Postcard from Bishkek

Last week I came across an article, (in Russian), which gave an analysis of the woes of the tourist industry in Kyrgyzstan.

As it happens, I happen to know and respect the author so I was very surprised about what I read.  Although I felt parts of his argument  were excellent and “spot on”, there were others where I reeled in a state of stunned shock.

I was somewhat surprised, for example, to see the headline of a news report based on the article: “In 2011, in Kyrgyzstan, for the first time there was a 260% tourist boom“; The headline of the article itself was a little less sensational: “Results of the 2011 season and the old new issues of the industry“.

The news report headline was obviously intended to dramatize the situatiopn – isn’t that what news headlines are meant to do, in order to attract the reader’s attention and encourage them to want to read on.    Well it worked in this case.  ”What on earth is that all about?”, was the first thought that went through my mind … so paused … and read on.

As I said, there was much in the analysis that I thought was excellent, but as I read the I found myself  dodging what I felt were “contentious points”.  The first of these was that figure of 260% growth in the number of tourist arrivals to the country.

The analyst was quoting official statistics from the National Statistics Committee, and I was taken by the telling phrase, “If you believe the National Statistics Committee …”.  Instead of questioning the basis of the figures, (as I thought he was going to), he seemed to take them at face value … and then  expand on what they implied.

Now, I have nothing against the National Statistics Committee.  They have a job to do and they get on with it … and as far as I am aware, they do it professionally and well.  When he says, “if you believe the National Statistics Committee …”, I do not think that he was implying that they are lying or have falsified the figures in any way.  Neither am I!

On the other hand, there are reasons to treat the figures with some caution. It could well be that there are grounds to question their accuracy.   There could be good cause not to take them at face value value.  Even some elementary questioning and investigation might well justify one into thinking that there is some justification for not believing them.

As a former teacher of statistics, I am not afraid of the numbers – just the way that they are used … and, for that matter, often abused.  Sometimes deliberately and at others unwittingly.

I was once interviewed by representatives of an International Donor Organization who, for some reason, had decided to conduct interviews in pairs.  I suppose it was like a small, (very small), focus group.  It was my good fortune, or otherwise, to be paired together with the then Chairman of the State Committee on Tourism.

We sat on one side of the table and fielded questions.  At one point the questioning revolved around tourism statistics and the interviewer expressed some doubts about the figures they had been given.  I took a deep breath, and with a sideways glance at the Chairman, took my the plunge and responded with: “My advice would be take with them with a pinch of salt!  They don’t mean anything and they are unreliable.  They can be useful as a guide to inform your thinking but you shouldn’t base any decisions on them.  It will take time and money but you should go and do your own investigation if you want to get an idea of what is really happening on the ground.”

To my amazement, and to his credit, the Chairman agreed with me.

In hindsight, I can say that I shouldn’t have been surprised.  The poor quality of official statistics has long been an issue with the authorities.  They look at the number of people reported as crossing the border according to the border service, the number of tourists served as reported by tour companies, the number of guests and guest nights reported by hotels, together with the turnovers reported by these firms and the tax receipts paid to the budget … and they see immense discrepancies.

It’s been an thorn in the flesh which they have used on many occasions over to the years to browbeat those us in the industry.

I’m not surprised that there are discrepancies.  It seems to me that the systems is designed to create them.

One year, for example,  we saw preliminary figures issued at the end of the season which suggested a massive rise in the number of tourists.  When we asked how the authorities had come to these fantastic figures we were told that they had changed the method of data collection.  Instead of relying on data provided by those working in the industry as reported to the National Statistics Committee, they took the data from the border services of the number of people crossing the border.  We tried to point out that people crossing the border are not necessarily all tourists.  Some will be travelling on business, come of them will be Kyrgyz citizens returning from travelling abroad on holiday, (or business).  The following Spring the final figures were released which adjusted to show that although there had been growth, substantial growth, it wasn’t anywhere near as dramatic.  When I asked what had happened to the figures and why they had changed so dramatically, I was told “we made a mistake.  We counted them on their way in AND we counted them on their way out.”

Even those that do cross the border as tourists, they may be travelling as “independent tourists”, (what is known here as “diki tourists” – wild tourists), not using the services of a local tour firm – and so they don’t get reported.  They may, for example, have bought a putevka, or voucher for accommodation at an Issyk Kul resort from an agent in Kazakhstan or Russia, or they may simply make their own way up to the lake and look for accommodation in one of the independent Bed and Breakfasts there.  Trekkers may even spurn hotel and guest house accommodation altogether preferring to camp up in the mountains.

The tax system itself is designed in such a way that it is possible for some sole entrepreneurs to work legally without needing to keep any records of reporting any figures at all, although that’s not to deny that some people may well want to evade tax by not reporting all their business.

 

One of the lessons we used try to teach in Maths and Statistics classes was “Check your results” … “Do they make sense?” … “Do they seem reasonable?”

I remember once, for example, when I was very young being sent by my father to order the delivery of  three sacks  of coal from the local depot … I returned home and reported “mission accomplished”.  ”How much will it be?”, my father asked and, to be honest, although I had been told I had forgotten the exact figure and was muddled … so I said what I thought I had been told.   To my amazement, my father responded with “That’s not right … !”

It was simple, he told me.  The number I had told him did not divide by three, therefore it couldn’t be correct.

Someyimes we under time constraints but often, when we finish a calculation or a piece of work, we are quite often relieved to have completed it and got it “over and done with”, that we simply accept the result and fail to sit back and review it to see if it really makes sense.  In the case of research we may discover that the result is surprising; contrary to what we would have expected.  That doesn’t necessarily mean that the results are wrong, but it certainly means that we should look at our work again.

In this case, that 260% was surprising and is certainly something that is crying out for a second look.  How does it tie in with reality?  What do people working in the  industry think?  Were there really two and half more tourists this year than last?

The increase in percentage terms is pretty massive. although the actual number of “visitors” was similar, (that is, more or less the same as), that for 2007 and 2008, suggesting that we have merely recovered to a pre-revolution level of visitors.

Overall, the situation was better last year than in 2010 but, then again, 2010 was a particularly bad year.  Even on official statistics there were less than half the arrivals of 2009, which itself represented more than a 10% drop on those in 2008.

Well, I am not sure who those “tourists” in 2011 were, but we, in the Celestial Mountains Tour Company, certainly didn’t see an increase of 260% in the number of visitors nor for that matter in either of our hotels … and none of the tour operators I have spoken to tell me that they have seen anything like this level of growth – not even those who sell putevki , who, to be fair, have seen growth in 2011 compared to the previous year, (but no-where near 260% growth).

And remember, as the author of the article himself put it: that is “if you believe the National Statistics Committee”.

 

There were a number of other issues that concerned me about the article, but I’ll leave those for another postcard.  In the meantime, let me say again, there was a lot where I thought that his analysis was excellent and “spot on”.

Tags: Statistics, Tourism