The campaign director for Dr Mahamudu Bawumia, vice presidential candidate of the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP), Yoofi Grant, has described as ridiculous assertions by the head of the economic unit at the Institute of Economic Affairs, Dr Kwabena Anaman that the running mate erred in economics when he said Ghana's economy has quadrupled over the last eight years. Based on what he said was an analysis of the economy, Dr Kwabena Anaman said the real growth of the economy was 54 percent contrary to the 300 percent put out by the vice presidential candidate. Dr Bawumia mentioned the figure during the vice presidential debate organised in November by the IEA in Cape Coast. He put the national income at $16bn but Dr Anaman said that is only nominal and does not represent real economic indicators. Nominal gross domestic product is GDP figure that has not been adjusted for inflation and is expressed in a particular year's prices. Real gross domestic product is however adjusted for inflation and reflects the value of all goods and services produced in a given year but expressed in base-year prices. For example, with a base year of 2000, real GDP for 2008 is calculated by taking the quantities of all goods and services purchased in 2008 and multiplying them by their 2000 prices. Analysts say unlike nominal GDP, real GDP can account for changes in the price level, and provide a more accurate figure. In a sharp rebuttal, Yoofi Grant said he found the assertion a “ridiculous attempt to impugn that Dr Bawumia doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” He said Dr Bawumia had been speaking in nominal terms and could never have erred as such figures could never have been forged. “We work with nominal figures all the time and we understand what we mean when we say nominal figures,” he said. Mr Grant said growth has never been restricted to real terms and that describing the country’s performance in nominal terms could never have been wrong. He stressed that it was “intriguing” that a member of the IEA, which sponsored the recent presidential and vice presidential debates, would throw out such comments. Describing the statement as divisive and “embarrassing to the IEA,” Mr Grant maintained that such trends in the institute’s positions would rather provide fodder for attacks on the ruling party, especially in the run-up to a major election. Meanwhile, the IEA has distanced itself from Mr Anaman’s comments, saying those statements represented his personal views and not the position of the institute. Listen to Mr Grant's comments on the matter in the attached audio. Story by Fiifi Koomson