Talk:List of regions by past GDP (PPP) per capita

Question about Maddison estimates

It appears the only estimates available on wikipedia are that of Maddison, which is not exactly the best way to insure balance. For starters, a wide variety of estimates for past GDP (PPP) per capita are avilable (with huge margins of error for all), and it is best to list them all to give readers a balance. For example, the estimates of Bairoch, another economic historian, puts Chinese per capita income in 1800 at a higher level than western Europe, yet Maddison believes Finland, with its self-sufficient Natural economy, had a higher level of GDP per capita than China. It would be best to list all the estimates to ensure balance.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Reestablished the logical sequence: standard view - minority view - criticism of minority view. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your deletion of sourced references is troubling and a prime example of WP:OWN.1. You accuse me of WP:OWN, but when did I ever not let you include your information when it was backed by a good, reliable source in the appropriate section? This incident, in which an undue role was given to the traditional view and the latest information from renowned scholars deleted, is extremely troubling, to say the least. The section is titled "Other views", so logically it should beging with views other than Maddison's. Your misrepresentation of Bairoch is also troubling; his views were that China's GDP per capita was higher than England til 1800's, hardly the standard view; whether he thought GDP per capita stagnated from 1500 to 1800 is not the issue here (quite possible, considering the destruction of the Manchu conquest). The issue here is whether Chinese productivity was higher than the west til 1500 or 1800; the former defended by the outmoded "oriental despotism" view of Maddison who believed China was a proto socialist despotism, and the latter view defended by Pomeranz, Bairoch, Needham, and Allen et al which believes that the evidence shows that China was not so and retained its lead in agricultural productivity, per capita incomes and wealth til the 19th century.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No one other than you entitled the section "other views", so your argumentation is circular. You are also wrong (or rather blind) about Bairoch - Maddison's views on him are all properly cited and you did not refute Maddison's factually correct criticism that Bairoch never did a proper analysis of extra-European GDP per capita. Then you also habitually misrepresent Allen (see Talk:List of regions by past GDP (PPP) per capita#Sources used to counter Pomeranz). Hobson is no economic historian and does not present an analysis of his own, so he has little place here too. That makes you wrong on all accounts, so what is rationale for edit-warring here again? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was the one that titled it "Other views". Kanguole 23:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

And where with the many scholarly works which confirm Maddison's views? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Complete failure on your point. First of all, Allen's statistics are clearly represented in the article and not misrepresented at all, contrary to your statements. Secondly, Allen state clearly that the "evidence support the revisionist case" (Pomeranz's case), clearly siding with Pomeranz et al.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Silver wages paper

I've read the silver wages paper (the one by Gupta et al), but nowhere did they take into account the fact that silver was much more valuable (as in several hundred percent) in China; that more or less destroys its credibility as a source (in fact, they mentioned this and blissfully dismissed it, as trade will make currencies "reflect purchasing power"; not even in today's globalized world do they!).Teeninvestor (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OR on your part. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: How could Paul Bairoch "have disputed" Maddison's 2007 figures if he died in 1999?! Do you actually know what you are writing in your blind anti-Western onslaught? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Bairoch is cited by Pomeranz as a scholar who provided alternative estimates of GDP per capita. And no, I am not "anti-western" (Why else would I identify with western classical liberalism?), though you are certainly blindly anti-Chinese. Also, the paper has many, many problems; if they refuse to identify even fundamental issues such as this (they even noted this in their paper but did nothing to address it!), they are not a reliable source. I have my doubts about Maddison as well; he claims Africa in 1 CE and Finland in 1700 had higher GDP per capita than China, and that Africa's GDP per capita was equal to France. Such blind errors stretches belief and seriously undermines his credibility.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have my doubts about any estimates, but after your last edit crediting a dead with "disputing" Maddison's figures, I am finally sure you know nuts about it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I know nuts about it? Okay, so I accidentally put Bairoch in (as Pomeranz was citing him). So? That doesn't change the fact that Maddison's estimates are completely contrary to common sense (this problem is not confined to China; he claims north america in 1 CE had the same GDP per capita as Roman Britain), and that alternative estimates which seem much better are available.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources used to counter Pomeranz

I don't want to seem picky, but the sources used to counter Pomeranz have several major mistakes that greatly reduce their value. The silver wages paper, as I have stated previously, does not take into account that silver was worth several hundred percent more in China than in Western Europe. Modern-day scholarship mentions that silver is trading to gold at 13:1 or so in Europe, but 4:1 during the Ming and 8:1 during the Qing. it also ignores that wages in China were supplemented by large food allowances which would have raised real wages even more (Despite noting this fact and then "dismissing it"; this seriously undermines their credibility). The second paper rests its argument on that Chinese farmers were able to secure "permanent tenancies" at the expense of landlords, who was then able to extract "maximum rent". Huh? This does not fit the state of the Chinese economy at all (Neither does Maddison's belief that China was an economy full of bureaucratic monopolies squeezing every cent out of the peasantry; The Ming was laissez faire, and while the Qing was worse they were no Louis XIV). Lande and others' sources revive seriously outdated theories and are so amateurish compared to Pomeranz, Maddison, etc that they're not even worht mentioning.

However, there are quality sources that can be used to replace these sources. For example, Philip Huang's "involution" thesis 1 is more respectable, and is the standard counter-argument to Pomeranz (as shown by this paper), though it has its own problems. But some of the sources currently being used are seriously defective.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

A key problem in this article is the undue weight given to the "traditional view" which has been exploded in recent research on Chinese per capita incomes. I have seen almost no paper made after 2000 (besides the extremely poor silver wages paper, which inadvertently confirms this; the problems are documented above). I have added the latest research done by Allen (2009) on per capita incomes and some of Bairoch's estimates to reflect the current state of scholarship on this issue. After all, the scholarship on China has progressed a lot since Maddison's "oriental despotism" approach. The removal of sources in which alternative estimates are provided are a serious problem.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Bairoch is not even consistent in itself: his last major work of 1997 is much nearer to the standard view in that it assumes a largely stagnating or even shrinking Asian GDP per capita. So Pommeranz is only citing Bairoch's early work, but ignores his last view, which is, of course, the one which should stick more. PS: I removed Hobson as he is no economic historian (but a political scientist), and offers no analysis of his own, but merely summarizes the point made of the early Bairoch and Pomeranz. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not Hobson I'm defending. It's the estimates of Robert Allen, who has done numerous studies on income levels on the Yangtze delta and various European countries in 1999, 2002, and 2009, and whose latest work is presented here. This new data is much more relevant, and comes at a time to strongly support Pomeranz's assertion (not to mention your contradictory altitude towards Bairoch; you use his estimates for Europe, but refuse to use them for Asia?) I don't think anybody would doubt Chinese GDP per capita fell from 1600 to 1800 (which is what I assume the "inconsistency" of Bairoch is); the part which is disputed is at what level was Chinese incomes during the late imperial period; a high level exceeding Europe til 1800 (the view of Pomeranz, Allen, Hobson et al) or a low level that was surpassed by 1500 (the "Oriental despotism" view of Maddison)? I think you will find very few defenders of Maddison's view in the latest works in this field such as Allen's. It is well known now that Maddison's views, such as low agricultural productivity in China and ancient China being a proto-socialist despotism, are now as discredited as the Flat Earth theory. I find you have a tendency to refer to Bairoch's estimates as "guesstimates"; would you care to inform the reader that Maddison viewed his own estimates as such as well? With the latest information available, I don't think Pomeranz et al's view is a "minority view". Teeninvestor (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's odd that you say "I don't think anybody would doubt Chinese GDP per capita fell from 1600 to 1800", when you know that Pomeranz contradicts this.[1][2] Kanguole 07:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Pomeranz mentions per capita growth in the 18th century. This definitely happened; whether it ever regained the Ming height in 1600 lost after the Manchu invasion is another matter. Research by Allen et al indicates otherwise.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Pomeranz relies on Bairoch, but Bairoch's guessimates have been exposed by Maddison as what they are. bairoh actually never presented a macroeconomic calculation for the third world, including China. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither did Maddison, who thought China was some sort of socialist despotism. And he called his own estimates guesstimates, as I proved below.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Allen

I see you continue to rely on Little's reporting of an early version of Allen's paper, rather than Allen's own revised version, which has a graph showing a very slight fall in labour productivity between 1600 and 1800, of which he says "I find no significant evidence of falling productivity in the next to centuries" (misspelling in original). And he's careful to say that extending his comparison of England and the Yangtze delta to the whole of Europe and China would be speculative. Oh, and "d" means pence, not dollars. Kanguole 22:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Where does he say that? and I think all estimates in this are speculative.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Page 15 of the online version: "These findings are contingent on the data used for the analysis. The Chinese data, in particular, have many weaknesses. Even for the Yangtze Delta, key parameters are poorly established. Other regions need to be studied to establish comparisons between China and Europe in their entirety." Kanguole 08:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

All pre-1900 GDP data is extremely unreliable. Even in the 1800's there are disputes on the rate of GDP growth in the west (though it was much faster than our current protosocialist system, thats for sure).Teeninvestor (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma has removed the sentence "Economic historian Robert Allen estimated that family incomes in the Yangtze delta, the richest region of China, were the equivalent of 19 pence per day in 1820, compared with 20 pence per day in the English Midlands", calling it unverified. However the last row of the referenced Table 7 in that paper does indeed contain the numbers given. It also gives Yangtze Delta income in copper cash, from which he has calculated the equivalent in contemporary English pence, using the PPP exchange rate he has spent much of the paper calculating. Kanguole 10:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we quote from the peer-reviewed version, please? The comparison is not there in table 7. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the last line of table 7 in the version you have? Kanguole 10:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's "Real family income over 365 days" "246.4" (1620) "137.7" (1820). GB is not even mentioned, the table is only about the Yangzi delta. Could we please stick to the published, final version, not some working paper? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you out of your mind? I have the final version and it states that right here. You're either having a wrong version or deliberately lying. The paper is titled: Agricultural Productivity and Rural Incomes in England and the Yangtze Delta, c. 1620- c. 1820; why would it be titled that if there was no comparison? GPM, being biased is one thing, lying is another; don't please don't deliberatly lie. This paper we got off Allen's official site and the figures are right in front of our eyes. And me and Kanguole are not blind. Now it's possible your version may have the chart elsewhere, but its definitely there. And you know it.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact, this is not Allen's only paper. paper uses three methods and estimates English real wages as 75%, 78% or 105% of Chinese real wages in Guangzhou; the Yangtze would thus be higher. Nearly all recent studies I have read on comparison of real wages have supported the revisionist position, except the paper which didn't account for the silver discrepancies; when Allen corrected for that, the English wage was only 75% that of Guangzhou. GPM, I find your repeated use of that paper very disturbing; Allen states clearly their fallacy:

Since prices as well as wages were lower in China than in Europe, low Chinese silver wages do not imply that the standard of living was lower in China.

This is common sense.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't refer to commons sense. I have the final, peer-reviewed version directly before my eyes: Allen concludes, in the summary, that English wages were higher than Chinese since the mid-17th century and he calls this increasing gap explicitly (one of the facets of) the beginning of the "Great Divergence". Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That's completely wrong. Allen's data shows clearly that per mou productivity was several times that of England and only was low due to less days worked. than Please give me that statement now; If I don't see that statement (and a link) I will conclude you are lying. It would completely contradict Allen's thesis, as he stated clearly that Chinese family incomes were lower due to lower female wages, which completely contradicts your statement.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

More misrepresentation of sources

Not only did GPM blatantly misrepresent Allen's source above, he even misrepresented that of Brenner. Brenner was arguing against Pomeranz's thesis that coal and colonies by claiming that China's agriculture was semi feudal while Britain had market agriculture. These sources are arguing against Pomeranz's thesis of coal and colonies overcoming a malthusian restraints, not necessarily his findings (China's GDP per capita equal or higher to Europe). Duchesne is mainly arguing against Pomeranz's thesis and that is more or less irrelevant; the relevant scholars we want to find are those who support Maddison's view that Europe was already ahead of China by a large margin in 1800; Duchesne does not provide arguments for this. Thus, I removed both sources and added the main opposition to Pomeranz, Philip Huang.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Both are exxperts and thus absolutely relevant. Your criticism is unsubstantiated and very much fabricated. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Show me the page number where Brenner stated GDP per capita was higher in China than Europe? Show me the page number where Duchesne argues for a higher GDP per capita for Europe (besides his short cite of Maddison)? Stop your WP:OWN.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I gave you the page numbers. What do you read there what contradicts what I claim they say? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Show me the quotes. I read through both and I didn't see anything you alleged, besides the super-unreliable Silver wages paper.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Final comment

I shall say this only once. Give me the link for your extraordinary claim that Allen meant the opposite of what he said, and the claims of Duchesne and Brenner talking about high GDP per capita of Europe, if you are being truthful. You have removed sources from sight so readers could not see them, claimed Allen said the opposite of what he meant (he claimed Chinese per capita income was substantially higher in 1620 than Britain).Teeninvestor (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I went to the link you provided, and I found this:

The productivity of agriculture in England and the Yangtze Delta are compared c.1620 and c.1820 in order to gauge the performance of the most advanced part of China vis-à-vis its counterpart in Europe. The value of real output is compared using purchasing power parity exchange rates. Output per hectare was nine times greater in the Yangtze Delta than in England. More surprisingly, output per day worked was about 90 per cent of the English performance. This put Yangtze farmers slightly behind English and Dutch farmers c.1820, but ahead of most other farmers in Europe—an impressive achievement. There was little change in Yangtze agricultural productivity between 1620 and 1820. In 1820, the real income of a Yangtze peasant family was also about the same as that of an English agricultural labourer. All was not rosy in the Yangtze, however, for incomes there were on a downward trajectory. Agriculture income per family declined between 1620 and 1820, even though income per day worked changed little since population growth led to smaller farms and fewer days worked per year. The real earnings of women in textile production also declined, since the relative price of cotton cloth dropped—possibly also because a larger population led to greater production. The implication is that the Yangtze family, unlike the English family, had a considerably higher real income c.1620, and that period was the Delta's golden age.

Your statement was directly contradicted.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Main and minority view

Maddison, Angus (2007): "Contours of the World Economy, 1–2030 AD. Essays in Macro-Economic History", Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-922721-1, p. 49:

This mainstream view is reflected in Landes whose overall assessment, like that of Smith, was similar to mine. “Western Europe was already rich before the Industrial Revolution — rich by comparison with other parts of the world of that day. This wealth was the product of centuries of slow accumulation, based in turn on investment, the appropriation of extra–European resources and labour, and substantial technological progress, not only in the production of material goods, but in the organisation and financing of their exchange and distribution ... it seems clear that over the near–millennium from the year 1000 to the eighteenth century, income per head rose appreciably — perhaps tripled.”

Even Pomeranz actually confirms on p. 49 that there exists a common view which is that Europe's GDP per capita already rose before the industrialization:

<A couple of analyses> dovetail with the common claim that Europe was already richer than the rest of the world before industrialization.

So, there is universal agreement what is generally considered the standard view (Maddison ect.) and the minority view (Pomeranz), and from now on we will name these two schools exactly this way, too (where appropiate). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There's obviously no debate on whether European per capita income rose before industrialization. That's obvious. It's also obvious that from 1500 to 1800, European per capita growth was faster than China (except maybe during the late Ming boom). No one's disputing that. The only thing being disputed is the relative level of development. It seems that the revisionist view is that China's development was far above Europe with its increases in agricultural productivity til roughly 1800 when it was surpassed. Nowhere do I see scholars suggesting Maddison's view is standard (it's based on extremely outdated information to be sure). The coverage of the debate (which I read in a journal) also does not suggest this; it calls Maddison et al's view the "traditional view" and pomeranz et al's view the "revisionist view". It would be absurd to suggest otherwise.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Maddison says the view that the Great Divergence started by the early modern period is standard, Landes says it is standard, Duchesne says it is standard, even Pomeranz who tries to argue against it, says it is standard. Therefore, it is standard, irrespective of what you claim otherwise. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Where did Pomeranz said it was standard? He said it was common. Wealth coming from printing money is also a common view. Does that mean its the standard view in economics?Teeninvestor (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Maddison on Bairoch

The statement that Bairoch later modified his view is cited to Maddison (2006), p. 49, but I cannot find it there. Kanguole 11:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's in the double book which was later published comprising his two main works as two seperate volumes:

In Maddison (1983), I contrasted the Landes view with Bairoch’s (1981) assessment of relative income per head. He suggested that China was well ahead of Western Europe in 1800, Japan and the rest of Asia only 5 per cent lower than Europe, Latin America well ahead of North America, and Africa about two thirds of the West European level. This highly improbable scenario was never documented in the case of Asia, Latin America or Africa. His figures for these areas were essentially guesstimates. Bairoch consistently took the position that the third world had been impoverished by the rich countries (see Bairoch, 1967), and he was, in fact, fabricating ammunition for this hypothesis (see the critique of Chesnais, 1987).

In contrast to a certain other user, I don't get a kick from making up my sources. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

How does this relate to "Bairoch later modified his view to the effect that the major Afro-Asian regions all stagnated or declined in the early modern period"? Kanguole 11:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Uups, my bad. It's on p. 628:

To me the most surprising and interesting part of <Bairochs'> 1997 study is his discussion of the relative performance and interaction of the European and Asian economies between 1500 and 1800. He suggests that Asia was probably somewhat more advanced than Europe around 1500 and that by the eighteenth century this advantage had disappeared. The Muslim advantage over Europe in the Abbasid caliphate peaked in the 10th century; Chinese superiority had been greatest in the 12th century; the peak for Moghul India was in the 16th century, and that of the Ottoman Empire around 1600. Stagnation or decline followed thereafter, whereas Europe made substantial progress from 1500 to 1800. This analysis is difficult to reconcile with his earlier position, but it is much nearer to my view of the relative performance of these two parts of the world economy between 1500 and 1800.

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In contrast to a certain user, I note that Maddison also called his own estimates "Guesstimates", not to mention that Bairoch is not only the info available. And it's clear from this passage that Bairoch's view did not change; he didn't take back his claim that Chinese GDP per capita as higher than Europe in 1800 (note he said Asia, not China). Whether he believed GDP per capita stagnated is questionable (I would agree with him the Chinese advantage was greatest during the 12th century), but the main issue here is the relative position of GDP per capita in 1800, not growth. It is quite possible Chinese per capita incomes never recovered to the 1600 peak after the Manchu conques.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Where did Maddison calls his own estimates "guesimates"? Page number? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

take a look for yourself. (Postscript; from older version of Maddison's book, apology).

By the way, I"m curious about Maddison; he supports the standard view that Chinese agricultural tools were many times more productive than Rome, but then contradicted himself claiming that Europe was higher (or equal) during that era? I admire Maddison for some of the work he did, but his work on China has several pretty wrong assumptions; he assumes that Han per capita income was lower than Rome even though he clearly knew about Han China's vast superiority in agriculture, and he assumes that China's GDP per capita doubled during the Mao era!(Something no Chinese would ever believe; I'm inclined to think the reverse happened but the best estimate is stagnation; this alone would make Maddison's estimates completely wrong). Other scholars such as Needham have claimed that China's GDP per capita was higher than Europe from the 5th century BCE onwards.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 values

I would like to adjust the figures to 2010 levels ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt All you have to do is multiply them by 1.67.--J intela (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)--J intela (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I am afraid your latest addition to List of regions by past GDP (PPP) per capita is all WP:OR, since the data is not contained in the Bureau of Labor Statistics you quote as source. And, personally, I don't see the value in adding the same data set by the same author again only adjusted for inflation. We could do this in 2011 Euro as well, but where would be the point? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The data is there, the december collum of the year 1990 is 130.7 the last collum of the year 2010 is 218.8. 218.8 divided by 130.7 is 1.67 that's the ratio of the value of the dollar in 2010 to that of 1990, and it is relavent becouse the figures make the incomes dirrectly comparable to countries today.--J intela (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

The article as it stands is blatently POV in the selection of the areas it covers, which omit the Middle East and West Asia. Iran and Iraq were the richest areas in the world in the year 1000 per Maddison's figures. In addition the figures in Maddison's book are cited there to the tables maintained on his website, and we should be using the latest version there, as Maddison intended, which also has the huge advantage that it is freely accessible to all, unlike the somewhat outdated figures in his book - in fact the changes are not enormous, but some are significant. Obviously using a single source is much better all round. Since his death further updates to his figures are cleared through a board of like-minded historians on his foundation - though in fact I'm not sure there have been many. Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that the above user has been trying for over a week to push his agenda of a "generally wealthier Islamic world" at Talk:Medieval art#Historical comparison of wealth through and is now trying to widen the dispute to other pages. In contrast to her unsubstantiated allegations, the reason why the article is based on Maddison's 2007 "Contours of the World Economy" is pretty mundane: Contours is the last major publication by Maddison on the development of the world economy. Unlike the loose excel sheets from the late Maddison's website which appear to be little more than drafts it has the advantage of being a reviewed published work which can be purchased on the free market and comes handy to any reader. And, even more importantly, unlike the bare excel sheets the figures are not given without any explanation, but it is a complete work, where the author offers on over 500 pages a narrative of the historical development of each world region and each table is accompanied by a large amount of text.

The real reason why Johnbod wants the excel sheets introduced, is, as she has admitted, because it gives slightly higher numbers for Islamic Near Eastern countries such as Iraq and Iran. I mean how POV is that, changing a table just to make a few countries in the Near East look better. The fact remains Contours, along with the 2006 The World Economy, are Maddison's main works and the ones which are cited by scholarship. They thus have to be given absolute preference over unpublished draft material. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"her"??? I'll say it again - the book cites the figures to the website. This was how Maddison operated; the website, now being maintained by a devoted band of academic acolytes, was intended to be the main single source for the latest figures of Maddison's "project", while the figures in his many works gradually became out of date. This is a side issue to the POV exclusions. I don't (unlike GPM, as regular viewers will know) have an agenda here; I just want the major areas of the world all represented on the same basis. What justification is there for excluding them currently? Please explain. The figures for Iran & Iraq are exactly the same in the book & the website, & other high figures for Islamic areas - eg Arabia - are in the book but not on the website. So if anything the figures in the book are better for the Middle East, or would be if they were not mysteriously missing' from the table here. I repeat, why is that? Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The website with the excel sheets has already been included for eons under external links, so your allegations of POV are quite a bit over the top. Here is no POV unless you want to believe in it. I'd like to believe in your sincerity here, but your edit-warring on medieval art unfortunately shows otherwise.

Whatever, I too want the same basis for all entries, but this consistency is best achieved by quoting all numbers from one and the same source, namely the last book by Maddison. Paul Bairoch, another prime macro-economists, isn't cited either on the basis of his multiple articles but his last major journal article on the topic. That is in fact the reason why I created so many tables instead of a single one, to give each of them the highest possible amount of consistency and integrity. Before, when I took care of this article and its sister article on GDP per regions, both were a mess. Countries were arbitrarily added up to represent empires and numbers from a multitude of sources widely differing in character and quality were included depending on the agenda of the latest editor. We don't want a repeat of this situation.

Your insistence to give preferential treatment to unpublished, unreviewed and uncommented statistical series over his major publications (2006 & 2007) just because it happens to give a favourite area of yours a few more bucks per capita for a single point in time is a bit too transparent POV. You should understand that the figures themselves are anyway not so important, but the scholarly discussion of these and how they were arrived at is and this you only find in Maddison's books. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Argentina

I think it would be interesting to have some information about Argentina, the only country that has gone from being one of the richest in the early 1900s to one of the developing countries in the 2000s. Apparently it is a very unique case:

• The fourth group of countries encompasses those that were developed in 1900 and are developing in 2000. Only one country falls into this category and that is Argentina.
• Although placed among the highest incomes per capita in the world in 1900, “Argentina’s ratio to OECD income fell to 84 percent in 1950, 65 percent in 1973, and a mere 43 percent in 1987. . . Argentina is therefore unique (della Paolera and Taylor, 2003, p. 5). pdf

I hope somebody else can add some information about this in the article (to show an example of a country going from rich to developing). Regards.85.50.203.110 (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Uhm why are the countries gdp here different than in pervious versions? USSR in particular seems to have doubledAdrian234567 (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Regions with the US?

Is there a source giving historical regional wealth for the US? I've been unable to find one. Philgoetz (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)