Skip to main content

PeakMetrics / Fact Checks

Economy & business fact checks

Explore claims publishers have checked about economy & business. Read their original ratings and follow the evidence.

7,104 published reviews in this topic

FACTLYEconomy & business

Agro based and thematic clusters for skilled manpower and economic opportunities are being identified

Publisher’s rating: TRUE

The claim concerns the Shyama Prasad Mukherji Rurban Mission (SPMRM), and whether it was identifying agro-based and thematic clusters linked to skills and economic opportunities. FACTLY examined this as one of four claims about the mission, drawing on a government response in the Lok Sabha and information on the SPMRM website. The government response, as quoted in the review, reported an estimated investment of Rs. 19,961.81 crores in the first 197 Integrated Cluster Action Plans. It said that nearly 78% of the proposed investment was aimed at providing economic and basic amenities. For economic amenities, it identified themes including agricultural services and processing, followed by skill development to promote small and medium-scale enterprises and tourism. The review also pointed to the mission website for details of clusters organized around different economic themes. On that evidence, it concluded that thematic areas—including agriculture-related services and processing, and skills development—were being identified. The cited evidence supports the claim about identifying themes and linking them to economic amenities and skills; it does not establish that every cluster had already delivered those outcomes.

THE QUINTEconomy & business

The viral claim states that no money will be charged at the toll booth if a person goes from one place to another and comes back within 12 hours.

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The viral message attributed to Union minister Nitin Gadkari said that a person paying at a toll booth could buy a 12-hour option and return without paying a toll. The Quint’s review examined that specific claim, including the message circulating on WhatsApp and a similar post shared on Twitter on December 22, 2018. To check the claim, the review looked at an NHAI letter on revised toll user fees and contacted an NHAI official. It reported that the letter listed single journeys, return journeys within a day, and monthly passes, but did not mention a 12-hour slip. The official said there was no provision for such a slip. The review also clarified what the return-journey category meant: a return within 24 hours could receive a concession of around 66 percent on the return journey, not a toll-free return. That distinction directly contradicts the message’s promise that no money would be charged. The review further noted that Gadkari had not tweeted about such a change, although that observation is supporting context rather than the main evidence. It concluded that the claim was false.

FACTLYEconomy & business

Average speed of rural road construction increased from 69kms/day in 2013-14 to 134kms/day in 2017-18.

Publisher’s rating: TRUE

FACTLY checked the specific claim that average rural road construction rose from 69 km per day in 2013–14 to 134 km per day in 2017–18. It reports that Ministry of Rural Development website figures showed 69 km per day in 2013–14 and 130 km per day in 2016–17, then states that the figure for 2017–18 was 134 km per day. The comparison therefore supports the claimed increase over those two years. The review’s qualification is that the increase was not a record. It says the Ministry’s annual reports, the PMGSY briefing book and a Lok Sabha answer showed higher average daily construction in both 2008–09 and 2009–10. Thus, the claim’s stated comparison is supported, but it should not be taken to mean that 2017–18 set a new high.

FACTLYEconomy & business

Speed of highway construction increased from 12 kms/day in 2013-14 to 27 kms/day in 2017-18.

Publisher’s rating: TRUE

The claim concerns the average daily pace of national-highway construction in India in 2013–14 and 2017–18. FACTLY’s review examined those two annual figures, rather than highway construction in general or a later period. It reports that the government’s parliamentary answer gave 4,260 km of national highways constructed in 2013–14, while a government press release reported 9,829 km constructed in 2017–18. The review converts those annual totals into daily averages: 4,260 km over the 2013–14 year works out to about 12 km per day, and 9,829 km over 2017–18 to about 27 km per day. Those calculations support the specific comparison in the claim. The article also says its graph of construction speed drew on ministry annual reports and parliamentary answers, and observes that the average speed increased substantially in the last two years. This evidence supports the comparison for the two named financial years. It does not, in the supplied excerpt, establish why construction accelerated or provide the underlying documents’ full details; the review’s stated basis is the annual construction totals and the implied daily averages.

FACTLYEconomy & business

Expenditure on road construction was 32,483 crore rupees in 2013-14. It is 1,16,324 crore rupees in 2017-18.

Publisher’s rating: PARTLY TRUE

The claim concerned whether road-construction expenditure rose from ₹32,483 crore in 2013–14 to ₹1,16,324 crore in 2017–18. FACTLY compared the claim with government budget documents and a government answer in the Lok Sabha, distinguishing the amounts claimed from reported actual expenditure. For 2013–14, the review says the budget documents put actual expenditure on roads and bridges at ₹31,588 crore, including Internal and Extra Budgetary Resources. For 2017–18, it reports ₹1,00,179 crore as actual expenditure, against an allocation of ₹1,09,453 crore. Both actual figures are below those in the claim. The review also compares road spending with total Union Budget expenditure: roughly 2% in 2013–14 and 4.5% in 2017–18. Thus, while the claim’s specific expenditure amounts do not match the actual figures cited, the share of the budget spent on roads more than doubled. The review’s stated conclusion reflects that distinction.

NewtralEconomy & business

España lidera en desigualdad y eso se generó sobre todo en los 7 años del PP

Publisher’s rating: Engañoso

Newtral examined Adriana Lastra’s claim that Spain ranked among the EU’s most unequal countries and that this inequality had arisen mainly during seven years of right-wing government. The review found the ranking claim accurate for 2017: Spain was third in the EU by the ratio between the disposable income of the richest and poorest fifths of the population. Bulgaria and Lithuania ranked higher. But the review disputed the attribution of most of the increase to the PP years. Using Eurostat figures, Newtral compared the ratio across two periods. It rose from 5.5 to 6.3 between 2007 and 2011, when José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero’s socialist government was in office—a 0.8-point increase. From 2011 to 2017, under Mariano Rajoy’s PP government, it rose from 6.3 to 6.6, or 0.3 points. The review also noted that Spain’s fourth-place ranking in 2010 and 2011 occurred during socialist governments. Thus, while the 2017 ranking supported part of Lastra’s statement, the figures presented did not support her claim that inequality was generated mostly during the seven PP years.

NewtralEconomy & business

La deuda bajará por primera vez en años si se aprueban los PGE de 2019

Publisher’s rating: Engañoso

The claim concerned a specific condition and forecast: Pedro Sánchez said in the Senate that public debt would fall “for the first time in years” if the 2019 state budgets were approved. The review says he was referring to the 2019 accounts, which the government planned to bring to Congress in January, and to the budget plan sent to Brussels in October. That plan projected the debt-to-GDP ratio would fall from an expected 97% at the end of 2018 to 96.5%. The review accepts that this projection showed a decline, but checks the “first time in years” part against the year-end figures it attributes to the Bank of Spain: 100.4% in 2014, 99.3% in 2015, 99% in 2016 and 98.1% in 2017. Those figures show declines in each of the three completed years Sánchez’s wording overlooked; the article also notes a decline was expected in 2018. The key distinction is therefore between the projected direction of the debt ratio and the claim that the decline would be unprecedented in recent years. The review’s cited historical figures contradict that novelty: debt-to-GDP had already fallen in 2015, 2016 and 2017. Its conclusion addresses the misleading impression created by the “first time in years” wording, not whether the proposed 2019 budget itself would be approved.

NewtralEconomy & business

Los anuncios que han hecho ustedes (el Gobierno) han provocado el desplome de las ventas de automóviles en España

Publisher’s rating: Verdad a medias

The claim concerns Aitor Esteban, the PNV spokesperson, who argued during a parliamentary control session that government announcements had caused a collapse in Spanish car sales. The review links the relevant announcement to a 13 November draft bill from the Ministry for the Ecological Transition that proposed prohibiting sales of combustion-engine vehicles from 2040. It reports that passenger-car sales fell 12.6% in November, to 91,063 units; commercial-vehicle sales fell 3.3%, and industrial-vehicle sales fell 20.6%.

FACTLYEconomy & business

Startups are allowed to issue ESOPs to promoters working as employees.

Publisher’s rating: TRUE

FACTLY examined whether startups could issue employee stock options to promoters working as employees. It explains that ESOPs give company ownership or shares to specified directors, officers or employees without upfront cost, usually as part of remuneration. The review then distinguishes the general rule from the startup exception: the Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Rules, 2014 did not allow companies to issue ESOPs to promoters, and those rules applied to unlisted companies not covered by the relevant SEBI guidelines. [S1]

FACTLYEconomy & business

Start up India: tax relief for three consecutive years out of a block of seven years for start-ups.

Publisher’s rating: TRUE

The claim concerns two separate time periods in the Startup India scheme: an entity could qualify as a start-up for up to seven years, while the scheme provided a three-year tax exemption. The review identifies this as the first claim in a government infographic about self-employment schemes, rather than treating the seven-year period itself as the length of the tax relief. The article’s conclusion relies on its account of the scheme’s eligibility definition and tax exemption provisions. Supporting excerpts include: “Startup definition has been amended whereby an entity shall be considered a ‘Startup’ up to 7 years (earlier 5 years)” and “one of the salient features of the Startup India scheme is tax exemptions to startups for 3 years.” For its check, the review says it consulted the Startup India website and responses to questions in the Lok Sabha. It reports that the website described the initiative’s purpose, while the parliamentary responses supplied the seven-year definition and the three-year tax-exemption feature. Those are the specific points that support the claim’s combination of a seven-year qualification window and three years of tax relief; the excerpt does not reproduce the underlying parliamentary answers or provide further eligibility details. The review also notes a limitation: it could not establish how many start-ups had actually received the tax exemption. It states, “But the actual number of startups that benefitted from the tax exemption is not available.” That caveat concerns the number of beneficiaries, not the stated duration of the qualification period or the tax exemption.

FACTLYEconomy & business

Allocation in budget 2018 raised to 3 lakh crore rupees, a rise of 20% over previous year.

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim concerns an infographic’s description of the MUDRA figure for 2018: it said the budget allocation had risen to Rs. 3 lakh crore, a 20% increase over the previous year. FACTLY’s review identifies the figure as a lending target, not money allocated by the government in the budget. It says the claim came from an infographic about self-employment schemes, and checks it against the finance minister’s 2018–19 Union Budget speech. In that speech, the finance minister proposed “to set a target of 3 lakh crore for lending under MUDRA for 2018-19.” That wording describes a lending target for the year, rather than a budget allocation. The review further explains that lending is to be carried out by banks and other financial institutions, rather than being the government’s allocation to MUDRA Bank. The review distinguishes the target from the government’s actual budget support: it reports an equity-capital allocation of Rs. 900 crore to MUDRA Bank and says the total allocation, including other credit guarantees, was below Rs. 2,000 crore. Those figures do not support describing Rs. 3 lakh crore as a budget allocation. The review therefore concludes that the infographic mischaracterized the lending target as a budget allocation.

FACTLYEconomy & business

12 crore mudra loans sanctioned since April 2015.

Publisher’s rating: TRUE

The claim appeared in a government infographic about self-employment schemes and asserted that 12 crore loans had been sanctioned under MUDRA since April 2015. The review identifies PMMY—the Pradhan Mantri MUDRA Yojana—as the relevant scheme, launched in 2015 to provide loans to small and micro enterprises. It checked the claim against a government response to a Lok Sabha question and the PMMY website dashboard, rather than relying only on the infographic’s figure. [S1] The cited Lok Sabha response reported that more than 13.47 crore loans, amounting to over Rs. 6.37 lakh crore, had been sanctioned under PMMY by August 2018. That reported count exceeds the 12 crore figure in the claim. The review therefore found the claim supported by the official count it cited. Its comparison is specifically about loans sanctioned since the scheme began, not a count of unique borrowers or a claim about loans disbursed. [S1] The review also clarifies who provides the loans: MUDRA is a refinancing institution, while lending to customers is carried out by participating banks and other financial institutions. That distinction does not change the reported sanction count, but it helps explain what “MUDRA loans” means in this claim. [S1]