Skip to main content

Honey, I blew up a few economies.

The International Comparison Program (hosted at the World Bank) just released its new estimates of Purchasing Power Parity that are used to compare GDP across countries. These estimates are released about every 5 years and they serve as the basis for the PPP-adjusted statistics used by most international organizations or statistical sources. These estimates get updated on an annual basis using inflation rates but it is the 5 year survey that produces the complete data that allows us to compare purchasing power across countries.

The release was picked up by all news outlets by emphasizing the fact that China looks bigger than what we thought before and it is likely to become the number one economy by the end of 2014 (e.g. Financial Times). The news on China makes for great headlines but the reality is that many countries saw significant changes in their PPP estimates, let's look at some magnitudes.

Before looking at magnitudes, a clarification on methodology: PPP estimates are done for a particular year (2011 in this case). The PPP adjusted figures released this week take the same GDP data that we already were using for that year and what they do is to publish a new set of PPP estimates that allows for a conversion of GDP to a purchasing-power basis just for that year (2011). Soon most databases will start using those PPP estimates (from 2011) to extrapolate and calculate the recent annual GDPs (2013). But this calculation will be done by adjusting 2011 PPP estimates with domestic inflation rates. To understand what has really changed with these new estimates and avoid the possible distortions that using inflation rates could cause let me do a simpler calculation: let's stick to 2011 GDP and ask the following question: How different is the size of economies as calculated using 2011 PPP compared to what we thought before these estimates were released? Before these estimates were released we were using PPP estimates calculated in 2005 updated using domestic inflation rates.

If you do that calculation, China increased its size by about 21%. But China is not alone. In fact there are 65 countries whose size increased even more than that. And there are about 30 countries where the increase was larger than 50%. Below are some examples:
Country
Increase in
2011 GDP PPP
UAE
109%
Myanmar
103%
Indonesia
85%
Saudi Arabia
65%
Egypt
64%
Pakistan
53%
Thailand
51%
Philippines
41%
Russia
36%
Iran
33%
Malaysia
32%
Romania
30%
India
28%
Nigeria
25%
Brazil
24%
Turkey
23%
China
21%

The UAE doubled its size and becomes a $500+ billion economy (larger than Belgium). Indonesia increased by 85% to pass $2 trillion and becomes the 10th largest economy in the world (larger than Italy and very close to the UK). All these are very large changes that clearly show that the most recent PPPs have introduced a completely different lens to compare price levels and living standards across countries. The pattern is that emerging markets tend to look a lot cheaper than what we thought earlier and therefore their GDP measured in purchasing power parity looks much larger.

What is interesting is that this has not always been the case. The previous release of PPP estimates (2005) caused a lot of controversy because they reduced the size of the Chinese economy by about 15%. 

One can argue that changes in the PPP-adjusted size of countries have very little practical impact, GDP has not really changed. It does have an impact on those who care about size and rankings of countries and think that PPP-adjusted series are better are capturing size (which is probably not correct, but I will leave this for another post). But it also has a large impact for those who care about comparisons of living standards (for which PPP correction is a must): these large movements in PPP estimates completely change our reading of living standards for many countries. if you are a researcher, get ready to update all your regressions!

Antonio Fatás 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

You can lower interest rates but can you raise inflation?

Last week the Bank of England lowered their interest rates. This combined with previous moves by the ECB and the Bank of Japan and the reduced probability that the US Federal Reserve will increase rates soon is a reminder that any normalization of interest rates towards positive territory among advanced economies will have to wait a few more months, or years (or decades?). The message from the Bank of England, which is not far from recent messages by the Bank of Japan or the ECB is that they could cut interest rates again if needed (or be more aggressive with QE purchases). Long-term interest rates across the world decreased even further. The current levels of long-term interest rates have made the yield curve extremely flat. And in several countries (e.g. Switzerland) interest rates at all horizons are falling into negative territory. The fact that long term interest rates is typically seen as the outcome of large purchases of assets by central banks around the world. In fact, many se...
Post a Comment
Read more

The missing lowflation revolution

It will soon be eight years since the US Federal Reserve decided to bring its interest rate down to 0%. Other central banks have spent similar number of years (or much longer in the case of Japan) stuck at the zero lower bound. In these eight years central banks have used all their available tools to increase inflation closer to their target and boost growth with limited success. GDP growth has been weak or anemic, and there is very little hope that economies will ever go back to their pre-crisis trends. Some of these trends have challenged the traditional view of academic economists and policy makers about how an economy works. Some of the facts that very few would have anticipated: - The idea that central banks cannot lift inflation rates closer to their targets over such a long horizon. - The fact that a crisis can be so persistent and that cyclical conditions can have such large permanent effects on potential output. - The slow (or inexistent) natural tendency of the economy to adj...
Post a Comment
Read more

The permanent scars of economic pessimism

Gavyn Davies at the Financial Times reflects on the growing pessimism of Central Banks regarding the growth potential of advanced economies. In the US, the Euro area or the UK, central banks are reducing their estimates of the output gap. They now think about some of the recent output losses as permanent as opposed to cyclical. It output is not far from what we consider to be potential, there is less need for central banks to act and it is more likely that we will see an earlier normalization of monetary policy towards a neutral stance. Why did they change their mind? Is this evidence consistent with the standard economic models that we use to think about cyclical developments? Measuring potential output or the slack in the economy has always been challenging. One can rely on models that capture the factors that drive potential output (such as the capital stock or productivity or demographics) or one can look at more specific indicators of idle capacity, such as capacity utilization or...
Post a Comment
Read more