Experience in Measuring Estimates of Russian GDP Dynamics Using Double Deflation Approach

When constructing estimates of gross domestic product (GDP) and gross value added (GVA) at constant prices, three approaches or a combination of them are used: extrapolation, simple deflation and double deflation. The latter approach is considered preferable, but is not yet used in Russian statistics. The article is devoted to the issues of constructing estimates of GDP and GVA dynamics for the Russian Federation using double deflation. The interest in constructing such estimates is due to the possibility of taking into account the dependence of production on domestic and import supplies, which the other two approaches lack. Received for the period from 2011 to 2016 estimates were compared with official indicators for the overall economy, the service sector, and for mining and manufacturing.

From 2011 to 2016 alternative estimates of the physical volume indices of GDP and GVA showed lower growth rates compared to official indicators. This is due to the faster growth of alternative estimates of intermediate consumption compared to official ones. In the structure of intermediate consumption, domestic intermediate products were replacing imported analogues. The current dynamics of indicators, to a first approximation, shows signs of localization of production, which may be associated with the transition of enterprises to domestic outsourcing and the implementation of an import substitution policy.

At the same time, the presence of measurement problems in the use of double deflation is obvious, most clearly manifested when moving to the analysis of indicators of lower levels of aggregation. The analysis shows in favor of conducting additional research related to the introduction of the double deflation technique in the official methodology.

1. Ahmad N. Constant Price Input-Output Supply-Use Balances: An Approach to Improving the Quality of the National Accounts. Economic Trends. 1999;548(July):29–36.

2. Kotlyarov I.D. Localization of Production as a Tool for Import Substitution. ECO. 2016;8:128–140. (In Russ.)

3. Kotlyarova S.N., Lavrikova Yu.G., Averina L.M. TheRole of Localization of Industrial Production in the Import Substitution Policy. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast. 2017;10(5):115–127. (In Russ.)

4. Hufbauer G.C. et al. Local Content Requirements: A Global Problem. Washington, DC:Peterson Institute for International Economics; 2013. 212 р.

5. Wilke N. et al. Production Localization in Russia. St. Petersburg: Beiten Burkhardt; 2020. 20 p.

6. Oulton N. et al. Double Deflation: Theory and Practice. London: Centre for Macroeconomics Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence National Institute of Economic and Social Research; 2018. 57 p.

7. Rajakumar J.D., Shetty S.L. Gross Value Added: Why Not the Double Deflation Method for Estimation? Economic and Political Weekly. 2015;50(33):78–81.

8. Wu H.X., Keiko I. Reconstructing China’s Supply-Use and Input-Output Tables in Time Series. RIETI Discussion Paper Series 15-E-004. January 2015. 24 p.

9. Bessonov V.A. Introduction to the Analysis of Russian Macroeconomic Dynamics of the Transition Period. Moscow: Institute for the Economy in Transition; 2003. 153 p. (InRuss.)

10. Bessonov V.A. Problems of Analysis of Russian Macroeconomic Dynamics of the Transition Period. Moscow: Institute for the Economy in Transition; 2005. 244 p. (In Russ.)

11. Baranov E.F. et al. Problems of Constructing Russian Input-Output Tables into the International Classifications. HSE Economic Journal. 2014;18(1):7–42. (In Russ.)

12. Hill T.P. The Measurement of Real Product: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Growth Rates, for Different Industries and Countries. Paris: OECD; 1971. 119 p.

13. Semykina I. Opportunities and Benefits of Local Content Requirement Policy: Case of Eastern Siberian Oil and Gas Industry. In: 55th Congress of the European Regional Science Association: «World Renaissance: Changing Roles for People and Places», 25–28 August 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. 13 p.

14. Deringer H. et al. The Economic Impact of Local Content Requirements: A Case Study of Heavy Vehicles. ECIPE Occasional Paper. 2018; 1. 46 p.

15. Bartist S., Hepburn C. Intermediate Inputs and Economic Productivity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Series A. Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences. 2013;371(1986):2–21. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2011.0565.

16. Bogacheva I., Porshakov A., Turdyeva N. Sectoral Real Effective Exchange Rate and Sectoral Competitiveness in Russia. Bank of Russia Working Paper Series. 2020;59. 52 p. (In Russ.)

17. Ponomarenko A.N., Muradov K.Yu. New Statistics of International Trade in Value Added Terms. HSE Economic Journal. 2014;18(1):43–79. (In Russ.)

18. Tatarinov A.A. Statistical Units of Production in the System of National Accounts. Voprosy Statistiki. 2016;(2):3–12. (In Russ.)

19. Strizhkova L.A. Using «Input-Output» Tables in Estimating the Dependence of Russian Economy on Import and Import Substitution Processes. Voprosy Statistiki. 2016;(5):3–22. (In Russ.)