Why are the data of the National Bureau of Statistics and the National Tourism Administration inconsistent?

Why are the data of the National Bureau of Statistics and the National Tourism Administration inconsistent?

On February 7, 65438, the website of the National Bureau of Statistics published the accounting results of the added value of the national tourism and related industries in 20 14 years: the added value of the national tourism and related industries was 2,752.4 billion yuan, an increase of 1 1.5% over the previous year (excluding the price factor), which was higher than the gross domestic product (GDP) in the same period.

On February 2nd, 65438+KLOC-0/day, the website of China National Tourism Administration released the statistical bulletin of China tourism for 20 14 years, announcing the total annual tourism revenue of 3.73 trillion yuan, and the comprehensive contribution of the national tourism industry to the annual GDP was 6.6 1 trillion yuan, accounting for 10.39% of the total GDP.

Both families said categorically that there was a basis.

According to the National Bureau of Statistics, the added value of tourism and related industries in China for 20 14 years was calculated according to the Statistical Classification of Tourism and Related Industries (20 15) and the Accounting Methods of Tourism and Related Industries. He also explained that "the added value of tourism and related industries refers to the final result of the production activities of tourism and related industries carried out by all permanent units of a country (or region) in a certain period of time. …… Production refers to the activity of creating new output of goods and services by using labor, capital, goods and services under the control and organization of institutions ".

The National Tourism Administration said: According to the United Nations World Tourism Organization's "Tourism Subsidiary Account in 2008: Suggested Method Framework", based on the existing sample survey data of international and domestic tourists, combined with the input-output method, the comprehensive contribution of tourism to GDP in the whole year was calculated.

One refers to "final achievement" and the other refers to "comprehensive contribution"; One is the National Statistical Classification of Tourism and Related Industries (20 15) and the Accounting Method of Tourism and Related Industries formulated by the National Bureau of Statistics, which can be said to be "soil standards"; One is the United Nations World Tourism Organization's Recommendations for International Tourism Statistics in 2008 and the Tourism Subsidiary Account in 2008: Framework of Recommendations, which can be said to be "foreign rules".

From the subject of publication, a country is in charge of national economic statistics and a country is in charge of tourism. Both have their official authority.

Judging from the release time, it is four days apart. Is there a lack of communication between the competent authorities of the two countries in advance, or is it intentional? According to common sense, when the National Bureau of Statistics announces the added value data of tourism, it should first greet the tourism authorities. On the contrary, the annual key data of the tourism industry released by the National Tourism Administration should also be ventilated to the statistical authorities. The added value of national tourism accounted for such a large proportion of GDP in that year, which was obviously different. Both of them are directly affiliated to the State Council, and it seems to be an indisputable fact that the two departments lack communication. ,

Is this accidental or inevitable?

On August 6th this year, the National Bureau of Statistics issued OrderNo. 12 in 2007. 16, promulgating the national statistical classification of tourism and related industries (20 15). It stands to reason that the National Tourism Administration should make a high-profile response to this industry statistical standard closely related to the tourism sector. But this is not the case. I didn't see a responsible official of the National Tourism Administration speak. Only a few scholars have some comments, which I also discussed in my essay. This time, the National Bureau of Statistics first released the accounting results of the added value of national tourism and related industries in 20 14 years, and four days later, the National Tourism Administration also produced its own statistical data. There is a big difference between the two, which is like a sore throat.

There are three possibilities for two departments to produce two kinds of data on the added value of the same industry: one is to make mistakes again; Second, both of them are right, but the angles and methods are different, and each has its own reasons. Third, neither is right. One overestimates the added value of tourism and the other underestimates the added value of tourism, both of which are biased.

Originally, quantifying the function and role of tourism in the national economy is a worldwide problem, which has been discussed by the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) and the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) for many years. Although there are Recommendations for International Tourism Statistics in 2008, Tourism Statistics Survey System and Tourism Subsidiary Account in 2008: Suggested Methodological Framework, they are only "suggestions". There are still many difficulties in how to implement it in various countries, especially in many countries' economic sectors and provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities closely related to tourism, which have not yet established systematic, continuous and detailed statistical data. It is even more difficult to infer a few percent. Borrowing two buzzwords, how to "cloud computing" without "big data"?

In this regard, although several provinces in China have done experiments and some scholars have discussed them, at the national level, especially the two key authorities, the National Bureau of Statistics and the National Tourism Administration, have not yet sat down for in-depth discussion, systematic investigation, typical experiments, detailed research, unified deployment and common promotion. How can they understand this extremely complicated and grand subject? In particular, if we take the mentality of quick success and instant benefit as the impulse point, draw a frame in advance and come up with a "system" and a set of "standards" in a short time, and find a "statistical basis" for the conclusion that "tourism+"represents a new economic form, a new life form, a new social organization form and a new advanced productive force, how can it stand the test of practice? It can even be said arbitrarily: in a word, this comprehensive socio-economic "math problem" may not have a standard and unique answer. Different angles may have different answers.

Do not understand the "story" behind the "story"; My knowledge is limited, and I have no ability to gossip about this lawsuit and distinguish between right and wrong from these two data. However, we can confidently say that to solve the Goldbach conjecture in tourism science, we need to get rid of the "chief will" and "power judgment", rely on scientific attitudes, scientific methods and scientific means, and rely on the cooperation of various disciplines and people from all walks of life. Perhaps in the context of "internet plus", there will be more ways and channels to solve this problem.

Departmental cooperation and industrial integration are the most talked-about words in the tourism industry recently. Why not take action when studying the added value of tourism? It is not allowed to rely on one department to build a car behind closed doors, nor can it rely on several experts with the same views to think hard and conceive a system. On this issue, we also need to be enlightened, open and enlightened.