bruno@bullet.ecf.toronto.edu (Bruno DiStefano) (05/25/91)
On May 13, 1991 Alessandro Giua (giua@ecse.rpi.edu) and Rolf Munger
(rolf@ral.rpi.edu) posted an interesting article, "Economies of
European Countries" on soc.culture.europe. I liked very much the article,
because, it provided good, solid, factual information, that can be useful
to inform and educate. Given the fact that soc.culture.europe is
characterized by a rather low signal-to-noise ratio, this posting was
rather refreshing.
However, part of the information was dated, because of its source. As most
figures were expressed in terms of US$, the reader may be mislead into
conclusions that are no longer valid. The US$ has lost quite a bit of its
value since 1988. Relative positions are different now.
Instead of just posting new information, I decided to leave the
information posted by Alessandro Giua and Rolf Munger and to add the new
figures. This should help to spot some economic trends.
----------------- original posting by Giua and Munger ---------------------
The following information is taken from the French
publication: "Atlaseco 1990", published by Edition
du Serail. The atlas contains data for the year 1988
on all countries of the world (203 are listed) obtained
by the 'World Bank' and the 'Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development' (OECD).
The first column (GNP/In) contains the Gross National
Product per Inhabitant in US$: this is a measure of
the Wealth of the country. The second colum (W) contains
the position in a list of world countries ordered by GNP/In.
The third column (GNP) contains the Gross National
Product in billion US$: this is a measure of the economic
Power of the country. The fourth colum (P) contains
the position in a list of world countries ordered by GNP.
You will note that a few non-european countries are
reported in the list as a basis for comparison: they are
marked with a @. The countries that are part of the ECC
are marked with a *. We have computed the GPA/In and GPA
for the EEC nations considered as a single entity.
----------------- end of original posting by Giua and Munger --------------
I am following the same format using 1990 data as published by a joint
report of the Economist and the Globe & Mail at the beginning of 1991. The
1991 data are columns 6 and 7 (the 2 right-most columns). My source does
not report data about some countries. For them I am leaving an empty space.
I am not reporting any ranking, because it would be meaningless, given the
number of missing entries.
-----------------------------------------------=================
COUNTRY | GNP/In | W | GNP | P | GNP/In | GNP |
| US $ | /203 | 10^9$ | /203 | US$ | 10^9$ |
-----------------------------------------------=================
Switzerland | 27,540 | 1 | 183 | 15 | 35,820 | 242 |
Liechtenstein | 26,780 | 2 | 1 | 152 | | |
Iceland | 23,890 | 4 | 7 | 82 | | |
Japan @ | 23,250 | 5 | 2,841 | 2 | 27,030 | 3,360 |
Norway | 21,600 | 6 | 90 | 27 | 27,830 | 118 |
Sweden | 21,235 | 7 | 178 | 16 | 29,530 | 250 |
Canada @ | 20,950 | 8 | 479 | 8 | 23,800 | 636 |
Denmark * | 20,950 | 8 | 107 | 24 | 27,320 | 140 |
Finland | 20,930 | 10 | 103 | 25 | 30,070 | 150 |
USA @ | 19,495 | 11 | 4,795 | 1 | 23,500 | 5,900 |
Germany W+E * | 17,450 | 12 | 1,351 | 4 | 21,500 | 1,700 |
France * | 16,900 | 14 | 994 | 5 | 22,420 | 1,120 |
Luxemburg * | 16,845 | 15 | 6 | 78 | | |
Austria | 16,715 | 16 | 126 | 21 | 22,850 | 174 |
Netherlands * | 15,380 | 20 | 227 | 14 | 19,710 | 294 |
Australia @ | 14,700 | 21 | 242 | 13 | 18,920 | 327 |
Italy * | 14,280 | 23 | 820 | 6 | 20,450 | 1,180 |
UK * | 14,070 | 24 | 802 | 7 | 16,010 | 922 |
Belgium * | 14,000 | 25 | 147 | 20 | 21,230 | 210 |
Ireland * | 8,840 | 39 | 31 | 51 | 13,070 | 46 |
Spain * | 8,475 | 41 | 339 | 11 | 13,450 | 532 |
Czechoslovakia | 7,250 | 45 | 113 | 23 | | |
Cyprus | 6,864 | 51 | 4 | 98 | | |
USSR | 6,020 | 52 | 1,718 | 3 | 3,470 | 1,010 |
Malta | 5,353 | 58 | 2 | 123 | | |
Bulgaria | 5,350 | 59 | 51 | 40 | | |
Greece * | 5,280 | 60 | 53 | 38 | 7,450 | 75 |
Roumania | 4,280 | 67 | 95 | 26 | | |
Portugal * | 3,975 | 70 | 41 | 44 | 6,020 | 63 |
Yugoslavia | 2,599 | 81 | 61 | 34 | | |
Hungary | 2,550 | 84 | 26 | 55 | 2,657 | 28 |
Poland | 1,740 | 98 | 66 | 33 | 1,500 | 57 |
Turkey | 1,275 | 109 | 67 | 32 | 1,877 | 106 |
Albania | 800 | 136 | 3 | 110 | | |
-----------------------------------------------=================
EEC | 14,368 | | 4,918 | | 6,282
----------------------------------------------- 6 Lux. old data
-------
6,288
^^^^^
+49.78%
----------------- original posting by Giua and Munger ---------------------
It seems that the EEC members are economically
the most powerful European contries (see Germany,
France, Italy, UK) but not the wealthiest European
counties (such as Switzerland, Norway, Sweden).
According to the Atlaseco, the countries can be
classified into:
WEALTHY : GNP/In > 8,000$
MORE OR LESS WEALTHY : 8,000$ > GNP/In > 2,000$
MORE OR LESS POOR : 2,000$ > GNP/In > 500$
POOR : 500$ > GNP/In
The EEC contries belong to the class of 'wealthy'
countries with the exception of Greece and Portugal
that are considered 'more or less wealthy'.
----------------- end of original posting by Giua and Munger --------------
CAVEAT
======
The above data is not static in nature. Even the 1990 data is destined to be
obsolete (for instance: Italian TV's TG1 newscast announced few nights ago
that the UK has passed ahead of Italy in terms of GDP during the first 3
months of 1991. The trend is irreversible for 1991).
The EEC Countries improvement in terms of total GDP (+49.78%) is an
illusion, due to the changed value of the US$. Had we measured the total
GDP in terms of a different currency, the improvement could have been much
less. However, as all natural resources and industrial good are paid in
US$, it is acceptable to use the US$ as a reference.
All data related to the USSR, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, and all former
communist countries is misleading: it looks much lower than it is in
reality. Communist economist use NMP (net material product) (that is GDP
minus depreciation). It is highly improper to compare NMP and GDP, because
countries with older infrastructure look more poor. For instance, if we
were to use NMP, the USA would look much less wealthy, probably a 20 -->
30% less wealthy, because of the aging infrastructure (i.e: roads, bridges,
industrial plants, etc.). Neither GNP nor GDP are available for these
countries.
WARNING
=======
Conclusions on standard of leaving, wealth, etc. derived from the above
table may be meaningless.
DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN MYSELF and GIUA & MUNGER
=============================================
Giua & Munger:".... the Gross National Product per Inhabitant in US$: this
is a measure of the Wealth of the country."
I claim that "for industrial countries the GNP/head is a measure of
efficiency, while for resource-based countries (i.e: Kuwait) is
meaningless". {This may take a stream of postings by itself}
--
Bruno Di Stefano
bruno@bullet.ecf.toronto.edu