Synopsis
The latest GDP metrics reveal a robust real growth of 7.8% for Q1 FY27, although some dissent surfaced due to erroneous comparisons between outdated and updated data sets. This misstep led to misleading claims of a 2.6% nominal growth. The newer metrics utilize refined data collection techniques that meet international benchmarks, ensuring better precision in the national accounts.
Outcry over the latest GDP metrics illustrates a philosophical truth: no public joy can exist without causing a private grievance to those determined to find one. On Monday, MoSPI released data showing that during April-June 2026 (Q1 FY27), the economy grew by 10.3% in nominal terms, and achieved a 7.8% real growth rate.
Dissenting economic commentators swiftly countered with a radically lower assessment, claiming that nominal growth was a mere 2.6% and that real growth was negative. To understand these irreconcilable positions, one must look directly into the structural architecture of the data-generating process.
MoSPI's growth rate figures are based on the latest GDP series (2022-23 base), and use state-of-the-art estimation methodology. In addition to aligning with international best practices, it's an improvement over earlier ones as it captures structural shifts in the economy over the last decade - explosive growth in ecommerce, digital payments, gig work and green energy.
It uses advanced and real-time data sources, including GST returns, e-way bills and Public Financial Management System (PFMS). To better capture the unorganised sector, it uses Annual Survey of Unincorporated Sector Enterprises (ASUSE) and Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS). Similarly, deflators employed are better in scope and usage.
Also Read: ‘I was shocked’: Neelkanth Mishra hits back at ‘egregiously wrong’ claims on India’s GDP growth
Inevitably, changing the unit and accuracy of a measuring tape results in different measurements. Expectedly, compared with the earlier (2011-12) series, the current series is significantly different, and a better yardstick for estimating GDP.
As expected, the two yardsticks generate different GDP estimates (Fig. 1). An elementary rule is that to correctly compute a growth rate, an analyst must stick strictly to one consistent yardstick over time. That is, economic growth must be calculated by comparing data points belonging to the same methodological groups. In Fig. 1, this means comparing blue bar figures with blue figures over relevant quarters, rather than mixing a blue figure with an orange one. Comparing blue figures for Q1 FY27 with Q1 FY26 gives us a 10.3% nominal growth rate for Q1 of the current fiscal year.
When blue figures for Q1 FY27 are incorrectly compared with orange data for Q1 FY26, we get nominal growth of 2.6%. It's this inaccurate apples-to-oranges comparison that's the source of the unfortunate controversy. The entire '2.6% controversy' is born out of a flawed, cross-contamination of datasets.
Further, applying deflators of 2.5%, a crude approximation of a careful double deflation exercise, the 2.6%-campers have wrongly inferred a negative real growth rate. A similar mistake leads them to claim that consumption growth is negative. When evaluated using a clean, methodologically uniform assessment, reality is entirely different: actual GDP growth stands firm at 7.8%, while private consumption growth maintains a highly resilient expansion of 7.1%.
Also Read: India’s GDP grows 7.8% in Q1 FY26; Piyush Goyal hails growth, targets Opposition
Further, sceptics who smell manipulation overlook a critical counter-argument: the new series consistently generates GDP numbers lower than the 2011-12 series for the last two years. Any government would have liked to see the opposite: an economy larger than what was presented in the past, and a higher growth rate.
Moreover, a smaller nominal GDP makes it difficult to meet fiscal targets. A smaller nominal GDP baseline creates significant fiscal headwinds for any finance minister, making it harder to achieve the deficit reduction and fiscal targets. So, rather than accusing GoI of manipulating Q1 FY26 GDP estimates to boost the growth rate, it should be appreciated for putting the new series numbers out with full disclosure.
Beyond technical arguments, the updated series passes multiple smell and empirical tests of macroeconomic consistency and real-world predictability. The robust 7.8% growth rate is strongly corroborated by an array of high-frequency commercial indicators that point to sustained, double-digit nominal expansion.
Bank credit growth has accelerated to an impressive 16.5% y-o-y. According to Federation of Automobile Dealers Associations, total auto retail sales spiked, registering 18.27% growth during the April-July 2026. Critically, this vehicle sale boom features double-digit growth in 2-wheeler and agricultural tractor registrations, offering a plausible proof that rural demand remains resilient and strong.
Ultimately, this macro momentum is the logical harvest of deep supply-side interventions. In recent years, India has unlocked massive structural productivity gains by formalising MSMEs, upgrading national logistics, deploying world-class digital public infrastructure (DPI), fostering hi-tech manufacturing and improving capital market efficiencies.
In this backdrop, and with gross capital formation steady at about 35% of GDP, it's only realistic to expect a growth rate close to 8%. The new series shows that. Expectedly, in the Q1 of 2026-27, gross value added (GVA) grew by 8.2% driven by massive, double-digit traction across the service segments and a 9.2% boom in manufacturing.
These metrics reflect strong underlying momentum, driven by resilient domestic demand and steady industrial output despite global headwinds. For any emerging market economy, such performance constitutes a clear public milestone.
Looking ahead, institutionalisation of the 2022-23 series will significantly improve the precision of India's national accounts, ensuring that wild, unpredictable fluctuations in GDP revisions become a thing of the past. Structural stability of the new model is already evident. For Q1, initial GDP estimates placed at ₹80.32 lakh cr, varied only marginally from the final total of ₹80.00 lakh cr.
Also, growth trajectories from both the old and new series closely align directionally, and are range-bound (Fig. 2). This should put to rest the unnecessary debate over the integrity of India's GDP data.
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of www.economictimes.com.)
(Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.)
Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online.
...more
