Some would argue that principles and ethics for official statistics are to be understood as universal, applying anywhere in the world—any country, any political system, and any cultural environment. Yet, some others would argue that these principles would need to be adapted to national circumstances, to fit the national political and cultural environment, which might be enshrined in national laws and institutions or in often very powerful unwritten traditions and modi operandi. 

For example, the statistical principles of independence, impartiality and objectivity might be seen by some as requiring limits and modifications, if the results of statistical production conflict with the prerogatives and priorities of a leader or ruling group in autocracies or of higher ups in sociopolitical systems operating predominantly on the basis of client relations or traditional clan relations. Otherwise, the argument goes, statistical production would be seen as undermining if not entirely upending the political and social order of the country and of its people. It would be equivalent to using the production of official statistics on the basis of such principles as a ram against the existing system and favoring alternative—for example western-style liberal political—systems, in effect supporting ‘neocolonialism’. Some might argue more mildly that without limits and modifications, statistical principles would be presumptuous and not inclusive and accepting enough of alternative cultural systems and values. They would usually see existing major codifications of statistical principles and ethics (and their interpretation by official statisticians in European and North American countries) as Eurocentric or Western culture-centric.

Arguments for the need for ‘interpretation’ of official statistical principles and ethics through a national/political/cultural filter do not always refer to the needs of sociopolitical systems outside the grouping of so-called Western liberal democracies and advanced economies. These arguments for national specificities and interpretations can and do arise within the grouping of advanced Western countries/advanced economies itself. Some would argue that political elites that alternate in power in such countries may need to retain some degree of control of official statistics to serve their political interests when in power. Others might argue that the appropriate understanding of national interest in the governance of official statistics is something to be decided on—whatever the outcome of that decision might be—by the democratically elected representatives of the people. The will of the latter, through their elected representatives, should be respected in interpreting many things of importance to the democratic system in place, including statistical principles and ethics.

The IPS will aim to explore the above matters. It will address whether statistical principles and ethics as conceptual entities should be adjusted to national/political/cultural circumstances. The discussion will delve into the reasons for arguing for a set (or version) of official statistics principles and ethics instead of another. In this context, the discussion may address the nature of these principles and ethics and their ‘production’ or ‘discovery’. Connections with historical, sociological, philosophical and scientific perspectives could potentially be explored. The IPS will also discuss whether codifications/formulations of principles and ethics available internationally are already subject to such limits and modifications catering to political/political/cultural constraints. The IPS will finally aim to discuss recommendations for future action on thinking about, on formulating/codifying, and on applying principles and ethics for official statistics around the world.

Organiser: Dr Andreas Georgiou 

Chair: Mr Dennis Trewin 

Speaker: Mr Gerry O'Hanlon 

Speaker: PROF. DR. Walter J. Radermacher 

Speaker: Mr Pali Lehohla 

Speaker: Dr Andreas Georgiou