4 ms·

they're not trying to estimate GDP though (absolute value), they're trying to estimate GDP increase (relative value). I agree estimating the absolute value woul

they're not trying to estimate GDP though (absolute value), they're trying to estimate GDP increase (relative value). I agree estimating the absolute value would be erroneous. However, estimating an increase is less so. Other issues you mention are circumstantial - and that's why companies doing this estimation have specific experts on politics, economy, and so on. It's not just some geek with python going gdp[country] = bright_pixels * 0.18

dirtyid 4y ago
>It's not just some geek with python going gdp[country] = bright_pixels * 0.18 With respect to this study, it more or less is. Go read Martinez original study from 2017 and lol at the methadology. It's rudimentary application of Henderson et. al. original work on predicting economic activity with nighttime light as proxy with all the caveates parent comment highlighted - not expert estimation. Martinez updated his study occasionally with newer data, for click bait articles like this (started with Washington Post in 2018), with no modification in methodology as far as I'm aware (have not tracked down latest revision to compare). As someone who follows PRC development closely, NBER released a paper using light data with more sophisticated analysis also from 2017 stating PRC growth being understated. NBER is one of the most influential economic think tanks. To compare credential wank as proxy for expertise, author of this paper Martinez, is assisant prof at Chicago Harris School of Public Policy. NBER paper was conducted by two current staff economists at the FED and a titled prof of economics prof at Columbia. But guess which study gets repeatedly posted in western MSM.