Since 2014, the Republic Statistical Office (RSZ) has significantly revised Serbia’s nominal gross domestic product (GDP) three times, leading to an increase of nearly 20 percent in total— a much higher adjustment than in most European countries. Danko Brčerević, the chief economist of the Fiscal Council, stated to Beta that while such revisions are routine in many European countries every five years, the magnitude of the revisions in Serbia raises concerns. “The problem is that every major revision in Serbia since 2014 has led to a large increase in GDP. These three revisions combined have increased the GDP by almost 20 percent, which is significantly more than in most other European countries,” Brčerević said.
He clarified that Serbia’s GDP in 2013 was not the previously assumed 32 billion euros, but 38 billion euros, and the public debt was not 65.4 percent of GDP, but 55.1 percent. According to Brčerević, the government, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), rating agencies, and even the Fiscal Council were all working with significantly underestimated data regarding the size of Serbia’s economy, which should not have occurred.
The economist also raised concerns about the reliability of the most recent data, questioning whether future revisions would significantly alter current estimates. He particularly noted a large correction in state spending, which increased by 19 percent in the latest revision. “This is an unexpectedly large change, and it refers to a statistical area that is still not fully developed,” Brčerević said. He explained that the RSZ had only recently started publishing state finance statistics, and the initial data revealed some inconsistencies in public revenues, expenditures, and the fiscal deficit.
Brčerević expressed hope that these dubious data did not contribute to the large revision of state spending and, consequently, the new GDP estimate. He also voiced concerns about the accuracy of the estimated trends in the power sector and other areas of GDP. “The significant changes from each audit show that there are issues in measuring certain statistical indicators,” he added.
He stressed, however, that the root cause of these issues is not data manipulation or a lack of expertise but rather the lack of capacity within the statistical office. “The main problem of our statistical office is the lack of capacity,” Brčerević explained, pointing out that EU practice suggests national statistical institutes should employ between 10 and 20 staff members per 100,000 inhabitants. In comparison, Bulgaria employs 970 people in statistics, Croatia around 500, Slovenia 310, and Slovakia about 750. With this in mind, Serbia’s RSZ should employ about 900 people, yet currently only has around 450 employees.
Brčerević emphasized that even with the best expertise and intentions, flawless data cannot be expected from an office staffed at half the capacity of similar countries. “In such conditions, it is very difficult to follow the increasingly advanced and complex statistical methodology adopted by Eurostat,” he said.
The economist concluded that the main takeaway from the latest GDP revision is that Serbia needs to strengthen the RSZ, particularly by increasing the number of employees and offering more competitive salaries to attract young, educated individuals to work in the field. “The data that the RSZ provides is crucial for accurate economic policymaking, so more investment must be made in this important institution,” Brčerević stressed.
