Hubbry Logo
Economic indicatorEconomic indicatorMain
Open search
Economic indicator
Community hub
Economic indicator
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Economic indicator
Economic indicator
Economic indicator
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Part of a series on
Economics
Principles of Economics
Tools and methodology
Economic theory

Empirical methods

Prescriptive and policy

Branches and subfields
Applications

An economic indicator is a statistic about an economic activity. Economic indicators allow analysis of economic performance and predictions of future performance. One application of economic indicators is the study of business cycles. Economic indicators include various indices, earnings reports, and economic summaries: for example, the unemployment rate, quits rate (quit rate in American English), housing starts, consumer price index (a measure for inflation), inverted yield curve,[1] consumer leverage ratio, industrial production, bankruptcies, gross domestic product, broadband internet penetration, retail sales, price index, and changes in credit conditions.

The leading business cycle dating committee in the United States of America is the private National Bureau of Economic Research. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is the principal fact-finding agency for the U.S. government in the field of labor economics and statistics. Other producers of economic indicators includes the United States Census Bureau and United States Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Classification by timing

[edit]
Equities as leading, GDP as coincident, and business credit as lagging indicator

Economic indicators can be classified into three categories according to their usual timing in relation to the business cycle: leading indicators, lagging indicators, and coincident indicators.

Leading indicators

[edit]
PPI is a leading indicator, CPI and PCE lag[2]
  PPI
  Core PPI
  CPI
  Core CPI
  PCE
  Core PCE

Leading indicators are indicators that usually, but not always, change before the economy as a whole changes.[3] They are therefore useful as short-term predictors of the economy. Leading indicators include the index of consumer expectations, building permits, and credit conditions. The Conference Board publishes a composite Leading Economic Index consisting of ten indicators designed to predict activity in the U. S. economy six to nine months in future.

Components of the Conference Board's Leading Economic Indicators Index:[4]

  1. Average weekly hours (manufacturing) — Adjustments to the working hours of existing employees are usually made in advance of new hires or layoffs, which is why the measure of average weekly hours is a leading indicator for changes in unemployment.
  2. Average weekly initial jobless claims for unemployment insurance — The CB reverses the value of this component from positive to negative because a positive reading indicates a loss in jobs. The initial jobless-claims data is more sensitive to business conditions than other measures of unemployment, and as such leads the monthly unemployment data released by the U.S. Department of Labor.
  3. Manufacturers' new orders for consumer goods/materials — This component is considered a leading indicator because increases in new orders for consumer goods and materials usually mean positive changes in actual production. The new orders decrease inventory and contribute to unfilled orders, a precursor to future revenue.
  4. Vendor performance (slower deliveries diffusion index) — This component measures the time it takes to deliver orders to industrial companies. Vendor performance leads the business cycle because an increase in delivery time can indicate rising demand for manufacturing supplies. Vendor performance is measured by a monthly survey from the National Association of Purchasing Managers (NAPM). This diffusion index measures one-half of the respondents reporting no change and all respondents reporting slower deliveries.
  5. Manufacturers' new orders for non-defense capital goods — As stated above, new orders lead the business cycle because increases in orders usually mean positive changes in actual production and perhaps rising demand. This measure is the producer's counterpart of new orders for consumer goods/materials component (#3).
  6. Building permits for new private housing units.
  7. Stock prices of 500 common stocks — Equity market returns are considered a leading indicator because changes in stock prices reflect investors' expectations for the future of the economy and interest rates.
    Corporate equities as leading indicator with respect to GDP
  8. Leading Credit Index - a composite index developed by the Conference Board consisting of six financial indicators such as yield spreads, loan survey information and investor sentiment[5]
  9. Interest rate spread (10-year Treasury vs. Federal Funds target) — The interest rate spread is often referred to as the yield curve and implies the expected direction of short-, medium- and long-term interest rates. Changes in the yield curve have been the most accurate predictors of downturns in the economic cycle. This is particularly true when the curve becomes inverted, that is, when the longer-term returns are expected to be less than the short rates.
  10. Index of consumer expectations — This is the only component of the leading indicators that is based solely on expectations. This component leads the business cycle because consumer expectations can indicate future consumer spending or tightening. The data for this component comes from the University of Michigan's Survey Research Center, and is released once a month.

Economist D.W. Mackenzie suggests that the ratio of private to public employment may also be useful as a leading economic indicator.

Lagging indicators

[edit]

Lagging indicators are indicators that usually change after the economy as a whole does. Typically the lag is a few quarters of a year. The unemployment rate is a lagging indicator: employment tends to increase two or three quarters after an upturn in the general economy.[citation needed]. In a performance measuring system, profit earned by a business is a lagging indicator as it reflects a historical performance; similarly, improved customer satisfaction is the result of initiatives taken in the past.[citation needed]

The Index of Lagging Indicators is published monthly by The Conference Board, a non-governmental organization, which determines the value of the index from seven components.

The Index tends to follow changes in the overall economy.

The components on the Conference Board's index are:

  • The average duration of unemployment (inverted)
  • The value of outstanding commercial and industrial loans
  • The change in the Consumer Price Index for services
  • The change in labour cost per unit of output
  • The ratio of manufacturing and trade inventories to sales
  • The ratio of consumer credit outstanding to personal income
  • The average prime rate charged by banks
Federal Funds Rate in the US lagging behind capacity utilization in manufacturing

Coincident indicators

[edit]

Coincident indicators change at approximately the same time as the whole economy, thereby providing information about the current state of the economy. There are many coincident economic indicators, such as Gross Domestic Product, industrial production, personal income and retail sales. A coincident index may be used to identify, after the fact, the dates of peaks and troughs in the business cycle.[6]

There are four economic statistics comprising the Index of Coincident Economic Indicators:[7]

The Philadelphia Federal Reserve produces state-level coincident indexes based on 4 state-level variables:[8]

  • Nonfarm payroll employment
  • Average hours worked in manufacturing
  • Unemployment rate
  • Wage and salary disbursements deflated by the consumer price index (U.S. city average)

By direction

[edit]

There are also three terms that describe an economic indicator's direction relative to the direction of the general economy:

The wage share (arguably) as countercyclical, but also as a lagging indicator with respect to the employment rate as procyclical indicator in the US
Procyclical indicators
move in the same direction as the general economy: they increase when the economy is doing well; decrease when it is doing badly. Gross domestic product (GDP) is a procyclic indicator.
Countercyclical indicators
move in the opposite direction to the general economy. The unemployment rate and the wage share are countercyclic: in the short run they rise when the economy is deteriorating.
Acyclical indicators
are those with little or no correlation to the business cycle: they may rise or fall when the general economy is doing well, and may rise or fall when it is not doing well.[9]

Local indicators

[edit]

Local governments often need to project future tax revenues. The city of San Francisco, for example, uses the price of a one-bedroom apartment on Craigslist, weekend subway ridership numbers, parking garage usage, and monthly reports on passenger landings at the city's airport.[10]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Economic indicator

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
An economic indicator is a statistical measure that quantifies aspects of economic activity, such as output, , prices, and , to assess the current state and future trajectory of an economy. These metrics, derived from empirical data like and surveys, enable comparisons over time and across countries, revealing patterns in growth, , and resource utilization. Key examples include (GDP), which captures total value added in production; unemployment rates, reflecting labor market conditions; and consumer price indices, tracking inflationary pressures. Economic indicators are categorized into leading types, which anticipate changes (e.g., returns or building permits); coincident types, aligning with current conditions (e.g., GDP or industrial production); and lagging types, confirming trends post-occurrence (e.g., average duration of ). Their primary utility lies in informing causal analysis of economic cycles, guiding adjustments by central banks and governments to stabilize output and without undue distortion from biased forecasting models prevalent in some academic literature.

Definition and Fundamentals

Core Definition and Characteristics

An economic indicator is a quantifiable statistic that captures specific dimensions of economic activity, such as production levels, trends, or price changes, to gauge the current state, performance, or prospective direction of an or sector. These metrics are derived from systematic data collection, including surveys of businesses, household polls, administrative records, and transaction logs, and are compiled periodically—often monthly or quarterly—by official agencies like national statistical bureaus or central banks to facilitate consistent monitoring. For instance, indicators encompass aggregates like (GDP), which measures total value added in goods and services, or the (CPI), tracking average price shifts in a basket of consumer goods. Central characteristics of economic indicators include their temporal orientation relative to business cycles: leading indicators, such as new housing starts or manufacturing orders, fluctuate ahead of broader economic shifts to signal upcoming expansions or contractions; coincident indicators, including GDP and personal income, align with real-time economic conditions; and lagging indicators, like average duration of unemployment, validate trends only after they have materialized. They are empirical by design, relying on observable data rather than subjective assessments, yet subject to methodological revisions as preliminary estimates incorporate fuller datasets, which can alter initial readings by 0.5 to 1 percentage point in metrics like quarterly GDP growth. Reliability hinges on standardized definitions and sampling techniques, as deviations in coverage—such as excluding informal sectors in developing economies—can introduce underestimation biases, with formal sector data often capturing only 50-70% of total activity in low-income countries. Effective economic indicators exhibit traits like timeliness, allowing release within weeks of the reference period to inform policy decisions, and comparability, enabling cross-country analysis through harmonized frameworks such as those from the . However, their proxy nature means they aggregate diverse causal factors—e.g., GDP conflates gains with —necessitating complementary use with multiple indicators for robust inference, as single metrics can mislead amid structural shifts like technological disruptions. High-quality indicators prioritize transparency in construction, with metadata detailing adjustments for or , to mitigate interpretive errors in forecasting economic momentum.

Role in Assessing Economic Health

Economic indicators provide quantifiable metrics to evaluate the vitality and trajectory of an economy, enabling stakeholders to identify periods of expansion, contraction, or stability through data on output, labor markets, and prices. For example, (GDP) measures overall economic output, while rates gauge labor utilization; sustained GDP growth above potential levels alongside low unemployment typically signals robust health, whereas declines in these metrics may indicate weakening conditions. These tools underpin empirical assessments by central banks and governments, informing decisions on interest rates, fiscal spending, and regulatory adjustments to mitigate downturns or curb overheating. Indicators are classified by timing relative to phases—leading, coincident, and lagging—each serving distinct roles in health evaluation. Leading indicators, such as the Board's index incorporating average weekly hours, new orders, and stock prices, anticipate future turns by signaling shifts before they fully manifest in activity. Coincident indicators, including nonfarm payroll employment from the ' Current Employment Statistics survey and industrial production, mirror contemporaneous economic conditions, offering real-time snapshots of and supply dynamics. Lagging indicators, like the duration of and corporate bond yields relative to commercial paper rates, validate trends post-occurrence, confirming the persistence of expansions or recessions. By aggregating these signals, policymakers achieve a multifaceted view of economic health; for instance, divergences between leading forecasts and coincident data can prompt preemptive actions, as seen in analyses of labor market cyclical positions via unemployment trends. International bodies like the IMF utilize comparable metrics—such as GNP growth, , and current account balances—to assess policy effectiveness and global stability, highlighting how indicator-based monitoring supports causal interventions like monetary tightening to address inflationary pressures. However, their reliability depends on and timeliness, with revisions in official series like GDP underscoring the need for cross-verification across multiple sources to avoid overreliance on preliminary estimates.

Historical Development

Origins in Early Economic Thought

The origins of economic indicators can be traced to the 17th-century emergence of political arithmetic, a quantitative approach to analyzing national resources and population pioneered by . In his posthumously published Political Arithmetick (1690), Petty employed numerical estimates of land values, population sizes, and income streams to compare economic capacities across nations, such as Britain and , marking the first systematic use of statistics in economic inquiry rather than mere qualitative description. This method emphasized empirical enumeration—drawing on census-like data, tax records, and valuations—to inform on distribution and state power, providing a foundational impulse for later econometric practices. Mercantilist thinkers, dominant from the 16th to 18th centuries, treated the balance of as a core proto-indicator of national economic vitality, equating prosperity with surpluses in exports over imports to amass reserves. Figures like advocated tracking merchandise flows and precious metal inflows as direct gauges of state strength, with policies designed to ensure positive balances through tariffs and export subsidies, viewing deficits as drains on monetary stocks essential for and commercial dominance. This focus on aggregates as measurable signals of economic health contrasted with earlier fiscal records but prioritized accumulation over productive capacity. In the mid-18th century, the Physiocrats, led by François Quesnay, advanced a sector-specific indicator in the produit net (net product), quantifying agricultural surplus after subsistence costs as the sole genuine measure of societal wealth. Their Tableau Économique (1758) modeled intersectoral flows to isolate this agrarian excess, rejecting mercantilist monetary metrics and industrial outputs as illusory since only land yielded reproducible surplus. Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations (1776), critiqued these views by broadening wealth assessment to annual labor output and consumption flows, emphasizing productivity gains from division of labor over narrow sectoral or trade balances, though without formalized statistics; his framework influenced subsequent empirical expansions by prioritizing real production metrics.

Standardization in the 20th Century

In the early 1930s, amid the , efforts to standardize economic indicators gained momentum in the United States through the work of economist at the (NBER). Kuznets developed systematic national income estimates, computing aggregates back to 1869 and breaking them down by industry, final product, and end use, which provided a foundational framework for measuring economic output. In 1934, he presented these estimates to the , emphasizing their utility for while cautioning against over-reliance on aggregates without distributional details. This work, initially funded by the NBER and later supported by the U.S. Department of Commerce's Business Finance and Defense Corporation, marked a shift from ad hoc calculations to rigorous, reproducible methodologies. World War II accelerated standardization as governments required precise data for and wartime planning. In the U.S., the Department of Commerce expanded Kuznets's framework into comprehensive national income and product accounts by the mid-1940s, incorporating gross national product (GNP) and related metrics to track production, consumption, and investment flows. These accounts emphasized principles to ensure balance between sides, reducing inconsistencies in prior estimates. Internationally, British economist contributed to aligned systems, producing a 1947 report on integrated economic accounts that influenced global norms. Postwar reconstruction prompted international coordination to enable cross-country comparisons. The initiated the first global standard with the 1953 (SNA), which outlined methodologies for compiling GDP, national income, and balance sheets, focusing on production, distribution, and accumulation flows. This framework addressed variations in national practices by promoting uniform definitions—such as market prices for valuation and residency-based territorial scope—while accommodating data limitations in developing economies. Subsequent refinements, including the 1968 SNA revision, incorporated input-output tables and sectoral breakdowns, further embedding standardization in institutions like the IMF and for balance-of-payments and short-term indicators. By century's end, these standards had transformed disparate statistics into comparable tools for assessing growth and cycles, though challenges persisted in areas like informal economies and non-market activities.

Post-WWII Expansion and Refinements

Following , the Employment Act of 1946 established the (CEA) in the United States to provide objective economic analysis and policy recommendations to the president, marking a formal commitment to using empirical economic indicators for macroeconomic stabilization. This legislation also mandated the Joint Economic Committee of Congress to oversee economic reporting, leading to the inaugural publication of the Economic Indicators report in 1947, which compiled key metrics such as gross national product, , and prices to inform fiscal and monetary decisions. These developments reflected a shift toward data-driven governance, as wartime mobilization had highlighted the value of systematic economic measurement for , though initial indicators focused primarily on aggregate output and labor amid concerns over postwar and spikes reaching 4.3% by 1949. Internationally, the introduced the first (SNA) in 1953, standardizing the framework for measuring economic activity across countries through integrated accounts for production, distribution, and expenditure. This system expanded beyond prewar efforts by incorporating detailed sectoral balances, input-output tables, and cross-border flows, facilitating comparable (GDP) estimates and enabling institutions like the to monitor global imbalances. Refinements included adjustments for non-market activities and , addressing limitations in earlier national income estimates that often overlooked intermediate consumption; by the 1968 SNA revision, these enhancements supported more accurate growth tracking during the era's average annual global GDP expansion of approximately 5%. In the realm of business cycle analysis, the (NBER) formalized classifications of leading, coincident, and lagging indicators in the early , building on Wesley Mitchell's foundational work to create composite indexes that anticipated expansions and contractions. The 1950 NBER list included 21 leading series (e.g., stock prices and new orders), 7 coincident (e.g., industrial production), and 6 lagging indicators (e.g., labor costs), selected based on historical with reference cycles dating back to 1885; these were seasonally adjusted and diffused to gauge breadth of movement across components. By 1960, the U.S. Department of Commerce adopted and refined these into official indexes, incorporating computational advances to improve timeliness and predictive power, as evidenced by their role in signaling the 1960 recession six months in advance through declining leading indicators. Such expansions democratized indicator use for private forecasting while highlighting challenges like data revisions, which could alter initial GDP estimates by up to 1-2 percentage points in quarterly releases. These postwar advancements were driven by causal necessities: rapid industrialization in Europe and Asia via aid (totaling $13 billion from 1948-1952) necessitated robust metrics for aid effectiveness, while U.S. policymakers sought to avert 1930s-style depressions through proactive intervention. Refinements emphasized empirical validation over theoretical abstraction, with NBER criteria requiring indicators to conform to economic behavior, exhibit consistent timing, and avoid spurious correlations, though biases in source data—such as underreporting of informal sectors in developing economies—persisted until later methodological updates. By the , this infrastructure underpinned Keynesian , correlating with sustained U.S. GDP growth averaging 3.8% annually from 1947-1973, albeit with emerging critiques of overreliance on aggregates that masked distributional shifts.

Classifications

Indicators by Timing

Economic indicators are classified by their timing relative to changes in the , a framework developed to anticipate, reflect, or confirm economic expansions and contractions. This categorization—leading, coincident, and lagging—relies on historical patterns observed in how specific metrics correlate with overall economic activity, as tracked by bodies like . Leading indicators typically shift before the broader economy, providing predictive signals; coincident indicators move in tandem with current conditions; and lagging indicators follow after trends have established, offering confirmation but less foresight. Leading indicators forecast future economic turning points, often changing several months in advance of peaks or troughs in (GDP) or . The Conference Board's Leading Economic Index (), published monthly since 1996, aggregates ten components to gauge these signals, including average weekly manufacturing hours, initial claims, new orders for consumer and capital goods, stock prices, and building permits. For instance, a sustained decline in the LEI preceded the 2008 recession by about six months and the 2020 downturn by a similar margin, though it has occasionally produced false positives during volatile periods. Other examples include growth and inversions, which empirical analysis shows precede recessions in over 90% of U.S. cases since 1950. Coincident indicators provide a real-time snapshot of economic activity, rising or falling concurrently with output and cycles. The Conference Board's Coincident Economic Index (CEI) combines four metrics: nonfarm payroll , excluding transfers, industrial production, and manufacturing and trade sales, which together mirror GDP movements closely. Examples also encompass retail sales volume and average weekly hours worked in ; for example, during the 2020 contraction, U.S. industrial production dropped 12.1% in March, aligning precisely with GDP's 5% quarterly decline. These indicators help assess the economy's present state but do not predict shifts. Lagging indicators confirm trends only after they have persisted, often by three to twelve months, due to their dependence on accumulated data like accounting reports or policy responses. Common examples include the unemployment rate, which rises after s begin as firms delay layoffs; corporate profits, reported quarterly with delays; and labor costs per unit of output, which adjust slowly to productivity changes. The unemployment rate, for instance, peaked at 14.8% in April 2020, well after the NBER-declared recession start in February, confirming the downturn's depth. Interest rates and consumer price indices can also lag, as adjustments follow observed . While useful for validating long-term patterns, these indicators risk overemphasizing past conditions amid structural shifts, such as technological disruptions altering traditional correlations.

Indicators by Scope and Scale

Economic indicators are categorized by scope, which denotes the breadth of economic activity encompassed—from narrow, sector-specific metrics to broad, economy-wide aggregates—and by scale, which reflects the level of aggregation or geographical extent, spanning micro-level or firm data to macro-level national or global aggregates. This aids in contextualizing indicators' applicability, as narrower scopes facilitate targeted within industries, while broader scopes inform overarching decisions; similarly, smaller scales enable granular insights into behaviors, whereas larger scales reveal systemic trends. Such distinctions arise from the inherent structure of economic measurement, where influences interpretability and relevance to . By scope, indicators divide into sectoral (narrow) and comprehensive (broad) types. Sectoral indicators focus on specific industries or markets, such as the (PMI) for , which surveys business conditions in that sector to signal expansion or contraction based on orders, production, and employment; for instance, a PMI above 50 indicates growth, as reported by the Institute for Supply Management in monthly releases. Broad-scope indicators, conversely, aggregate across sectors to assess the entire economy, exemplified by (GDP), which quantifies total from all goods and services produced within a jurisdiction, with U.S. GDP reaching $27.36 trillion in 2023 per data. This breadth allows for holistic health assessments but risks masking sectoral disparities. By scale, indicators range from microeconomic, capturing individual or firm-level dynamics, to macroeconomic at national levels, and supranational for global views. Microeconomic indicators, though less emphasized in aggregate reporting, include metrics like household consumption surveys or firm-level data, which reveal behavioral responses to incentives; for example, the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances tracks and at the household level, showing median at $192,700 in 2022. Macroeconomic indicators aggregate to national economies, such as the rate, computed monthly by the via the , standing at 3.8% in August 2024 for the U.S. labor force of approximately 167 million. Global-scale indicators extend to international aggregates, like World Bank-compiled world GDP, estimated at $105 trillion in 2023, or IMF trade volume data, which highlight cross-border flows influencing interconnected growth. These scales underscore causal linkages, where micro behaviors underpin macro outcomes, though aggregation can obscure heterogeneity, as evidenced by varying regional within nations.
ClassificationExamplesKey FeaturesSource
Narrow Scope (Sectoral)Manufacturing PMI, Retail SalesTargets specific industries; sensitive to sector shocksISM Reports
Broad Scope (Aggregate)GDP, CPIEncompasses full economy; used for policy benchmarksBEA, BLS
Micro ScaleHousehold Debt Levels, Individual/firm data; informs micro-founded modelsFed SCF
Macro ScaleNational , Inflation RateNational aggregates; tracks cyclical fluctuationsBLS
Global ScaleWorld Trade Volume, Global GDPCross-country metrics; reveals spilloversWorld Bank, IMF

Key Examples and Metrics

Output and Growth Measures

(GDP) quantifies the total monetary value of final goods and services produced within a nation's borders during a specified period, serving as the benchmark indicator for aggregate economic output. It is derived through the expenditure approach, which sums personal consumption expenditures, gross private domestic investment, government consumption and investment, and net exports (exports minus imports). The U.S. computes GDP quarterly, with the advance estimate released about one month after quarter-end, followed by revisions incorporating more comprehensive data. Real GDP adjusts nominal GDP figures for inflation via a deflator, isolating changes in output volume from price effects to better reflect . The real GDP growth rate is calculated as Real GDPcurrent−Real GDPpreviousReal GDPprevious×100\frac{\text{Real GDP}_{\text{current}} - \text{Real GDP}_{\text{previous}}}{\text{Real GDP}_{\text{previous}}} \times 100, typically annualized for quarterly data; positive rates signal expansion, as seen in the U.S. economy's 2.1% real GDP growth in the second quarter of 2024. This metric informs assessments of economic health, with sustained growth above 2-3% annually often correlating with rising employment and living standards, though it excludes non-market activities like household labor. The Industrial Production Index (IP), published monthly by the , measures real output in , , and electric/gas utilities, which account for about 15-20% of U.S. GDP but provide timely insights into goods-producing sectors. IP is constructed using physical output data where available, supplemented by input-output models and value-added weights, with a base of 2017=100; for example, total IP reached 103.9% of its 2017 average in September 2025, reflecting modest post-pandemic recovery amid constraints. Changes in IP often precede broader GDP shifts, as industrial activity responds quickly to demand fluctuations, though it omits services, which dominate modern economies. Capacity utilization, derived from IP data, gauges the extent to which industrial facilities operate relative to potential, with rates above 80% indicating tight conditions that may spur via supply bottlenecks. U.S. capacity utilization averaged 78.2% in 2023, below historical norms, signaling underutilized resources amid slower growth. These measures complement GDP by highlighting sectoral dynamics; for instance, divergences between IP and goods GDP can arise from adjustments or trade effects, underscoring IP's role in refining output trend analysis.

Labor Market Indicators

Labor market indicators quantify dynamics, worker availability, and job turnover, serving as critical gauges of economic and potential wage inflation. Derived mainly from U.S. (BLS) surveys, these metrics distinguish between household-based estimates of labor force status and establishment-based counts of payroll jobs, revealing discrepancies that inform debates on true slack. The rate, officially designated U-3 by the BLS, represents the share of the labor aged 16 and older who lack jobs but are available and actively searching for work during the survey week. Computed via the (CPS), a monthly poll of approximately 60,000 households, U-3 excludes discouraged workers who have ceased searching and those marginally attached to the labor market. In contrast, the broader U-6 measure incorporates these groups plus individuals employed part-time involuntarily due to economic conditions, often exceeding U-3 by a factor of two during downturns and highlighting underutilization beyond headline figures. For example, as of August 2025, U-3 stood lower than U-6, underscoring how official rates may mask broader slack from long-term non-participation. Nonfarm payroll employment, sourced from the Current Employment Statistics (CES) program, estimates total wage and salary jobs excluding farm, self-employed, and certain government workers through a survey of about 122,000 businesses and government agencies covering roughly one-third of nonfarm employment. This metric tracks net monthly job changes by industry, with seasonally adjusted figures revealing trends like the modest +22,000 gain in August 2025 amid prior stagnation since April. Unlike the CPS, CES counts multiple jobholders only once per employer and emphasizes payroll data, which can diverge from household reports during shifts in self-employment or gig work prevalence. The labor force participation rate measures the percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population aged 16 and older either employed or actively seeking work, capturing potential supply beyond mere unemployment. BLS data from the CPS show this rate at 62.3% in August 2025, reflecting long-term declines driven by aging demographics, early retirements, and reduced prime-age male engagement, which limit aggregate output potential absent policy interventions. Additional indicators include average hourly earnings from CES, which track wage growth as a proxy for labor pressures, and the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS), which quantifies unfilled vacancies, hires, quits, and layoffs from a panel of 21,000 establishments. JOLTS data for August 2025 indicated stable job openings at 7.2 million (4.3% rate), signaling balanced tightness without excess demand that might fuel sustained . These metrics collectively enable of mismatches between labor , though methodological variances—such as CPS undercounting of informal work—necessitate cross-validation for accurate policy assessment.

Price and Inflation Gauges

Price and inflation gauges measure changes in the average level of prices for goods and services over time, providing key insights into inflationary pressures within an economy. These indicators help policymakers, businesses, and investors assess erosion, cost-of-living adjustments, and effectiveness. Common gauges include the (CPI), (PPI), Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) Price Index, and , each capturing distinct aspects of price dynamics. The CPI, published monthly by the U.S. (BLS), tracks the average percentage change in prices paid by urban consumers for a fixed of approximately 80,000 goods and services, including , , transportation, and medical care. It uses a Laspeyres index formula, weighting items based on consumer expenditure surveys conducted every two years, with geometric means applied at lower aggregation levels to partially account for substitution effects. The CPI covers about 93% of the U.S. population but excludes rural consumers and institutional households. Core CPI excludes volatile and energy prices to highlight underlying trends. In contrast, the PPI measures average changes in selling prices received by domestic producers for their output across stages of production, from raw materials to , using a similar Laspeyres framework but focused on producer revenues rather than costs. Released monthly by the BLS, it serves as a leading indicator for , as producer price increases often pass through to retail levels, though with lags. PPI weights derive from shipment values in the Census Bureau's economic census, updated periodically, and include services since expansions in the 2000s. Core PPI variants exclude food, energy, and trade services for stability. The PCE Price Index, produced by the (BEA), quantifies prices paid by U.S. consumers for a broad array of goods and services, encompassing all personal consumption expenditures including employer-provided and imputed rents. Unlike the fixed-basket CPI, it employs a chain-type Fisher index, which adjusts weights annually to reflect shifting consumption patterns, thereby mitigating substitution bias where consumers switch to relatively cheaper alternatives. The [Federal Reserve](/page/Federal Reserve) prefers PCE for its comprehensive coverage—about 100% of expenditures—and behavioral responsiveness, using it as the primary target in . Core PCE excludes food and energy. The , also from the BEA, represents a broad measure of price changes for all domestically produced , calculated as the of nominal GDP to real GDP (in chained 2017 dollars), implicitly weighting by current production quantities rather than fixed baskets. It includes exports but excludes imports, capturing economy-wide including government and spending. Updated quarterly, it differs from consumer-focused indexes by reflecting producer-side prices and new goods entering GDP.
IndicatorScopeMethodologyKey Use
CPIConsumer prices for urban basketLaspeyres with partial substitution adjustmentCost-of-living adjustments, Social Security indexing
PPIProducer selling prices by stageLaspeyres based on shipmentsInput cost monitoring, contract escalations
PCEPersonal consumption expendituresChain-type FisherFederal Reserve inflation targeting
All domestic outputImplicit from nominal/real GDP ratioOverall economic inflation assessment
Methodological critiques highlight limitations across these gauges. The CPI's fixed basket introduces substitution bias, overstating as consumers shift spending; BLS mitigates this via geometric weighting but not fully, unlike PCE's chained approach. Hedonic quality adjustments in CPI—for instance, attributing computer drops to performance gains—may understate if improvements are overstated or fail to capture consumer-perceived value. PPI faces new goods bias and outlet substitution issues, while GDP deflator's production weighting ignores effects on consumers. Empirical studies estimate CPI overstates by 0.5-1% annually pre-reforms, though post-1990s changes reduced this; some analyses argue adjustments now bias downward amid rapid . Official sources maintain rigorous statistical validation, but debates persist on whether these measures fully reflect lived cost pressures, particularly in and healthcare.

Applications and Uses

In Macroeconomic Policy

Economic indicators provide essential data for central banks to implement , targeting price stability and maximum employment. The Federal Reserve adjusts the in response to inflation metrics, such as the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) price index, and labor market indicators like the unemployment rate, which signal overheating or slack in the economy. This guides decisions to raise rates during inflationary pressures or lower them amid recessions to stimulate growth. The formalizes this process by prescribing a as the equilibrium real rate plus the rate plus 1.5 times the gap (actual minus target ) and 0.5 times the (actual minus potential GDP). Proposed by in 1993, the rule has served as a benchmark for policy evaluation, though the employs it discretionally alongside forward guidance and . For example, deviations from the Taylor rule prescription have been analyzed to assess policy stance, with recent estimates showing tighter-than-rule-suggested rates in 2022-2023 amid post-pandemic . In fiscal policy, governments rely on indicators such as GDP growth, rates, and budget deficits to calibrate spending and taxation for economic stabilization. Expansionary fiscal measures, including increased public investment, are deployed when GDP contracts or rises, aiming to boost and mitigate downturns. The notes that such policies have historically cushioned recessions, as seen in the coordinated global stimulus following the 2008 crisis, where falling GDP and surging prompted deficit-financed packages worldwide. Contractionary adjustments occur when indicators reveal overheating, such as sustained high alongside , to avoid crowding out private investment. Leading indicators, including consumer confidence and manufacturing indexes, enable proactive policy adjustments by forecasting turning points, while coincident indicators like industrial production confirm current conditions. Policymakers integrate these with models to project outcomes, though data revisions and lags necessitate cautious interpretation to avoid overreaction. International bodies like the IMF use aggregated indicators for surveillance, recommending policy mixes to member states based on imbalances in growth, , and external accounts.

In Financial Markets and Investment

Economic indicators provide investors with data to assess macroeconomic conditions and forecast asset price movements, enabling informed allocation decisions across equities, , and currencies. Leading indicators, such as purchasing managers' indices, signal potential expansions or contractions, allowing traders to position portfolios ahead of trends, while coincident and lagging measures confirm ongoing shifts. In equity markets, releases like U.S. reports frequently trigger volatility, as stronger-than-expected employment gains—such as the 151,000 jobs added in February 2025—bolster confidence in corporate earnings and prompt buying in indices like the S&P 500. Conversely, weaker data, including the mere 22,000 jobs in August 2025 amid downward revisions, can spark sell-offs by raising fears and altering growth expectations. Bond markets react acutely to inflation gauges and interest rate proxies; elevated readings drive yields higher as investors anticipate central bank hikes to curb price pressures, reducing the of fixed coupons. The , derived from spreads, exemplifies this dynamic: an inversion—where short-term rates exceed long-term ones—has preceded every U.S. since the 1950s, with empirical models showing it outperforms other variables in downturns up to two quarters ahead, though it signals expectations rather than causation. Investors integrate these metrics into strategies like sector rotation, shifting toward cyclicals during robust GDP phases or defensives amid softening labor data, while systems parse releases in milliseconds to exploit mispricings. funds and institutions particularly emphasize real-time indicators for risk-adjusted returns, cross-referencing with policy signals from bodies like the to hedge against volatility.

In Business and Forecasting

Businesses employ economic indicators to forecast demand fluctuations, optimize inventory levels, and guide investment decisions, drawing on both leading and coincident metrics to project revenue and operational needs. The (PMI), derived from monthly surveys of and services firms on orders, production, and supplier deliveries, serves as a forward-looking gauge; readings above 50 signal expansion, while those below indicate contraction, allowing companies to adjust production schedules accordingly. For instance, a PMI drop below 50 in early 2020 preceded reduced manufacturing output, prompting firms to curtail orders and build cash reserves. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rates inform long-term strategic planning, with quarterly U.S. GDP data from the used to model sales forecasts; expansions exceeding 2-3% annually typically correlate with increased consumer and business spending, enabling firms to scale hiring and capital outlays. Unemployment rates, tracked monthly by the , help predict labor costs and consumer ; rates below 4%, as seen in 2019, signal tight markets that elevate wage pressures, leading manufacturers to automate or offshore to maintain margins. The (CPI), measuring changes in a basket of , aids in pricing strategies and cost hedging; persistent CPI increases above 2%, such as the 7% U.S. peak in June 2022, prompt businesses to negotiate supplier contracts or pass costs to consumers via models. In econometric forecasting, firms integrate these indicators into regression models—for example, combining PMI with real-time and inflation data to predict quarterly GDP with errors under 1% in non-recessionary periods—enhancing accuracy over qualitative judgments alone. Retailers specifically monitor durable goods orders, a leading indicator from the Census Bureau, where month-over-month rises above 1% foreshadow higher and capital goods investments.

Limitations and Criticisms

Methodological and Data Challenges

Economic indicators frequently undergo revisions as initial estimates incorporate additional data sources and refined methodologies, leading to discrepancies between preliminary releases and final figures. For instance, U.S. (BEA) data for (GDP) show that quarterly revisions can alter growth estimates by 0.5 percentage points or more, particularly during periods of economic volatility such as the , where initial GDP contractions were later adjusted upward. These revisions stem from incomplete data at release time, including lagged reporting from businesses and governments, and subsequent methodological updates, which undermine the reliability of real-time assessments for policy decisions. In GDP measurement, discrepancies arise between expenditure-side and income-side estimates, with the statistical discrepancy averaging around 1-2% of GDP in recent years, reflecting challenges in capturing all economic activity comprehensively. Methodological issues include difficulties in valuing intangible assets, digital services, and the informal sector, where underreporting and non-market activities evade standard surveys. Similarly, (CPI) calculations face hurdles in quality adjustments via models, which attempt to isolate price changes from product improvements but require subjective selection of attributes and can introduce estimation errors, potentially biasing downward by failing to fully account for consumer-perceived value. Labor market indicators, such as the unemployment rate from the (BLS) Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey, rely on a birth-death model to estimate net effects from firm creations and closures not captured in the sample frame, which draws from unemployment insurance records updated quarterly. This model has drawn for overestimating job growth during recoveries; for example, 2023-2024 revisions subtracted over 800,000 jobs from initial nonfarm figures, as post-pandemic dynamics deviated from historical patterns used in the model's component. Seasonal adjustments and imputation for non-responding firms further compound potential biases, with the model's accuracy declining amid structural shifts like and gig economy expansion. Cross-indicator challenges include sampling frames that underrepresent small businesses and emerging sectors, leading to systematic underestimation of volatility, as well as international incomparability due to varying definitions and standards. While agencies like the BLS and BEA employ rigorous statistical controls, persistent revisions—averaging 20-30% of initial variance for key series—highlight inherent uncertainties in aggregating heterogeneous under time constraints, prompting calls for greater transparency in model assumptions and real-time benchmarking against alternative datasets.

Empirical Shortcomings and Biases

Economic indicators frequently exhibit empirical shortcomings through substantial post-release revisions, as initial estimates rely on partial data and are updated with comprehensive benchmarks. In the United States, (BEA) GDP figures undergo quarterly revisions, followed by annual updates to the prior five years and periodic comprehensive revisions to the series dating back to 1947, with average quarterly revisions to annualized growth rates exceeding 1 percentage point in magnitude during volatile periods. Similarly, (BLS) employment data from the Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey are revised monthly and benchmarked annually against unemployment insurance records, often shifting initial nonfarm payroll gains or losses by 50,000 or more jobs, as seen in the downward adjustment of over 800,000 jobs across 2023-2024 reports. These revisions stem from incomplete sampling, lagged reporting, and updated seasonal factors, rendering preliminary releases unreliable for in policy or markets. Measurement biases in price indices like the (CPI) further compromise accuracy. The 1996 Advisory Commission to Develop a Research Agenda on the Measurement of Price Indexes for Consumer Goods and Services (Boskin Commission) empirically estimated that the CPI overstated annual by 1.1 percentage points from 1990-1995, attributing roughly 0.4 points to substitution bias—where fixed-basket calculations fail to capture consumer shifts to lower-cost alternatives—and 0.6 points to quality adjustments and new outlet biases not fully reflected. Post-commission methodological changes by the BLS, including geometric weighting for substitution and hedonic regressions for quality, reduced the estimated upward bias to about 0.8% by the early 2000s, though independent analyses indicate persistent overstatement during periods of rapid or supply disruptions. Critics, including some academic economists, argue these adjustments introduce downward bias by overemphasizing unobservable quality gains, potentially understating true cost-of-living increases for fixed-income households. GDP calculations empirically undercount total economic activity by omitting the shadow economy, which encompasses unreported legal transactions, informal labor, and illicit activities evading official surveys. Estimates place the U.S. shadow economy at approximately 10% of GDP, equivalent to $2.5 in 2023, based on discrepancies between expenditure and surveys, currency models, and multiple-indicator approaches. Globally, the informal sector averages 11.8% of GDP as of 2023, with higher shares in developing economies distorting cross-country comparisons of and growth. This exclusion biases indicators toward formal sectors, understating resilience during recessions when shadow activities may expand, and complicates causal assessments of policy impacts like taxation or . Seasonal adjustment procedures, while standard for isolating trends, introduce biases susceptible to model misspecification, particularly amid structural shocks. Methods like the Census Bureau's X-13-ARIMA-SEATS filter residual calendar effects but can amplify distortions if historical patterns shift, as evidenced by post-2008 recession analyses showing unexplained seasonal echoes inflating adjusted GDP and employment series by 0.2 standard deviations on average. During the COVID-19 pandemic, BLS adjustments for CES data struggled with unprecedented volatility, leading to overcorrections in monthly unemployment swings exceeding 10 percentage points. Such artifacts undermine the indicators' empirical validity for short-term forecasting, as unmodeled trading-day variations or holiday shifts propagate errors across vintages.

Debates Over Measurement and Manipulation

Critics contend that methodologies for calculating key economic indicators, such as the (CPI), introduce biases that understate inflation by incorporating adjustments like geometric weighting for consumer substitution and hedonic quality improvements, changes implemented by the (BLS) following the 1996 Boskin Commission report, which estimated the CPI overstated inflation by about 1.1 percentage points annually. These modifications, intended to reflect real consumer behavior and product enhancements, have been accused of arbitrarily reducing reported inflation rates by 0.5 to 1 percentage point per year, potentially lowering cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security and understating erosion of . While BLS maintains these adjustments correct for overestimation and are based on empirical evidence, skeptics argue they favor by compressing nominal spending growth figures, with peer-reviewed analyses highlighting how expanded hedonic models impose subjective valuations on quality gains that may not align with consumer perceptions. Unemployment rate measurements face similar scrutiny, particularly the BLS's U-3 rate, which excludes discouraged workers and part-time workers seeking full-time , leading to debates over its representation of labor market slack compared to broader U-6 metrics that capture . Methodological shifts, such as altered in the , have been linked to downward biases in reported rates, with revisions often revealing higher initial unemployment than preliminary data suggest. (GDP) estimates undergo frequent revisions by the (BEA), with comprehensive updates sometimes altering prior growth figures by over 1 percentage point cumulatively, as seen in 2024 revisions boosting U.S. GDP growth from 2021–2023 by 1.3 percentage points total, raising questions about the reliability of advance estimates for policy decisions. These revisions, while attributed to improved data incorporation, fuel suspicions of initial underreporting to align with optimistic narratives, though BEA attributes discrepancies to the inherent challenges of real-time aggregation rather than deliberate distortion. Outright manipulation of indicators has been documented in various governments, particularly where statistical agencies lack ; for instance, Argentina's INDEC under the Kirchner administration (2007–2015) systematically underreported by up to 50% and inflated GDP growth through altered base years and suppressed surveys, prompting IMF declarations of in 2013 and 2015. Similar practices occurred in during the 2009–2010 debt crisis, where revised GDP data retroactively increased reported figures by 25% via expenditure reclassifications, and in under Erdoğan, where interference led to purged economists and discrepant official versus independent estimates exceeding 20 percentage points in 2018. In democratic contexts, such interference is rarer but not absent, with academic studies emphasizing that institutional safeguards like independent statistical offices mitigate but do not eliminate political pressures, as evidenced by cross-country analyses showing higher manipulation in regimes with weaker . These cases underscore how manipulated data distorts international comparisons and confidence, often persisting until external audits or regime changes compel corrections.

Alternatives and Emerging Approaches

Beyond-GDP Indicators

The beyond-GDP indicators encompass a range of metrics designed to assess societal progress by incorporating dimensions such as human well-being, environmental sustainability, and , which GDP overlooks by focusing solely on market-based economic output. These indicators emerged in response to critiques that GDP growth can coincide with rising inequality, , and stagnant , as evidenced by U.S. data where real GDP rose 3.2-fold from 1950 to 2018 while median household income adjusted for grew only 0.6-fold. Proponents argue that such measures provide a more holistic view, aligning policy with causal factors like and social cohesion rather than production aggregates alone. One prominent example is the (HDI), developed by the in 1990, which aggregates at birth, mean and expected years of schooling, and gross national income per capita adjusted for . Empirical analysis shows a strong logarithmic correlation between HDI and GDP per capita across countries, with HDI rising more slowly at higher income levels, indicating to economic output in enhancing health and education outcomes; for instance, from 1990 to 2022, global HDI increased by 12.4% while GDP per capita grew by approximately 50%. However, HDI has faced methodological criticism for equal weighting of components without empirical justification and for underemphasizing inequality, as later adjustments like the Inequality-Adjusted HDI reveal disparities not captured in raw GDP figures. The (GPI), first proposed in 1995, extends GDP by adding non-market benefits like household labor and volunteerism while subtracting costs such as , , and . Its formula adjusts personal consumption expenditures for inequality distribution, incorporates defensive spending (e.g., on commuting or health costs from ), and values ecosystem services; U.S. GPI calculations show growth from $19,000 in 1950 to a peak of $25,000 in 1978 (in 1996 dollars), followed by stagnation around $20,000 through 2004, decoupling from GDP's continued rise and highlighting trade-offs in environmental and social domains. State-level applications, such as in since 2002, have influenced by quantifying wetland losses at $138 per acre annually, though data inconsistencies in valuing intangibles like family breakdown costs undermine reliability. Other indicators include the , which weights 11 dimensions like housing, income, and work-life balance based on user preferences, revealing that countries like score high despite moderate GDP growth due to strong , and the , which tracks non-economic outcomes like nutrition and personal safety, showing inverse correlations with environmental pressures in high-GDP nations. Despite these advances, beyond-GDP metrics suffer from proliferation—over 300 variants exist without consensus—and challenges in aggregation, often retaining high correlation with GDP (e.g., 0.85-0.95 for many indices), limiting their policy displacement while introducing subjective valuations prone to ideological in academia-heavy frameworks. Empirical tests indicate they better capture trade-offs but falter in for growth drivers, as adjustments for "defensive" expenditures can double-count societal costs without rigorous econometric validation.

Technological and Real-Time Innovations

Advances in big data analytics, machine learning, and alternative data sources have enabled the development of high-frequency and real-time economic indicators, addressing the limitations of traditional quarterly or monthly releases that often lag policy needs. Nowcasting techniques, which estimate current economic conditions using contemporaneous data, leverage vast datasets to produce timely proxies for aggregates like GDP growth. For instance, machine learning models applied to structured and unstructured data, such as Google Trends search volumes, have demonstrated improved accuracy in forecasting U.S. GDP in real time, outperforming conventional econometric methods in volatile periods. Similarly, dynamic factor models combined with machine learning algorithms nowcast GDP across diverse economies by integrating novel indicators like transaction-level financial data. Satellite imagery represents a pivotal technological innovation for measuring economic activity, particularly in data-scarce regions. Night-time lights data from satellites correlates strongly with GDP levels, allowing researchers to proxy subnational growth rates; for example, indices have illuminated economic disparities and informal sector activity in developing countries. Daytime , processed via , further refines these proxies by detecting surface features like vehicle counts in parking lots or market crowding, enabling weekly or daily activity indices for rural and urban areas alike. Commercial platforms like SpaceKnow generate over 600 near-real-time economic indices from such imagery, aiding investors in predicting sector-specific trends. Real-time inflation measurement has similarly benefited from web-scraped online prices, bypassing delays in official (CPI) surveys. Platforms like Truflation and PriceStats aggregate millions of daily transactions to compute verifiable inflation rates, often diverging from official figures during supply shocks; for example, Truflation's index uses blockchain-verified data for transparency and timeliness. Central banks, including the , employ these alternative datasets for daily nowcasts of PCE and CPI inflation, enhancing responsiveness. These innovations, while promising, rely on algorithmic assumptions that may introduce biases if training data overlooks offline economies or quality adjustments.

References

  1. https://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/themes/economy.html
  2. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/Series/Back-to-Basics/gross-domestic-product-GDP
  3. https://databank.worldbank.org/metadataglossary/world-development-indicators/series/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG
  4. https://www.conference-board.org/topics/us-leading-indicators/
  5. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2025/07/31/new-standards-for-economic-data-aim-to-sharpen-view-of-global-economy
  6. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9780939934768/C3.xml
  7. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economic_indicator.asp
  8. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/economics/economic-indicators/
  9. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/electricity-demand-as-a-high-frequency-economic-indicator-20201021.html
  10. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Economic_indicator
  11. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp13214.pdf
  12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/economics-econometrics-and-finance/economic-indicator
  13. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/article/current-employment-statistics-data-and-their-contributions-as-key-economic-indicators.htm
  14. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2025067pap.pdf
  15. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/Series/Back-to-Basics/Monetary-Policy
  16. https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/ces/presentation.htm
  17. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/what-are-leading-lagging-and-coincident-indicators/
  18. https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20120806a.htm
  19. https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=1796
  20. https://www.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.7312/columbia/9780231175104.001.0001/upso-9780231175104-chapter-002
  21. https://fickleformulas.org/images/pdf/FFWP_2019-02_Mgge_The_Revenge_of_Political_Arithmetick.pdf
  22. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mercantilism.asp
  23. https://www.econlib.org/library/columns/y2023/macklockemercantilist.html
  24. https://www.hetwebsite.net/het/schools/physioc.htm
  25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/economics-econometrics-and-finance/physiocracy
  26. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/classicaleconomics.asp
  27. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Kuznets.html
  28. https://apps.bea.gov/scb/2020/08-august/pdf/0820-influencer-kuznets.pdf
  29. https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2020/preliminary/paper/f8SfSeh5
  30. https://apps.bea.gov/scb/2020/06-june/pdf/0620-beyond-gdp-landefeld.pdf
  31. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/publications/SCB/pages/1990-1994/10839_1990-1994.pdf
  32. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/nationalaccount/docs/1953sna.pdf
  33. https://www.imf.org/-/media/Websites/IMF/imported-flagship-issues/external/pubs/ft/weo/2000/01/pdf/_chapter5pdf.ashx
  34. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/87178/1/__lse.ac.uk_storage_LIBRARY_Secondary_libfile_shared_repository_Content_Centre%2520For%2520Macroeconomics%2520discussion%2520papers_GDP%2520and%2520the%2520system%2520of%2520national%2520accounts.pdf
  35. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/employment-act-of-1946
  36. https://www.govinfo.gov/help/erp
  37. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/historical/congressional/employment-act-1946.pdf
  38. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/detailed-methodology-information/concepts-sources-methods/australian-system-national-accounts-concepts-sources-and-methods/2020-21/chapter-1-introduction/nature-purpose-and-history-national-accounts
  39. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/nationalaccount/hsna.asp
  40. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c10382/c10382.pdf
  41. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c0710/c0710.pdf
  42. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c10968/c10968.pdf
  43. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/WESS_2017_ch2.pdf
  44. https://apps.bea.gov/well-being/archive/docs/background-materials-prototype-measures-of-economic-well-being-and-growth.pdf
  45. https://www.fe.training/free-resources/financial-markets/leading-lagging-coincident-economic-indicators/
  46. https://www.conference-board.org/data/bci/index.cfm?id=2160
  47. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/leading-economic-index
  48. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USPHCI
  49. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/coincidentindicator.asp
  50. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laggingindicator.asp
  51. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Lagging_indicator
  52. https://www.bostonifi.com/resources/blog/leading-lagging-indicators
  53. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
  54. https://www.bea.gov/
  55. https://www.bea.gov/resources/learning-center/what-to-know-gdp
  56. https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/methodologies/nipa_primer.pdf
  57. https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp
  58. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/realgdp.asp
  59. https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/ipnotes.htm
  60. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/industrial-production-vs-goods-gdp-two-sides-of-the-same-coin-20250110.html
  61. https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/current/
  62. https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2024/oct/tracking-us-labor-market-some-key-indicators
  63. https://www.bls.gov/cps/definitions.htm
  64. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
  65. https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/alternative-measures-of-labor-underutilization.htm
  66. https://www.bls.gov/ces/
  67. https://www.bls.gov/bls/empsitquickguide.htm
  68. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/article/labor-force-participation-what-has-happened-since-the-peak.htm
  69. https://usafacts.org/answers/what-is-the-labor-force-participation-rate-in-the-us/country/united-states/
  70. https://www.bls.gov/jlt/
  71. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.htm
  72. https://www.bea.gov/resources/learning-center/what-to-know-prices-inflation
  73. https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/cpi/
  74. https://www.bls.gov/cpi/
  75. https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/cpi/calculation.htm
  76. https://www.bls.gov/ppi/
  77. https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/ppi/presentation.htm
  78. https://www.bls.gov/ppi/overview.htm
  79. https://www.bea.gov/data/personal-consumption-expenditures-price-index
  80. https://www.bea.gov/data/prices-inflation/gdp-price-deflator
  81. https://www.bea.gov/help/faq/513
  82. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/consumerpriceindex.asp
  83. https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-1/consumer-price-index-data-quality-how-accurate-is-the-us-cpi.htm
  84. https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/july-1997/critiquing-the-consumer-price-index
  85. https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12856.htm
  86. https://www.atlantafed.org/cqer/research/taylor-rule
  87. https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/marking-30-years-taylor-rule
  88. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2024/mar/output-gaps-taylor-rule-stance-monetary-policy
  89. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/Series/Back-to-Basics/Fiscal-Policy
  90. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-does-fiscal-policy-affect-the-level-of-gdp/
  91. https://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap76.pdf
  92. https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/Sheets/2023/monetary-policy-and-central-banking
  93. https://smartasset.com/investing/indicator-definition
  94. https://www.pimco.com/us/en/resources/education/learning-the-significance-of-key-economic-indicators
  95. https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-jobs-data-calms-market-fears-jitters-policy-uncertainty-dominate-2025-03-07/
  96. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-09-04/stock-market-today-dow-s-p-live-updates
  97. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/bonds/09/bond-market-interest-rates.asp
  98. https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2018/08/information-in-yield-curve-about-future-recessions/
  99. https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/current_issues/ci2-7.pdf
  100. https://hedgeandsachs.com/decoding-financial-markets-how-hedge-funds-analyse-economic-indicators/
  101. https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/trading-investing/trading/economic-forecasting-financial-markets
  102. https://www.dallasfed.org/~/media/Documents/research/efpr/v01n06a01.pdf
  103. https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/mi/research-analysis/third-party-articles-illustrating-pmi.html
  104. https://www.census.gov/library/working-papers/2021/adrm/CES-WP-21-09.html
  105. https://www.finra.org/investors/insights/key-economic-indicators-every-investor-should-know
  106. https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2020/07/fog-of-numbers-gdp-revisions/
  107. https://www.kansascityfed.org/documents/1656/2004-How%2520Do%2520Data%2520Revisions%2520Affect%2520the%2520Evaluation%2520and%2520Conduct%2520of%2520Monetary%2520Policy%253F.pdf
  108. https://www.clevelandfed.org/publications/economic-commentary/2023/ec-202301-discrepancy-between-expenditure-income-side-estimates-us-output
  109. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.31.2.187
  110. https://www.bls.gov/cpi/white-papers/hedonic-quality-adjustments-statistical-agency-perspective.pdf
  111. https://www.nber.org/digest/20239/correcting-quality-change-when-measuring-inflation
  112. https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesbdqa.htm
  113. https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/21/economy/bls-jobs-revisions
  114. https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/ces/calculation.htm
  115. https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/econ_focus/2025/q1-q2_federal_reserve
  116. https://www.amstat.org/docs/default-source/files/pdfs/cos-asa-revisions-economic-indicators.pdf
  117. https://www.escoe.ac.uk/revising-gdp-the-challenge-of-uncertainty/
  118. https://apps.bea.gov/scb/2021/01-january/pdf/0121-revisions-to-gdp-gdi.pdf
  119. https://rooseveltinstitute.org/blog/why-economic-data-revisions-mean-better-statistics/
  120. https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesvininfo.htm
  121. https://hbcumoney.com/2025/08/05/why-bls-unemployment-data-gets-revised-a-case-study-in-accuracy-trust-and-african-american-labor-trends/
  122. https://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/boskinrpt.html
  123. https://www.nber.org/papers/w12311
  124. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2006/05/art2full.pdf
  125. https://www.gao.gov/assets/ggd-00-50.pdf
  126. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2024/05/31/how-large-is-the-shadow-economy
  127. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0164070422000842
  128. https://www.ey.com/en_gl/insights/tax/why-the-shadow-economy-persists-and-how-governments-are-responding
  129. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets-economy/062216/how-underground-economy-affects-gdp.asp
  130. https://www.gspublishing.com/content/research/en/reports/2023/11/27/487547ae-0218-4f2a-b228-6bec8baf65c4.html
  131. https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2021/03/reasonable-seasonals-seasonal-echoes-in-economic-data-after-covid-19/
  132. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2022/article/the-challenges-of-seasonal-adjustment-for-the-current-employment-statistics-survey-during-the-covid-19-pandemic.htm
  133. https://macrosynergy.com/research/what-traders-should-know-about-seasonal-adjustment/
  134. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/measuring-inflation-whats-changed-over-the-past-20-years-what-hasnt/
  135. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23491048
  136. https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/common-misconceptions-about-cpi.htm
  137. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/08/art1full.pdf
  138. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/02/11/democrats-tricked-strong-economy-00203464
  139. https://www.thedailyeconomy.org/article/economic-measurement-and-the-mirage-of-exactness/
  140. https://cepr.net/publications/the-economy-after-the-gdp-revisions/
  141. https://apps.bea.gov/scb/issues/2024/08-august/0824-revisions-to-gdp-gdi.htm
  142. https://www.bruegel.org/blog-post/blogs-review-gdp-revisions-news-and-noise
  143. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0176268024000259
  144. https://www.bsfrey.ch/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/C_666_2024_Governments-manipulate-official-Statistics-Institutions-matter2.pdf
  145. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09692290.2020.1769704
  146. https://www.bsfrey.ch/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/C_651_2022_Manipulation-of-Economic-Data-.pdf
  147. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09692290.2020.1828141
  148. https://www.ecos.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Genuine-Economic-Progress-in-the-United-States-A-Fifty-St_2018_Ecological-E.pdf
  149. https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2023/apr/three-other-ways-to-measure-economic-health-beyond-gdp
  150. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-development-index-vs-gdp-per-capita
  151. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800997001687
  152. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gpi.asp
  153. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800919302411
  154. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70111837
  155. https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/policy-issues/well-being-and-beyond-gdp.html
  156. https://iefworld.org/beyondGDPexamples
  157. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11502754/
  158. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30196/w30196.pdf
  159. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800921003165
  160. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169207022000620
  161. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2022/03/11/Nowcasting-GDP-A-Scalable-Approach-Using-DFM-Machine-Learning-and-Novel-Data-Applied-to-513703
  162. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2019/09/satellite-images-at-night-and-economic-growth-yao
  163. https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/2/4/pgad099/7092933
  164. https://steg.cepr.org/publications/remotely-sensed-market-activity-high-frequency-economic-indicator-remote-rural-areas
  165. https://spaceknow.com/products/economic/
  166. https://truflation.com/
  167. https://www.pricestats.com/inflation-series
  168. https://www.clevelandfed.org/indicators-and-data/inflation-nowcasting
  169. https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlights/technology-opens-door-new-real-time-ways-measuring-economic-activity
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.