasts on nineoccasions or 36 per cent of the time. These are shown in Table 2.

This is not a very impressive result, but it is, in a broad sense, consistent with the usualfindings about the effectiveness of forecasting mentioned in the first section.

• The forecasts perform better than simple extrapolation. To test this proposition,another set of forecast ranges based on simple extrapolation were constructed. Theseeffectively assumed that each variable followed a random process. The forecast ranges foreach year were thus the outcome of the previous year plus or minus the average size ofchanges in the series. When this was calculated, the resulting forecast ranges failed inthirteen occasions out of twenty-five to include the actual outcome. Especially as theranges were about one and a half times as large as those produced by the twelve forecasters,it is reasonable to conclude that they were inferior to the actual forecast ranges. (Anappendix contains details of this extrapolation.)
• The forecasts are worst for the variable that showed the most extreme movement. Forthree years in a row all forecasters underestimated the bond rate. The bond rate was theonly variable whose movements were outside the range of previous experience; the rise of 6.2percentage points in a three year period was unprecedented. It is true that the number ofunemployed and the dollar value of the current deficit were also at record levels. However,in relative terms, the movements in these variables were not exceptional.
• Somewhat surprisingly the forecast of the CPI was as good as that for GOP. The reason isthat movements in the CPI were smaller than those for GDP over this period and so abasically extrapolative procedure for forecasting prices worked reasonably well. Thecoefficient of variation of GDP was about 50 per cent against 13 per cent for the CPI. Anearlier draft of this paper covering the first four years' results was able to concludethat the forecasts of GDP were better than for the other variables considered, however therecession in 1982 altered that conclusion.^[10]In short, GDP and unemployment experienced a very large shock within the evaluation periodwhile prices did npt.