1. Text: | Print|

      PPP game loaded with meaning

      2014-05-08 16:47 China Daily Web Editor: Qin Dexing
      1
      Wang Xiaoying/Chinadaily

      Wang Xiaoying/Chinadaily

      A new report by the World Bank's International Comparison Program (ICP) suggests that the purchasing power of the Chinese currency, based on 2011 prices, is significantly stronger than exchange rates indicate. If measured by the yuan's purchasing power, the report concludes, China will soon become the world's largest economy.

      China's National Bureau of Statistics participated in the study, but rejected its conclusion, expressing "reservations" about the study's methodology.

      The ICP provides useful data to compare living standards in different countries. But if it is used inappropriately to compare economies, the conclusions will be flawed.

      Initially, the ICP, which is implemented every six years, was designed to make possible comparisons of living standards in different countries, which are characterized by broadly varying prices.

      The ICP figures are estimated according to purchasing power parity (PPP), which compares buying power in different countries. However, despite the unprecedented growth, per capita income differences (at 2005 PPP) remain deep between China and advanced economies. In 1980, just before Deng Xiaoping announced the reform and opening-up policies, China's per capita GDP (PPP) was $253. In the United States, the comparable figure was $12,576, in Japan, $8,611 and in Europe, somewhere between the two. In other words, living standards in China were then only 2 percent of those in the US, and 2.5-3 percent of those in Europe or Japan.

      Last year, the comparable per capita income in the US was $51,749, in Japan, just less than $36,000, in the European Union, about $34,500, and in China, less than $9,900. By this measure, living standards in China are 20 percent of those in the US, and close to 30 percent of those in Japan or the EU, on average. Living standards in the US remain five times higher than those in China, and those in Japan and EU are more than three times as high as in China.

      Furthermore, the concept of PPP allows us to compare individuals' and households' living standards in different countries. But it should not be used to compare different aggregate economies. After all, the PPP concept is not useful when you travel abroad. As every tourist knows only too well, foreign destinations do not exchange money on the basis of PPP. Only hard cash will do.

      Based on GDP per capita (nominal), living standards in China are still only 12-13 percent of those in the US and Japan, and about 19 percent of those in the EU. China's economy will catch up with the US in due time. But it will take far longer for Chinese per capita income to catch up with that in major advanced economies.

      Then, there is the issue of size. When Britain industrialized and its urbanization rate exceeded 50 percent, the size of its population was barely 30 million. The US achieved that rate in the 1910s, when its population was barely 100 million. In contrast, when China achieved a comparable rate in 2011, its population was 1.3 billion.

      Also, industrialization and urbanization tend to go hand in hand with unbalanced development and income polarization. Moreover, when the UK and the US industrialized, per capita income differences were not as steep across and within countries as they are today.

      Because of its population, regional divergence has been particularly steep in China. In 2013, per capita GDP (PPP) was $21,400-$23,300 in Tianjin, Beijing, and Shanghai, less than $8,000 in Sichuan, Jiangxi and Anhui provinces, and less than $6,000 in Yunnan, Gansu and Guizhou provinces.

      In other words, per capita income (PPP) in the poorest Chinese administrative regions is 25-30 percent relative to the more prosperous provinces and regions. That ratio, in turn, is comparable to one between the overall living standards in China relative to the US, the EU and Japan.

      If it is misguided to compare entire economies on the basis of PPP and Chinese living standards remain a fraction of those in advanced economies, why are PPP figures used to compare economies?

      First, the practice may be misguided, but is very much in self-interest. Take, for instance, climate change. In advanced economies, climate change is often defined in terms of aggregate economies, which downplays the fact that, on a per capita basis, advanced economies are causing much more pollution.

      Second, misguided comparisons steer attention away from absolute and relative poverty in emerging economies. The World Bank measures international poverty by $1.25 (7.81 yuan) per day, which is not enough for a single meal in China, not to speak of housing or other expenditures.

      Perhaps there is something inherently outrageous in major advanced economies to be increasingly concerned about poor countries becoming too prosperous, but not about rich countries being too wealthy-or too pricey even for their own good?

      Comments (0)
      Most popular in 24h
        Archived Content
      Media partners:

      Copyright ©1999-2018 Chinanews.com. All rights reserved.
      Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

      主站蜘蛛池模板: 亚洲欧洲日产韩国在线| 亚洲精品中文字幕乱码影院| 久久亚洲精品专区蓝色区| 亚洲一区二区观看播放| 午夜福利不卡片在线播放免费| 国产高清视频在线免费观看| 在线看片免费人成视久网| 亚洲国产第一站精品蜜芽| 亚洲色在线无码国产精品不卡 | 免费a在线观看播放| 国产美女亚洲精品久久久综合| 在线播放亚洲精品| 3344永久在线观看视频免费首页 | 免费国产小视频在线观看| 久久精品国产亚洲AV电影网| 国产精品美女自在线观看免费 | 亚洲乱码中文论理电影| 日韩精品成人无码专区免费| 国产AV无码专区亚洲AV漫画| 国产免费内射又粗又爽密桃视频 | 免费无码H肉动漫在线观看麻豆 | 国产精品二区三区免费播放心| 亚洲AV无码一区二区三区电影 | 亚洲AV无码日韩AV无码导航| 中文字幕免费视频一| 亚洲另类精品xxxx人妖| 日韩伦理片电影在线免费观看| 亚洲AV第一成肉网| 久久亚洲AV无码西西人体| 亚洲色偷偷综合亚洲AV伊人蜜桃 | 免费电视剧在线观看| 男男黄GAY片免费网站WWW| 日韩一卡2卡3卡4卡新区亚洲| 成人免费一区二区三区| 亚洲午夜成人精品电影在线观看| 两个人看的www免费视频| 亚洲中久无码永久在线观看同| 一级特黄aa毛片免费观看| 中国亚洲呦女专区| 久久亚洲av无码精品浪潮| 免费能直接在线观看黄的视频 |