CSO senior statistician Mr Mick Lucey said that the extent of the revision in Government expenditure could be attributed to "weak" data sources. "It's a problem that we are addressing," he said.

Last year's economic slowdown was more pronounced than had initially been thought, according to revised data issued by the Central Statistics Office (CSO) yesterday.

The new figures show that the economy, when measured by gross domestic product, grew by 5.7 per cent last year, down from the CSO's earlier estimate of 5.9 per cent.

This compares to an average annual growth rate of 9.8 per cent between 1995 and 2000.

Figures for gross national product (GNP), a growth measure excluding the activities of international firms in the Republic, have also been revised downward, from an initial estimate of 5 per cent to a new figure of 4.6 per cent. Between 1995 and 2000, average annual GNP was 9 per cent.

The revisions are due in part to a significant upgrade in numbers for Government spending, which is shown to have risen by 10.8 per cent last year, compared to initial estimates of 5.6 per cent.

Figures for consumer spending have also been raised slightly, from 4.8 per cent to 5.1 per cent, but remain well down on the 9 per cent growth seen between 1999 and 2000.

Significant revisions were also noted in exports, which were downgraded from 8.4 per cent to 6.7 per cent, and imports, where growth was reduced from 7.7 per cent to 6.1 per cent.

The new figures also revealed a stark reduction in fixed capital formation, or investment spending, which declined by 0.5 per cent year-on-year.

A breakdown of this fall shows that, while housing investment grew by 6.5 per cent between 2000 and 2001 and roads investment increased by 25 per cent, investment in transport equipment and other machinery was significantly down, by 5.2 per cent and 9.8 per cent respectively.

IIB Bank chief economist Mr Austin Hughes said the revised figures confirmed that sectors focused on the domestic market had enjoyed a greater insulation from global economic upsets.

"In broad terms, household spending and construction were reasonably robust and public spending was far stronger, whereas downward revisions to export and import growth reflect a more severe impact from a slowdown elsewhere," Mr Hughes said.

He added that he would probably be revising his GNP forecast for the year downward from 3 per cent to 2.6 per cent. He has retained his GDP forecast of 3.8 per cent.

Overall output figures show that production of computers last year was just 3.7 per cent up on 2000, compared to a growth of 37.4 per cent the year before.

Electrical machinery and equipment output grew by 2.4 per cent, well down from 32.7 per cent in 2000.

Chemicals production, in contrast, expanded by 20.5 per cent in 2001, jumping from 9 per cent in 2000.

"This demonstrates very clearly that chemicals, and particularly Viagra, have become the mainstay of industrial activity," said Mr Jim Power, chief economist with Friends First.

Mr Power noted however that GDP growth of 5.7 per cent last year is not "a bad out-turn" when placed against a difficult international backdrop.

He foresees growth of no more than 3.5 per cent for this year and next year.