What is Russia’s GDP per capita?

by on March 17, 2009 at 1:18 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

1 MS March 17, 2009 at 1:40 pm

Is there a summary for those of us who don’t have 4.5hrs to see these lectures (1.5hrs each)?

2 an March 17, 2009 at 1:57 pm

Take the median of all those figures…, you’ll be close enough

3 spencer March 17, 2009 at 3:01 pm

The CIA World Factbook now has it as $15,800 (2008 est.) on a purchasing power parity basis.

That is 75th out of 229 countries and compares to $48,000 for the US — ranked 10th.

Most of those criticizing the CIA thought the CIA estimates of the USSR production were too low when in fact they were too high.

4 Gabe March 17, 2009 at 3:34 pm

If they would just use more stimulus then I bet they
could get that GDP up to 30k in no time. I guess they
haven’t bothered to read our blessed gospels of Keynes.

5 TDoc March 17, 2009 at 4:25 pm

Looking at these figures kept me wondering why Russia now wants to pursue the “comprehensive military rearmament,” given the gloomy global economic outlook at the moment. The country’s military spending has quintupled since 2001? I don’t think people will be too happy about Mededev’s decision on this.

See this video for justifications/explanations: http://www.newsy.com/videos/the_west_watches_russia_s_military

6 Mikhail Dubov March 17, 2009 at 6:21 pm

Personally I could not understand where the diference between the first two links comes from. Both claim the GDP is about 1291 bn dollars. Assuming the estimates of population are the same (and there is no reson why they should not be), the GDp per capita should also be the same. So there must be some mistake.

Numbers 3 and 4 should obviously differ from the first two since they are PPP and 2006, and Russia had exchange rate lower than PPP for 2007 and very high inflation and 7% growth, so it must have grown.

In number 5 the first figure is the same as the one in number 1, so I believe (1) is also a GNI rather than GDP which are not the same thing. The second figure is about the same as number 3 so it’s not a big deal.

The IMF and CIA results in number six are for 2008 so again there is no reason why they should mirror the World Bank ones.

Number 7 is probably another mistake of calculation or a different method.

Finally the link at number 8 discusses the issue and explains that those are probably not the right numbers.

So we have Russia’s GDP per capita in 2007 at either 9100 and at 14400-14700 at PPP. This is not such a big spread. And the uncertainty about the second number is probably related to exchange rate issues.

This is not to say there are no big problems with Russian data. But this particular issue is probably overstressed.

7 mickslam March 17, 2009 at 9:41 pm
8 anonym March 18, 2009 at 7:54 am

Raivo Pommer
raimo1@hot.ee

Arbeitslos ja Ekspressenkarte

Die Finanz- und Wirtschaftskrise schlägt sich voll auf die US-Bürger durch. Im Februar sind die Zahlungsausfälle bei den amerikanischen Kreditkartenanbietern auf den höchsten Stand seit 20 Jahren gestiegen. Experten erwarten einen weiteren Anstieg noch mindestens für einige Monate. Der gemessen am Umsatz größte US-Kreditkartenanbieter American Express wies am Montagabend für Februar eine Ausfallrate auf seine ausgegebenen Kredite von 8,7 Prozent aus. Dies war deutlich mehr als von Analysten erwartet. Im Januar waren es noch 8,3 Prozent.

Der Konzern begründete die Entwicklung mit der steigenden Arbeitslosigkeit in den USA. In der Quote sind nur solche Ausfälle erfasst, von denen das Unternehmen sicher glaubt, dass sie unwiederbringlich verloren sind.

9 Andrew March 18, 2009 at 11:41 am

So, back in the day, were they goosing measured gdp/per capita through decapitations?

Has our government considered it yet?

10 Tom March 21, 2009 at 11:06 am

Something to remember here…

Internationally recognized national accounts are accounted for in many different ways. We all learned in Principles the various ways to do so. When it comes to doing so in the real world, there is a lot of margin for error….yes macro-economist, I am looking in your direction. Aggregation is difficult. Especially when you are trying to do so across an entire economy.

Now, the discrepancy in the numbers from very similar sources is only partially explained. The second is the source of these data and how they were calculated. In fact, World Bank reports 2 main sets of data, national income accounting (country reported) and balance of payments (UN). These are NOT calculated in the same way thereby leading to large statistical discrepancies.

National income accounting is the only method used at IMF. This is country reported and is only disaggregated to the level of merchandise and services in Consumption and Net Exports.

BoP accounting is used by the UN and is used as a secondary resource by the World Bank, who prefer the country reported data, but it is a less complete dataset. BoP is NOT aggregated and instead is reported as UN defined categories of subsets of merch and services in Consumption and Net Exports. Aggregating these up to the categories of merchandise and services and comparing to the national income accounts, you can see there are vast differences.

Hopefully, there exists some consistency across countries for comparability rather than internal accuracy, since internal accuracy is so elusive.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: