« Forget your cares and dream about Alesund | Main | Claims about Spanish banks »

gdp vs. gdp per capita

Using growth in GDP per head rather than crude GDP growth reveals a strikingly different picture of other countries' economic health. For example, Australian politicians often boast that their economy has had one of the fastest growth rates among the major developed nations—an average of 3.3% over the past five years. But Australia has also had one of the biggest increases in population; its GDP per head has grown no faster than Japan's over this period. Likewise, Spain has been one of the euro area's star performers in terms of GDP growth, but over the past three years output per person has grown more slowly than in Germany, which like Japan, has a shrinking population.

Some emerging economies also look less impressive when growth is compared on a per-person basis. One of the supposedly booming BRIC countries, Brazil, has seen its GDP per head increase by only 2.3% per year since 2003, barely any faster than Japan's. Russia, by contrast, enjoyed annual average growth in GDP per head of 7.4% because the population is falling faster than in any other large country (by 0.5% a year). Indians love to boast that their economy's growth rate has almost caught up with China's, but its population is also expanding much faster. Over the past five years, the 10.2% average increase in China's income per head dwarfed India's 6.8% gain.

Here is more.  Of course it is wrong to think that one measure is necessarily better than the other.  And immigration and more births both raise absolute gdp though you may not view the gdp gains in each case as having the same moral status.  One simple adjustment that could be made is to subtract the income an immigrant would have earned, had he or she not moved to a new country.

Posted by Tyler Cowen on March 18, 2008 at 05:37 AM in Data Source | Permalink

Comments

You say "...the same moral status.." What are you talking about?

Posted by: Edgardo at Mar 18, 2008 9:28:39 AM

Growth in GDP per adult might be a better measure, since changes in the birth rate probably take a while to translate into GDP changes. Infants & children just aren't that productive. GDP growth per head is probably most informative when the population is changing but the age distribution of the population is relatively steady.

Posted by: Blar at Mar 18, 2008 11:23:47 AM

Trivially, no measure is "necessarily" better than any other, because there is no moral hierarchy of measurements. But as an answer to the question "how well off is that group of people?" GDP/head is clearly much closer to the mark. A million starving people are not better off than a thousand starving people. Would you be better off as one of a billion impovershed Africans or one of ten billionaires?

Posted by: David Wright at Mar 18, 2008 11:40:03 AM

"You say "...the same moral status.." What are you talking about?"

I'm not Tyler but I suspect he means this.

If your GDP per capita is being dragged down a bit by immigration that might not be bad for any of the parties involved. The immigrant ends up with a better incomethan he would have gotten staying in his old country while the new country gets the benefit of his labor and taxes. If the GDP per capita would have gone up more without him, but his net effect is positive only the number looks worse, the real world effect is positive. However if there were no immigration you can get a pure comparison by looking at GDP per capita over time by only looking at the birth/death rates. So two countries with identical GDP per captia growth rates could be very different in reality if immigration is a factor in one of them. (Essentially the people already in the country which has lots of immigration are doing much better than the people in the non-immigrant country, but it looks the same because the immigrants--who are doing better for themselves by immigrating--make the 'average' look worse because they have a lower income than the initial base of the country.

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at Mar 18, 2008 11:48:30 AM

And immigration and more births both raise absolute gdp though you may not view the gdp gains in each case as having the same moral status.

When I read the article, I thought the same thing. As Sebastian Holsclaw notes, every single person in the economy could be better off because of immigration, yet the GDP per person would be lower than it would be without the immigration.

One simple adjustment that could be made is to subtract the income an immigrant would have earned, had he or she not moved to a new country.

But I didn't come up with this simple fix -- a good answer to the question, "How do you account for the fact that the GDP per person for 1% of the population went up 400%?"

Posted by: MikeP at Mar 18, 2008 1:09:20 PM

thank you

Posted by: cheap cialis at Mar 18, 2008 1:33:09 PM

ok

Posted by: order xanax at Mar 19, 2008 12:07:42 PM

I would be interested in metrics that assess the number of economically viable adults in the country. Pick a poverty line and chart the impact of past policies, immigration, and changing job climates on the number of adults that are economically viable thanks to the American economy.

Reshape the poverty debate around absolute, not relative terms and demonstrate the immense poverty reduction that has come with the US' growth.

Posted by: Chris at Mar 19, 2008 4:15:54 PM

ok

Posted by: buy cialis at Mar 22, 2008 6:50:45 PM

thanks

Posted by: CHEAP PHENTERMINE WITHOUT A PRESCRIPTION at Mar 22, 2008 7:55:06 PM

Post a comment