The new Penn World Table, Version 6.2 comparing standards of living across countries has just been released. The latest figures are for 2004, and, because of data lags, not all countries are included. Yet these numbers are valuable because they are of exceptional quality and they correct systematically for relative price differences across countries, which sometimes leads to surprising results.
Among the 82 countries for which 2004 data is now available, there has been really good news: real per capita GDP has risen by an average of 18.9 percent between 2000 and 2004, or 4.4 percent per year. People generally are a lot better off than they were just a few years ago. At this rate, real per capita GDP will double every 16 years.
Many people who could not afford a car in 2000 now have one, and people who could afford only one car in 2000 now have two.
People who could not afford to send their children to a good school or college now can. And so it is with many different goods and services that people consume.
One surprise is that there has been relatively little change in the ranking of countries by real per capita GDP since 2000.
Despite all the talk about the Chinese economic miracle, China's ranking has risen only slightly, from 61st out of 82 countries in 2000 to 60th in 2004 -- even though per capita real GDP grew by 44 percent between 2000 and 2004, or 9.6 percent a year, the highest of the major countries.
The reason China has not risen higher is that other countries have been growing too, and because the gaps between countries remain enormous.
The range between the poorest and the richest countries in the world is a factor of more than 100. The average real per capita GDP of the top 25 percent of countries is 15 times that of the bottom 25 percent.
Watching these countries progress is like watching a marathon. At first, one is impressed by most of the runners, almost all of whom seem to be going fast. As they pass by, all spread out, one sees that some runners seem to be gaining rapidly.
And yet they do not often overtake one another, because the distances between them are so large. Indeed, other runners are out of sight, perhaps miles ahead.
China, of course, isn't the only success story.
Other big winners in terms of real per capita GDP between 2000 and 2004 are Lithuania (up 48 percent), Romania (up 41 percent), Estonia (up 40 percent), Chile (up 33 percent), Hungary (up 32 percent), Greece (up 31 percent), New Zealand (up 28 percent), Australia (up 25 percent), South Korea (up 23 percent), Ireland (up 23 percent), South Africa (up 23 percent) and Nigeria (up 22 percent).
Some of the worst performers among the major countries are Israel (a beleaguered country, with real per capita GDP up only 2 percent between 2000 and 2004) and Argentina (hit by a terrible financial crisis in 2001 and 2002, up only 9 percent between 2000 and 2004).
Economic performance in several Latin American countries was relatively weak in this period, with Uruguay's real GDP per capita actually recording a fall by a fraction of a percent. But the overall picture is amazingly good.
If such growth rates continue, we will see relatively poor countries like India, Indonesia, the Philippines, or Nicaragua reach the average levels currently enjoyed by advanced countries in 50 years.
But, of course, they will not have caught up with these countries, for those countries will have moved ahead too.
It is hard to imagine now what that world will be like with a doubling or quadrupling of just about every country's GDP. What would all these countries do with all that money?
In 1958, the economist John Kenneth Galbraith wrote the bestselling book The Affluent Society, in which he argued that the advanced world as typified by the US had by that year finally emerged from "grim scarcity," when dire necessity dictated our lives, to a "world of affluence."
He wrote: "So great has been the change [in standards of living] that many of the desires of the individual are no longer even evident to him. They become so only as they are synthesized, elaborated and nurtured by advertising and salesmanship, and these, in turn, have become among our most important and talented professions."
But real per capita GDP in the US is now three times higher than it was in 1958.
What have people been spending all that extra money on? Is it all dictated by advertisers and salesmen who are inventing needs?
According to my calculations comparing 1958 and last year's data from the US Department of Commerce, Americans spent 27 percent of the huge increase in income between 1958 and last year on medical care, 23 percent on their homes, 12 percent on transportation, 10 percent on recreation and 9 percent on personal business activities.
The kinds of things that advertisers and salesmen typically promote were relatively unimportant.
Food only received 8 percent of the extra money, clothing only 3 percent and personal care 1 percent. Unfortunately, idealistic activities also received little of the extra money: 3 percent for welfare and religious activities and a similar share for education.
Thus, most of the extra money was spent on staying healthy, having a nice home, traveling and relaxing and doing a little business.
That sounds like what really happened in the US. Maybe that is the way it will be around the world.
As long as we can keep worldwide growth going at its current rate, billions of people can look forward to the same kind of improvement. And that should be truly inspirational.
Robert Shiller is professor of economics at Yale University and chief economist at MacroMarkets LLC, which he co-founded.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In an article published in Newsweek on Monday last week, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged China to retake territories it lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. “If it is really for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t China take back Russia?” Lai asked, referring to territories lost in 1858 and 1860. The territories once made up the two flanks of northern Manchuria. Once ceded to Russia, they became part of the Russian far east. Claims since then have been made that China and Russia settled the disputes in the 1990s through the 2000s and that “China
Trips to the Kenting Peninsula in Pingtung County have dredged up a lot of public debate and furor, with many complaints about how expensive and unreasonable lodging is. Some people even call it a tourist “butchering ground.” Many local business owners stake claims to beach areas by setting up parasols and driving away people who do not rent them. The managing authority for the area — Kenting National Park — has long ignored the issue. Ultimately, this has affected the willingness of domestic travelers to go there, causing tourist numbers to plummet. In 2008, Taiwan opened the door to Chinese tourists and in
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) arrest is a significant development. He could have become president or vice president on a shared TPP-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) ticket and could have stood again in 2028. If he is found guilty, there would be little chance of that, but what of his party? What about the third force in Taiwanese politics? What does this mean for the disenfranchised young people who he attracted, and what does it mean for his ambitious and ideologically fickle right-hand man, TPP caucus leader Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌)? Ko and Huang have been appealing to that
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
RSS