This is a rather concerning article, highlighting the shortcomings of the Office for National Statistics and the fact that a lack of accurate data might impact the quality of economic policymaking. 

A shortcoming like this means that the data being used both by the Treasury and the Office for Budgetary Responsibility might be working on the basis of incomplete or missing data and that's dangerous. 

Heather Stewart's piece for tomorrow's Guardian notes the rise of female economists, arguing that they've stealthily become more important in the recent past and highlighting a number of prominent UK based examples.

It's a welcome move, although I'd argue that it's more important that they're good economists, irrespective of gender, and that it's a little bit insular in ignoring women such as Janet Yellen, Christine Lagarde, Kristalina Georgieva and Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala to name four globally renowned female economists.

Is Polly Toynbee right, are capitalism and progressive change mutually exclusive? If this example is taken in isolation - with asset manager Aberdeen (note vowels!) cutting research funding into inequality - then it might look that way. 

And when companies undertake things such as this, that add nothing to their profits, but obviously incur costs, we might think about their motivation for doing so. 

I rarely post on this board, but this is a fundamental methodological point about the role of the Office for National Statistics and its importance in policymaking.

In short, the criticisms of the Devereux Review are fairly damning: there are "deep-seated" problems and this has adverse implications. Policymaking is only as good as the data it's based upon, and it seems that the ONS is falling short in many areas and that, over time, previous figures are likely to need to be revised - note, this will trigger hand-wringing and claims that inaccurate data has unfairly tarnished the reputation of the previous government. 

As a result, there's going to be a £10m investment in the ONS; however, £10m doesn't go a long way. 

More problems with data gathering at the Office for National Statistics with the latest data on UK wage growth being qualified in the wake of late data from one firm. You wouldn't imagine that it could have such an effect, even if it were a large private sector employer like Tesco, but it calls into question the data that used to help policymaking in the UK. 

The way in which GDP is calculated is going to change, with the UN agreeing that a number of other economic activities should be valued including wind and wave power, and data is also being given a value. As a result, of this minor tweak, it's likely to increase GDP by 2-3%. 

This, in itself, won't see an increase in living standards, but it does have potentially more interesting implications for defence spending because the government has committed to spending a fixed percentage of GDP on defence. As a result, if GDP grows, this means that the government are going to have to find more to fund this. 

Excellent news for British economists - with the announcement that this year's Nobel Prize for Economics has been awarded to Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James Robinson for their work on the importance of inclusive institutions in promoting development. 

Always nice to remind yourself of the Beatles' contribution to economic thought. As they pointed out in their 6th single,  "Can't Buy Me Love" in 1964, "I don't care to much for money, 'cos money can't buy me love".

And so it would seem, with indigenous people showing similar, if not higher levels of happiness with people in High Income Countries. 

Might this classify as an economic indicator? I would argue that the level of sales of secondhand goods is a good proxy for the state of the economy. It should be easy to understand why, applying the concept of income elasticity of demand, and there might be some nice data to support the hypothesis. 

What do we care about what experts say? 

This is a brief summary of Faisal Islam's BBC article - and, alas, reflects the growing trend to disregard expert opinion if it fails to support our own views. There's a little bit of theory here - but I suspect that this has more to do with the impact of pluralistic ignorance on policymaking. 

To what extent are traditional measures of national income and economic welfare appropriate. This clip looks at how we might start valuing nature appropriately, reflecting biodiversity. 

This year's Nobel Prize for Economics is shared by former Federal Reserve boss, Ben Bernanke, and fellow economists Douglas Diamond and Philip Dybvig, all of whom worked on the prevention of bank runs, which may have helped avert a more severe global financial crisis in 2008. 

I've put this opinion piece here because it highlights how President Trump's recent moves to question official statistics and fire the Chief of Labour Statistics undermine the impartiality of data and the adverse consequences of this for both policymaking in the short-term and democracy in the longer term. 

This Gene Marks article has wider implications than merely looking at the US labour market - in it he posits whether the latest employment data is really that accurate. In the US, he thinks that over-employment, with people having more than one job, might distort unemployment and job creation data, whereas in the UK we're more concerned about under-employment and it's impact. 

Either way, global statistical agencies are struggling to keep abreast of the latest labour market trends. 

Another look at the now increasingly old debate about what the government's macroeconomic objectives should be, with Heather Stewart arguing that in the post-Covid age, there should be an explicit focus on happiness - however that can be measured - and that might allow the government to reshape the narrative in its favour. 

This Business Insider clip interviews Dan Gardner, co-author, with Bent Flyvbjerg, of "How Big Things Get Done" looking at why so many megaprojects are overrun their budgets and deadlines, resulting in higher costs and a loss of economic welfare, to the extent that some of the most egregious examples, such as the Montreal Olympics and the Sydney Opera House represent examples of government failure. It's an excellent introduction to many of the key ideas contained in the book. 

The Guardian's long read looks at the future of global capitalism in the post-Trump era and argues that it represents a chance for the political Left to get on the front foot and make a compelling case for reshaping the economic order to emphasise sustainability and equality. 

You may not agree with it, but it's worth your consideration nonetheless.  

Oops! It seems as though the quality of economic data being generated by the ONS is currently below par with the agency having detected problems with the way in which it calculates certain price indices, including the Producer Price Index, and this has implications for its ability to ensure that growth figures are accurate. As a result, it's warned that it will have to revise data for 2022 and 2023, but the consensus view that that, to some extent the changes will balance one another out and have few implications for economic growth. 

A rare, but important entry to the Economic Method board, with the news that the ONS is looking at formalising alternatives to GDP such as inclusive income and wealth.

The latter are intended to capture things that GDP misses, like housework and other non-marketed transactions such as "Parents who take their children to events in their own car rather than a taxi, home-cooked meals and voluntary childcare and care of older relatives". Such things are included in Gross Inclusive Income (GII) but Net Inclusive Income (NII) is more volatile, taking into account the negative effect of wear and tear (i.e. depreciation) on household goods. 

An interesting Guardian opinion piece that argues that whereas in 2010, Gordon Brown had a genuine alternative vision to the economic policies being peddled by the Conservative Party, the current Labour Opposition doesn't.

It highlights the notion of post-neoclassical endogenous growth theory and one of the current fads - modern monetary theory - and suggests that both offer alternatives. But do they?

An interesting aside, in that the amount of payments made by cash has increased in the past month, with consumers keeping a closer eye on what they're spending. It's an interesting fact of economic life that people perceive budgeting to be easier if payments are made in cash. 

Claudia Goldin has become the third woman to win the Nobel Prize for Economics for her work on women's pay over time, identifying those factors that have contributed to altering female participation rates in the labour force, and the effect of this on their wages over time. 

I've 'scooped' this because self-checkouts something that fascinate me. This article summarises many of my frustrations - and might get you thinking about the human resource and operational issues that are raised.

In the first instance, the rise of the self-checkout has also seen an uptick in shoplifting, which will affect supermarket revenues. Equally, despite the 'promise' of lower costs because of fewer checkout assistants, you still need to employ someone to monitor the self-checkout.

I would also add that I think that there's been no innovation in the sector, because supermarkets have little incentive to invest in them. They are good enough - but no more. Given the cost implications for the firms, I've often thought that shoppers using them should getting a tiny discount on their shopping..

A pretty fundamental question is posed in this article, and it looks at the record of the Office for Budgetary Responsibility in forecasting growth and borrowing, and reasons why, even though, forecasting is notoriously difficult it's currently form is infinitely preferable to what went before.