presentation by Klaus Reeh Adviser to the Director General Eurostat, Luxembourg

1. Debating Official StatisticsSome thoughts about the need for a broader public dialogue on official statisticsby Walter Radermacher, Marie Bohata and Klaus Reeh, EurostatQ2010 European Conference on Quality in Official Statistics presentation by Klaus Reeh Adviser to the Director General Eurostat, Luxembourg

2. Overview • Background • increased societal importance of (official) statistics, most notably in the European Union • A look at the EU Statistics Policy • main elements of this policy so far • overall policy assessment • How to cope better with political issues • discussing our self-understanding • discussing the epistemological limits and the political logic of our statistics • discussing the organisational pre-conditions for a robust provision of “political statistics” • Conclusion

3. General Background • general societal numeracy has grown • ever more societal processes are numerically planned, monitored, controlled and assessed (nearly in real time) • public management is much more numerical • political authority is increasingly tied to numerically proven successes or failures • Consequently official statistics attract much more attention: in the media, in the scientific community, in the political debate at all levels of polities 3

4. European Background • European Statistics ... • contribute to a convergence of (collective) memories and expectations, of perceptions in general • support the administrative conduct of an ever wider range of EU policies • extend political agreements and provide political agenda relief • shape (if not pre-determine) important political decisions: admissibility, compliance, etc  European statistics are used as much by topical relevance or political convenience as by practical necessity 4

5. Main elements of the EU Statistics Policy so far • since the late 80s official statistics became therefore the object of a truly European statistics policy • new collaborative structures • strong legal foundations with tight delivery obligations • adequate coverage through joint programming • fit for (general) purpose through quality initiatives • fit for (political) purpose through institutional initiatives  the standing of European statisticians was greatly enhanced through their increased political importance 5

6. Overall assessment of the EU Statistics Policy • by and large a success • broad acceptance assured • controversial issues solved • shortcomings remedied and • new approaches introduced • however recurrent problems due to • user needs ever more divers and demanding • sources to be drawn upon ever more divers • costs and burden to be reduced all the time • statistics ever more “political” the Eurostat vision addresses some of these issues, but the political issue is not at its centre 6

7. How to cope better with political issues related to European statistics? • our debate was only internal: Commission internal, ESS internal and EU institution internal • our debate was not pro-active, but passive and event driven as well as technical • there was no regular debate in or with media or scientific community • our debate should therefore be broadened, made independent from events, sought actively and more political • three issues are proposed here for a broader public debate

8. We should question our self-understanding • Are we really as non-political as we seem to believe? Can we insist on doing just a technical or scientific job? And not at all a political job? • we select, we remember, we conceptualise, we assume and impute, we focus attention, we shape perceptions, ... • Isn't it in the end better to identify our political role? And give explicitly legitimacy to what we are doing? • the more autonomous we are the more we have to justify what we are doing (why and how) • We would be much better prepared for future debates that will inevitably come 8

9. We should discuss the epistemological limits and the political logic of our statistics • Are our statistics as conclusive as they are usually seen and wanted by us to be seen? • Do they really have the discriminatory power? • eligibility, compliance • Do they really have the numerical accuracy? • change versus level, observation versus estimation • Do we provide a sufficiently pluralistic framework? • Is our framework responsive? (pensée unique) • Is our framework participative? (inclusive or exclusive) • Is our framework unbiased? (convention, tradition, macro) • The risk of overburdening the statistical system and of misusing statistical results would be reduced 9

10. We should discuss organisational pre-conditions for a robust provision of “political statistics” • Does “statistics quality management” guarantee that our statistics are automatically fit for all (political) purposes? • Do statistical processes really have to be uniform and independent of the usage? • Is it possible to kill two (or more) birds with one stone? • Is it helpful to distinguish general purpose statistics from statistics for administrative or even political purposes? • should notifications be treated like any other statistics? • Should the results of “political statistics” be subjected to a specific “approval or legitimisation process”? • We might be less vulnerable if try to achieve a broad consensus with and among all our (political) stakeholders 10

11. Conclusion • We were quite successful in the past, at national as well as European level, however • “Pride goeth before, and shame cometh behind” • We have been granted more and in the end quite a lot of autonomy and independence • but we have to earn and justify it all the time and more than ever before because of our increased operational and in particular political importance • We have to become politically (even) more robust • but for this all political (and not so political) stakeholder have to understand and accept what we are doing and how • A broader public dialogue along the suggested lines would assure just this 11