What's new

Can all transactions in 'black economy' be construed as money laundering?

CaPtAiN_pLaNeT

SENIOR MEMBER
May 10, 2010
7,685
0
4,792
Can all transactions in 'black economy' be construed as money laundering?

Can all transactions in 'black economy' be construed as money laundering?

M. A. Taslim

Black money arises out of transactions that are either expressly illegal, or legal but not reported in order to evade taxes. Since incomes on which due taxes have not been paid is illegal post fact, all black money is illegal according to the tax laws of the land. Such money must not be confused with the unreported incomes of the less fortunate section of the population who are exempted from reporting because their incomes fall below the subsistence threshold level as determined by the government.

Unreported incomes do not necessarily imply unrecorded incomes in the national accounts of Bangladesh. The Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) imputes values to unreported economic activities to arrive at an estimate of the total unreported income. Virtually all incomes in the agricultural and the informal sector are unreported incomes, and are estimated by the Bureau of Statistics through appropriate methods of imputation. Thus much of the unreported incomes are actually recorded and hence the black economy, defined as above, does not measure the extent to which the GDP is underestimated. Indeed, whether legally exempted unreported income should be included in black economy is a moot point.

It is also not the case that black money is not recorded. Most of the black money is spent on legal transactions; it is invested in different assets such as real estate or spent in conspicuous consumption. Much of it should be picked up in the GDP estimated by 'the expenditure approach' i.e. adding up all final expenditures made in the economy.

Since a very large part of the income earned by the population is not reported, and income reporting of the rest is admittedly of a poor quality, the BBS does not even attempt to measure the GDP of the nation by the income approach. Its estimates are based on the expenditure approach and the value addition approach. These methods should capture most of the final output produced in the economy. Hence, the extent of the black economy quoted by the Finance Minister would appear to be rather too large.

The opportunity given to the black money holders to legalise their black money through investment in the stock market is showing the expected result. The stock market general index has risen by more than 25 per cent in less than two months, and still rising. Another bubble seems to be in the making. The Minister publicly complained of foul play, but his complaint lacked credibility.

A problem with highlighting of such an extravagant sway of the black economy from the highest level of the government is that it sends out wrong signals about the economy especially to foreign communities. If up to 82 per cent of the economy is black economy, then most of the monetary transactions in the economy could be construed as money laundering! Such a possibility could make foreign business enterprises unduly cautious when planning to invest in Bangladesh.

No one can legally challenge the right of an elected government to adopt any permissible fiscal measures. Concerned citizens may only protest to make their disagreement known. However, it is expected that a responsible government will not dabble in concepts or data that are more likely to confuse than illuminate. Transparency is an essential prerequisite of good governance.

(The writer, Dr. M.A. Taslim, is a professor of the Department of Economics, University of Dhaka. He may be reached at m_a_taslim@yahoo.com)
 
ah! i was talking about this article previous day... thanx for finding it. now who will make them understand this?? they are busy measuring feces in the gulshan lake!
 
ah! i was talking about this article previous day... thanx for finding it. now who will make them understand this?? they are busy measuring feces in the gulshan lake!

You do realize that this article goes against the bs claim,( that the economy of Bangladesh is twice the size of what is reported). which you lots make over and over again? OP probably didn't realise what the article was trying to convey :rofl:

Unreported incomes do not necessarily imply unrecorded incomes in the national accounts of Bangladesh. The Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) imputes values to unreported economic activities to arrive at an estimate of the total unreported income. Virtually all incomes in the agricultural and the informal sector are unreported incomes, and are estimated by the Bureau of Statistics through appropriate methods of imputation. Thus much of the unreported incomes are actually recorded and hence the black economy, defined as above, does not measure the extent to which the GDP is underestimated. Indeed, whether legally exempted unreported income should be included in black economy is a moot point.

Most of the black money is spent on legal transactions; it is invested in different assets such as real estate or spent in conspicuous consumption. Much of it should be picked up in the GDP estimated by 'the expenditure approach' i.e. adding up all final expenditures made in the economy.


Since a very large part of the income earned by the population is not reported, and income reporting of the rest is admittedly of a poor quality, the BBS does not even attempt to measure the GDP of the nation by the income approach. Its estimates are based on the expenditure approach and the value addition approach. These methods should capture most of the final output produced in the economy. Hence, the extent of the black economy quoted by the Finance Minister would appear to be rather too large.

And no point taking the moral high ground, you should go check who started talking about feces:lol:
 
You do realize that this article goes against the bs claim,( that the economy of Bangladesh is twice the size of what is reported). which you lots make over and over again? OP probably didn't realise what the article was trying to convey :rofl:



And no point taking the moral high ground, you should go check who started talking about feces:lol:

Instead of laughing and trolling like fool you should see what the writer was trying to mean. He was saying that to measure the real GDP and black economy one should follow the income approach instead of expenditure approach. In income approach there may be many legal but unreported income but those can also be categorized as black economy where as parallel or shadow economy only includes legal unreported transaction.

The same writer also wrote the following article today: It did not nullify the claim of shadow economy but said many could be legal but unreported n combining these it could be 82% of the GDP.

Black economy and black money


http://www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/more.php?news_id=144196&date=2011-07-27

M. A. Taslim

Soon after presenting the national budget for fiscal 2011-12 in the parliament where black money whitening was on the card, the Minister of Finance revealed a startling finding from a little-known study that between 48 to 82 per cent of the gross domestic product (GDP) of Bangladesh is derived from black economy. Despite the very large range of uncertainty of the estimate, it was widely reported in the news media. The Minister had the difficult task of justifying (or at the least making it appear benign) the legalisation of black money through investment in the stock market at modest cost, a course of fiscal action that he had publicly repudiated on several occasions in the past.

If more than four-fifths of the economy is actually black economy, then presumably the black money holders are not really as bad a group of people as they are made out to be; they are more like the average person of the society and it would not be fair to single them out! The cue was picked up by the holders of black money and their allies to argue even more vigorously for the opportunity of whitening black money. They were not disappointed.

The statement of the Minister gave the impression that black money and black economy are the two sides of the same coin, even though that might not have been his intention. However, he did not clarify, nor did anybody else, that black money and black economy are not quite the same thing in Bangladesh. The confusion could be in part due to the unwitting application of western concepts to the Bangladesh economy, a practice that is regrettably widespread.

This writer could not find the study, nor could he find anyone who has seen it. It has not been put up in the Ministry's website. Assuming that the author(s) of the study did not invent a new definition, one could follow the standard definition of black economy to examine what might be implied by the finding. Black economy, variously called the underground economy, shadow economy, parallel economy etc., refers to economic activities that are not reported to the taxman or the statistical office.

Some authors make a difference among these terms. For example, shadow or parallel economy may include only unreported legal transactions, while black or underground economy includes all unreported transactions. Since these transactions are not reported or recorded, they do not show up in the national income accounts.

It may be mentioned that 'the income approach' of estimating national income, i.e. national income estimates derived by adding up the incomes of individual economic agents, is a reliable method of estimation in developed countries such as the USA. Hence, the extent of the black economy is a rough measure of the amount by which the national income is underestimated in official national accounts.

The sway of the black economy is believed to range under 15 per cent of GDP in the most developed countries, but increases dramatically for the poorer countries. Black economy contributing more than three-quarters of the GDP in such countries is not unknown. Hence, it would seem that the extent of the black economy in Bangladesh suggested by the study is not outlandish if the standard definition of the term is accepted.

As indicated earlier, black economy activities could be either legal or illegal. All incomes, even when below the tax threshold level, have to be reported (and hence recorded) in developed countries such as the USA. Since black economy transactions are not reported, these give rise to illegal incomes or black money. Legal actions could be taken if the existence of such money is detected. In this case, these two terms are indeed two sides of the same coin.

In contrast to the practice in developed countries, the people of Bangladesh are not required to submit tax returns if their incomes are below the threshold level (except under certain circumstances). The threshold level of income this year is Tk 180,000. For farmers this is raised by an additional Tk 50,000.

Since only a fraction of the population have incomes in excess of these amounts (only seven to eight hundred thousand people pay income tax), a large part of the national income is exempted from reporting. Consequently, unreported incomes could amount to a large fraction of the GDP, but importantly these are not necessarily illegal. Unlike in some developed countries, all unreported incomes are not black money in Bangladesh.

(More of this economic analysis is accommodated in Page-6 as a separate item. The writer, Dr. M. A. Taslim, is a professor of the Department of Economics, University of Dhaka. He may be reached at e-mail: m_a_taslim@yahoo.com)
 
I personally think government should take necessary steps to measure the unreported legal and illegal income so that it can be included in the real GDP calculation hence it resemble the true amount of Bangladesh's GDP. n Raising tax amount can be used for different development activities.
 
Off the mark: Black economy and black money | Opinion

During the penultimate hours of the final budget deliberations, where black money whitening was on the card, the Minister of Finance revealed a startling finding from a little-known study that between 45 to 81 percent of the GDP of Bangladesh is derived from black economy. Despite the very large range of uncertainty of the estimate, it was widely reported in the news media. The Minister had the difficult task of justifying (or at the least making it appear benign) the legalisation of black money through investment in the stock market at modest cost, a course of fiscal action that he had publicly repudiated on several occasions in the past.

If more than four-fifths of the economy is actually black economy, then presumably the black money holders are not really as bad a group of people as they are made out to be; they are more like the average person of the society and it would not be fair to single them out! The cue was picked up by the holders of black money and their allies to argue more vigorously for the opportunity of whitening black money. They were not disappointed.

The statement of the Minister gave the impression that black money and black economy are the two sides of the same coin even though that might not have been his intention. However, he did not clarify, nor did anybody else, that black money and black economy are not quite the same thing in Bangladesh. The confusion could be in part due to the unwitting application of western concepts to our economy, a practice that is regrettably widespread.

The author could not find the study, nor could he find anyone who has seen it. It has not been put up in the Ministry’s website. Assuming that the author(s) of the study did not invent a new definition, one could follow the standard definition of black economy to examine what might be implied by the finding. Black economy, variously called the underground economy, shadow economy, parallel economy etc., refers to economic activities that are not reported to the taxman or the statistical office. Some authors make a difference among these terms. For example, shadow or parallel economy may include only unreported legal transactions, while black or underground economy includes all unreported transactions. Since these transactions are not reported or recorded, they do not show up in the national income accounts.

It may be mentioned that ‘the income approach’ of estimating national income, i.e. national income estimates derived by adding up the incomes of individual economic agents, is a reliable method of estimation in developed countries such as the USA. Hence, the extent of the black economy is a rough measure of the amount by which the national income is underestimated in official national accounts. The sway of the black economy is believed to range under 15 percent of GDP in the most developed countries, but increases dramatically for the poorer countries. Black economy contributing more than three-quarters of the GDP in such countries is not unknown. Hence, it would seem that the extent of the black economy in Bangladesh suggested by the study is not outlandish if we accept the standard definition of the term.

As indicated earlier, black economy activities could be either legal or illegal. All incomes, even when below the tax threshold level, have to be reported (and hence recorded) in developed countries such as the USA. Since black economy transactions are not reported, these give rise to illegal incomes or black money. Legal actions could be taken if the existence of such money is detected. In this case these two terms are indeed two sides of the same coin.

In contrast to the practice in developed countries, the people of Bangladesh are not required to submit tax returns if their incomes are below the threshold level (except under certain circumstances). The threshold level of income this year is Tk180,000. For farmers this is raised by an additional Tk 50,000. Since only a fraction of the population have incomes in excess of these amounts (only 0.7-0.8 million people pay income tax), a large part of the national income is exempted from reporting. Consequently, unreported incomes could amount to a large fraction of the GDP, but importantly these are not necessarily illegal. Unlike in some developed countries all unreported incomes are not black money in Bangladesh.

Black money arises out of transactions that are either expressly illegal, or legal but not reported in order to evade taxes. Since incomes on which due taxes have not been paid is illegal post fact, all black money is illegal according to the tax laws of the land. Such money must not be confused with the unreported incomes of the less fortunate section of the population who are exempted from reporting because their incomes fall below the subsistence threshold level as determined by the government.

Unreported incomes do not necessarily imply unrecorded incomes in the national accounts of Bangladesh. The Bureau of Statistics imputes values to unreported economic activities to arrive at an estimate of the total unreported income. Virtually all incomes in the agricultural and the informal sector are unreported incomes, and are estimated by the Bureau of Statistics through appropriate methods of imputation. Thus much of the unreported incomes are actually recorded and hence the black economy, defined as above, does not measure the extent to which the GDP is underestimated. Indeed, whether legally exempted unreported income should be included in black economy is a moot point.

It is also not the case that black money is not recorded. Most of the black money is spent on legal transactions; it is invested in different assets such as real estate or spent in conspicuous consumption. Much of it should be picked up in the GDP estimated by ‘the expenditure approach’ i.e. adding up all final expenditures made in the economy.
Since a very large part of the income earned by the population is not reported, and income reporting of the rest is admittedly of a poor quality, the Bureau of Statistics does not even attempt to measure the GDP of the nation by the income approach. Its estimates are based on the expenditure approach and the value addition approach. These methods should capture most of the final output produced in the economy. Hence, the extent of the black economy quoted by the Minister would appear to be rather too large.

The opportunity given to the black money holders to legalise their black money through investment in the stock market is showing the expected result. The stock market general index has risen by more than 25 percent in less than two months. Another bubble seems to be in the making. The Minister complained of foul play, but his complaint lacked credibility.

A problem with highlighting of such extravagant sway of the black economy from the highest level of the government is that it sends out wrong signals about the economy to both domestic and foreign communities. If up to 82 percent of the economy is black economy, then most of the monetary transactions in the economy could be construed as money laundering! Such a possibility could make foreign investors unduly cautious about investing in Bangladesh.

No one can legally challenge the right of an elected government to adopt any permissible fiscal measures. Concerned citizens may only protest to make their disagreement known. However, it is expected that a responsible government will not dabble in concepts or data that are more likely to confuse than illuminate. Transparency is an essential prerequisite of good governance.
 
Instead of laughing and trolling like fool you should see what the writer was trying to mean. He was saying that to measure the real GDP and black economy one should follow the income approach instead of expenditure approach. In income approach there may be many legal but unreported income but those can also be categorized as black economy where as parallel or shadow economy only includes legal unreported transaction.

The same writer also wrote the following article today: It did not nullify the claim of shadow economy but said many could be legal but unreported n combining these it could be 82% of the GDP.

Black economy and black money

In the earlier article the author said, that the claim of your Finance Minister is exaggerated. He also said that the unreported low income group is already accounted for in the total GDP by the BBS. Furthermore he said that most of the black money are spent in legal transactions, so major chunk of it is already accounted for in the GDP. (refer to post#2 the highlighted bits)

Every other developing country has the same issue, as emphasized by your author in the second article you quoted. So don't bring in this shadow economy argument when comparing your economy and other economic indicators with that of India.

Poor comprehension skills. :wave:
M. A. Taslim

Soon after presenting the national budget for fiscal 2011-12 in the parliament where black money whitening was on the card, the Minister of Finance revealed a startling finding from a little-known study that between 48 to 82 per cent of the gross domestic product (GDP) of Bangladesh is derived from black economy. Despite the very large range of uncertainty of the estimate, it was widely reported in the news media

The sway of the black economy is believed to range under 15 per cent of GDP in the most developed countries, but increases dramatically for the poorer countries. Black economy contributing more than three-quarters of the GDP in such countries is not unknown. Hence, it would seem that the extent of the black economy in Bangladesh suggested by the study is not outlandish if the standard definition of the term is accepted.
 
Off the mark: Black economy and black money | Opinion

During the penultimate hours of the final budget deliberations, where black money whitening was on the card, the Minister of Finance revealed a startling finding from a little-known study that between 45 to 81 percent of the GDP of Bangladesh is derived from black economy. Despite the very large range of uncertainty of the estimate, it was widely reported in the news media. The Minister had the difficult task of justifying (or at the least making it appear benign) the legalisation of black money through investment in the stock market at modest cost, a course of fiscal action that he had publicly repudiated on several occasions in the past.

If more than four-fifths of the economy is actually black economy, then presumably the black money holders are not really as bad a group of people as they are made out to be; they are more like the average person of the society and it would not be fair to single them out! The cue was picked up by the holders of black money and their allies to argue more vigorously for the opportunity of whitening black money. They were not disappointed.

The statement of the Minister gave the impression that black money and black economy are the two sides of the same coin even though that might not have been his intention. However, he did not clarify, nor did anybody else, that black money and black economy are not quite the same thing in Bangladesh. The confusion could be in part due to the unwitting application of western concepts to our economy, a practice that is regrettably widespread.

The author could not find the study, nor could he find anyone who has seen it. It has not been put up in the Ministry’s website. Assuming that the author(s) of the study did not invent a new definition, one could follow the standard definition of black economy to examine what might be implied by the finding. Black economy, variously called the underground economy, shadow economy, parallel economy etc., refers to economic activities that are not reported to the taxman or the statistical office. Some authors make a difference among these terms. For example, shadow or parallel economy may include only unreported legal transactions, while black or underground economy includes all unreported transactions. Since these transactions are not reported or recorded, they do not show up in the national income accounts.

It may be mentioned that ‘the income approach’ of estimating national income, i.e. national income estimates derived by adding up the incomes of individual economic agents, is a reliable method of estimation in developed countries such as the USA. Hence, the extent of the black economy is a rough measure of the amount by which the national income is underestimated in official national accounts. The sway of the black economy is believed to range under 15 percent of GDP in the most developed countries, but increases dramatically for the poorer countries. Black economy contributing more than three-quarters of the GDP in such countries is not unknown. Hence, it would seem that the extent of the black economy in Bangladesh suggested by the study is not outlandish if we accept the standard definition of the term.

As indicated earlier, black economy activities could be either legal or illegal. All incomes, even when below the tax threshold level, have to be reported (and hence recorded) in developed countries such as the USA. Since black economy transactions are not reported, these give rise to illegal incomes or black money. Legal actions could be taken if the existence of such money is detected. In this case these two terms are indeed two sides of the same coin.

In contrast to the practice in developed countries, the people of Bangladesh are not required to submit tax returns if their incomes are below the threshold level (except under certain circumstances). The threshold level of income this year is Tk180,000. For farmers this is raised by an additional Tk 50,000. Since only a fraction of the population have incomes in excess of these amounts (only 0.7-0.8 million people pay income tax), a large part of the national income is exempted from reporting. Consequently, unreported incomes could amount to a large fraction of the GDP, but importantly these are not necessarily illegal. Unlike in some developed countries all unreported incomes are not black money in Bangladesh.

Black money arises out of transactions that are either expressly illegal, or legal but not reported in order to evade taxes. Since incomes on which due taxes have not been paid is illegal post fact, all black money is illegal according to the tax laws of the land. Such money must not be confused with the unreported incomes of the less fortunate section of the population who are exempted from reporting because their incomes fall below the subsistence threshold level as determined by the government.

Unreported incomes do not necessarily imply unrecorded incomes in the national accounts of Bangladesh. The Bureau of Statistics imputes values to unreported economic activities to arrive at an estimate of the total unreported income. Virtually all incomes in the agricultural and the informal sector are unreported incomes, and are estimated by the Bureau of Statistics through appropriate methods of imputation. Thus much of the unreported incomes are actually recorded and hence the black economy, defined as above, does not measure the extent to which the GDP is underestimated. Indeed, whether legally exempted unreported income should be included in black economy is a moot point.

It is also not the case that black money is not recorded. Most of the black money is spent on legal transactions; it is invested in different assets such as real estate or spent in conspicuous consumption. Much of it should be picked up in the GDP estimated by ‘the expenditure approach’ i.e. adding up all final expenditures made in the economy.
Since a very large part of the income earned by the population is not reported, and income reporting of the rest is admittedly of a poor quality, the Bureau of Statistics does not even attempt to measure the GDP of the nation by the income approach. Its estimates are based on the expenditure approach and the value addition approach. These methods should capture most of the final output produced in the economy. Hence, the extent of the black economy quoted by the Minister would appear to be rather too large.

The opportunity given to the black money holders to legalise their black money through investment in the stock market is showing the expected result. The stock market general index has risen by more than 25 percent in less than two months. Another bubble seems to be in the making. The Minister complained of foul play, but his complaint lacked credibility.

A problem with highlighting of such extravagant sway of the black economy from the highest level of the government is that it sends out wrong signals about the economy to both domestic and foreign communities. If up to 82 percent of the economy is black economy, then most of the monetary transactions in the economy could be construed as money laundering! Such a possibility could make foreign investors unduly cautious about investing in Bangladesh.

No one can legally challenge the right of an elected government to adopt any permissible fiscal measures. Concerned citizens may only protest to make their disagreement known. However, it is expected that a responsible government will not dabble in concepts or data that are more likely to confuse than illuminate. Transparency is an essential prerequisite of good governance.
 
The finance division of the government has come out with magic figures for the size of country's shadow or black or underground or grey or clandestine or parallel -- one has every liberty to give it a name which one deems fit -- economy.

According to the 'analysis' made by the division, the country's shadow economy in the year 2010 was equivalent to a size lying somewhere in between 45 per cent and 81 per cent of its gross domestic product (GDP) for that year.

The division prefers to call the estimates (or guesstimates) as projections. If the projections were true, the country's a shadow economy was, roughly, worth more than $ 50 billion or $100 billion in 2010.

The reasons for the projections, made through the econometric analysis which, reportedly, used Currency-Demand Approach, varying very widely remains unexplained. The analyses of shadow economies of many other developed and developing countries made earlier had never varied so wildly. Those usually varied between 4.0 per cent and 20 per cent in most cases.

In fact there is no uniform or one-size-fits-all formula for measuring the size of the shadow economy of a country, nor is there a precise definition of shadow economy. A number of economists are of the opinion that in the absence of concept of shadow economy in economic theory, any attempt to dig out a magic figure is just meaningless.

Yet there have been efforts to measure the size of the shadow or black economy in many countries, both developed and developing. And the most widely-used methods for the purpose have been (a) measurement of self-reported participation in shadow economic activities and (b) measurement of discrepancies between expected level of demand or receipts ( such as electricity, currency or tax revenue) and actual use of goods or services (Source: The Shadow Economy authored by Matthew H. Fleming, John Roman and Graham Farrel).

The finance division is claimed to have followed the second approach.

There is no denying that with their economies growing, most developing countries facing the problem of expanding shadow economies and Bangladesh has not been any exception.

Based on its findings, the finance division has made observations that excessive wealth is being accumulated in the hands of a few, giving rise to social inequalities and it also traced a link between the shadow economy and the abnormal rise in land and stock prices in recent times. In fact, one does not have to take the trouble of doing research on the developments mentioned above. Even common men do have the same feeling.

The finance division has, however, rightly underscored the need for bringing the shadow economy within the fold of the mainstream economy. Since the shadow economy remains outside the national income statistics it is very difficult to get a true picture of the national economy. Moreover, policy responses of the government tend to be inappropriate because of insufficient national income statistics.

Most developed economies do also have shadow economies but they are relatively small in size. What seems to be most important element to tackle the problem of shadow economy in a country like Bangladesh is good governance which broadly encompasses the performance of organs of the state, oversight bodies and regulatory institutions. Ensuring that within a short span time appears to be too distant a dream
 
In the earlier article the author said, that the claim of your Finance Minister is exaggerated. He also said that the unreported low income group is already accounted for in the total GDP by the BBS. Furthermore he said that most of the black money are spent in legal transactions, so major chunk of it is already accounted for in the GDP. (refer to post#2 the highlighted bits)

Every other developing country has the same issue, as emphasized by your author in the second article you quoted. So don't bring in this shadow economy argument when comparing your economy and other economic indicators with that of India.

Poor comprehension skills. :wave:


Did you read what I wrote in the other thread regarding BBS. BBS even can not measure the real number of Bangladesh's population how can it measure it's income??? The writer in most of the cased assumed and said it should but not said with certainty it do. N how come BBS measure the income/expenditure of the people those who are related to agriculture and all the low paid job. I hardly doubt that they even know how many people are employed in which field. Apart from that all the illegal unreported income are hardly considered by BBS which is a major source of black economy even though this writer tried to emphasize only unreported legal incomes are the real source of black economy.

GDP reaches $110b in FY'11


The country's per capita GNI has also reached $818 in the outgoing fiscal, marking a rise of $67 on year-on-year basis, compared to $751 in the previous fiscal, the BBS data showed.

Chief of the state-owned think-tank General Economics Division (GED) Prof Shamsul Alam said as the non-farming activities in the rural areas boosted due to remittance flow, the economic activities in the country have become more vibrant.

"I am very much confident that Bangladesh will emerge as a middle-income country before 2021, as the country's total GDP size will be expanding at impressive rates in the future also like the outgoing fiscal," he said.

"If we update the base-year and include some newly-emerged trading and business sectors with the calculation, the total GDP size will be much higher," he added.

The BBS calculates its macro-economic indicators at constant price, considering the 1995-96 fiscal as the base year.
 
So why doesn't Bangladesh rebase its economy?

Also what figures are we supposed to believe? The highest in each case am guessing?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)


Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom