China had completed 62.7 percent of a national revival by the end of 2010, while Beijing was the most harmonious city in the nation with a rating of 0.79, according to a slew of recent statistics that were released in a bold attempt to demonstrate the stunning achievements China has made in recent years.

However, the reliability of these figures has been questioned, with some experts wondering how terms such as "revival" and "harmony" could possibly be quantified, while Web users mocked the announcements relentlessly.

Indices and statistics of all kinds have been making regular headlines, despite the fact that many appear to be subjective.

The latest announcement was made by Yang Yiyong, the director of the Institute for Social Development which is part of the National Development and Reform Commission. He said that there had been significant progress since 2005 when the nation was 46.4 percent "revived."

Yang said that the figures were based on 29 indicators that include internationally recognized figures such as the Gini coefficient, the Engels coefficient and rates of urbanization.

Murky figures

After reading the announcement, a Sina Weibo user joked that he felt "63 percent better after taking a stomach pill," while others questioned the methodology that had been used.

Other reports have provoked similar reactions. Around 70 percent of the 7,729 Chinese families surveyed said they felt happy in a poll jointly conducted in December by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and a body under the National Population and Family Planning Commission.

Many Internet users lashed out at the report saying that they were "forcibly" represented and included in the 70 percent against their wishes.

The China Development Report of People's Well-Being, another report published earlier this month by prestigious Peking University, stated that in 2011, Chinese families owned an average residential housing area of 116.4 square meters, or 36 square meters per person.

However, these figures remain contentious. Li Jianxin, the compiler of the report and a professor from Peking University, was quoted by the Beijing Times on August 8 as saying that there were deficiencies when calculating the average.

Average levels of wealth and property ownership are notoriously difficult to calculate in China. The National Bureau of Statistics stopped releasing figures on the Gini coefficient, a key measure of income disparity in 2000 with officials citing incomplete data as the reason. The issue has remained controversial as the last figures showed it at 0.412, which is past the 0.4 "warning" line.

Meanwhile, a similar report by the Southwestern University of Finance and Economics notes that the total net assets of Chinese families stand at around $69.1 trillion, 21 percent higher than the $57.1 trillion for US families.

The public were further confused by an index of "harmonious" urban areas, in a report made public in late June by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, which ranked Beijing, Shanghai and Tianjin as the most harmonious nationwide. Beijing, at a level of 0.79, was rated as the most harmonious city of all.

Ironically, this was released less than one month before torrential rains inundated the city and killed 77 residents in a series of catastrophes that were largely blamed on a lack of proper underground drainage and poor construction standards.

Dubious data collection

Li Jianxin told the Global Times that the reality is that data collection is unfortunately an imperfect science.

"The 116.4-square-meter figure is well above what people expected, particularly young and new graduates, who themselves are below the average," Li added. "In this case, the media is also guilty of emphasizing the difference in expectations."

Gou Yannan, the director of Fudan University's Center for Public Budgeting and Performance Evaluation, told the Global Times that there is intense public demand for these kinds of statistics, which has led to the ballooning numbers of these reports.

"Some indices simply aren't persuasive, due to their unscientific selections of indicators and sampling, which is closely linked to the low standards used by many researchers," said Zhang Yi, a researcher from the Institute of Population and Labor Economics under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

"Some of these reports are only formulated to entertain the public," Gou added.

"Research notes and indices of all kinds flash before the eyes of the public nearly every day. Those reports are mostly compiled by those who have no knowledge of basic principles of statistics," Zhang told the People's Daily.

Ye Qing, a professor at the Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, told the Global Times that consistency in research is also needed in the compilation of some statistics.

"Take the national revival index for example, there has been no similar research before, nor have they constructed a comparison to other indices, which led to public skepticism," Ye added.

Conscience matters

Some experts told the Global Times that money sometimes influences the results of these reports.

"The research institutes at some well-known colleges should be more disciplined, as there are many cases involving commercial agencies that are trying to bribe academic staff in an effort to publish their statistics," Gou said.

"There have been cases where people approached us to get their research notes made public though our institution by offering us favors, but we refused," Gou added.

Xie Taifeng, a professor at the department of finance at the Capital University of Economics and Business, said that profit has long been a major consideration for those who publish indices, who have no compunctions about releasing reports that favor their sponsors.

"A lack of formal standards for publishing those statistics and an absence of consensus in academic circles have further weakened the immature index-publication sector in China," Zhou Qingjie, the director of the economic research center at the Beijing Technology and Business University, told the Global Times.