Talk:List of regions by past GDP (PPP)/Archive 1

Archive 1

United States in 1500s

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm afraid that the US didn't exist at that time.--Arash Eb (talk) 06:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

What's up with "India" in the 1st Century???

Which Indian nationalist created this article and is maintaining it against edits against its blatantly obvious POV? India didn't even exist as a nation during the 1st century. It didn't exist as a nation in 1000 AD either. In fact even 1500 AD should barely count, as the Islamic Mughals were just starting to expand their empire into the region by that time. Calling the region "Indian" at those times would be as dishonest as lumping all European states in 1 AD or 1000 AD into one nation and counting all their GDPs as one lump GDP. So why is this being done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.64.100 (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I didnt do it but still ... India was united by Chandragupta Maurya in 300 BC. See the wiki article And India here perhaps refers to the entire subcontinent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.99.99.53 (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm....the so called Indian-nationalist was....Angus Maddison. Whom most of these figures are taken from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.9.74 (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

India vs. Indian Sub-continent

"These estimates refer to the combined economy of the various states located in the regions now corresponding to the Republic of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. ^ Goldsmith (p. 263, 267)."

Unless I am misinterpreting the description of the source, I believe it should be titled as "Indian Subcontinent", as the measurement seems to encompass the entire region. Furthermore, the source implies that the "various states" were not united a single political entity, such as in the Roman or Han empires. In the unlikely chance the source was only incorporating regions within the Maurya Empire (which was non-existent by the 1st century) or the Kushan Empire (which did not entirely cover the regions cited), the name should be altered to reflect so (i.e. "Han China" instead of "China", or "Mughal India" instead of "India")to alleviate any confusion. 24630 (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If they refer to the combined economy of various states, then you can compare now to the European Union, which even has a budget and a common currency.--88.18.148.161 (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It should remain as Indian Sub-continent as India back then was not even unified. Stating India will cause great confusion.Ao333 (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"Indian Subcontinent" is a geographic term; it's probably derived from the fact this part was once a floating continent that jammed with Asia or due to the boundaries of the Indian tectonic plate. Whatever, such a term that has only geographic connotations cannot be used to tag with the aggregate GDP of that region; Moreover, the term "India" doesn't mean the "Republic of India" when you are talking in an article that has to do with history. we know terms like "British India" but not "British Indian subcontinent". Also we have an article dealing with history of pre-partition India titled History of India in Wikipedia, (where I assume that this topic has been discussed and well settled there, because its a much more popular topic) which supports my case. Therefore, we have to use "India" and link it to "History of India". Arjun^codename024 06:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

So how was the Soviet Unions GDP calculated?

A little tough considering the prices were fixed. I know there are CIA estimates but the differences are huge. The USSR says military budget accounted for 5% of its GDP, the CIA says 50%. I mean c'mon.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC) i would go with whatever figure the cia did not state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 23424X234234 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move or rename

I added the move or rename tag but not too sure how to list the article on WK:RM.. can someone help?--Kaio™ (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This article relies heavily on one book. The article does not provide verity of source nor literature review on the topic of "Past GDP (PPP)", rather, it is a summery of one book. The article should be renamed to be (A review (or a summery) of "The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective" book) as the current name indicate that the article discuss the topic of "regions by past GDP (PPP)" while it merely lists quotations from one book. The article should also be moved to Wikibooks or Wikisource.--KS™ 15:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

• Is data after 1900 accurate?
• There should be enough information to get a basic estimates of GDP of all the country in the 20th century
• A separate page should be made for national GDP from 1900-2000
• It is very useful information is the information is correct!!!
• Very interesting page, but the numbers on top of the 1913 table look out of order. 67.84.164.114 22:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Why is the Middle East grouped together with Korea? Sijo Ripa 21:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The idea that the United States somehow lost GDP between 1600 and 1700 is just ridiculous.

• Why is British India seperated from the UK?

This is an appalingly badly researched and flawed document. In my opionion it should just be scrapped.

After I read the original source of Angus Maddison(see here, page 35), I found that this socalled "List of Countries" is full of loopholes. We urgently need to rename the article title and seriously rewrite the content.

For example, the original source has no "East Asia" entry (maybe someone vandalized or distorted the quoted data). AND 'East Asia', 'Latin America', 'Eastern Europe', 'Middle East', 'N. America+Australia'(It's absurd!) are not countries and should not have any rank while comparing with countries like "Finland" and "Japan" at the same time, therefore it is inappropriate having a table in Ranking form.

I added an "accuracy disputed" tag and suggest using the original format adopted by Maddison/OECD itself with a new article title, maybe the one from the original sources: "Shares of World GDP, 20 Countries and Regional Totals, 0-1998 A.D."

• Possibly Maybe Accurate

It is perfectly plausible that the United States would lose GDP during the 17th century. Being that the country didn't exist in 1600 (or 1500 when it first appears on the list) it is clear he is not referring to the country, but whatever political entities existed within the borders of the current USA. Being that most of the population was wiped out by epidemics after 1600, one would assume GDP declined as well.

Absurd Estimates

I consider most of these estimates as made out of thin air, with includes all then made before the late XXth century. How could you "measure" the gdp of such ancient economies as india and china, the ammount of information we have about their economies is nearly non existant since they did not use money in daily transactions and had no prices to make PPP. And simply because they were densely populated, he assumes that they were the weathiest regions in the planet, since he simply puts per capita incomes of 450 dollars for everybody before 1500. Also, he greatly underestimates the gdp of the roman empire, he assumes subsistence levels, something simply absurd for such advanced agricultural economy. Also, he computed the total population of the roman empire as only 45 million, lowest than all serios estimates, with put its population in the 65 million to 120 million range.

And he assumes a per capita income of only 450 dollars, with contrasts with the 2,000 dollar figure of Peter Termin (with was calculated using the rate of urbanization as and yardstick), also it is absolutely impossible to estimate per capita income with certain because of the desproportionality of price changes.

To his estimates, the roman empire had 20% of the global gdp, if Termin estimate is computed with the most accepted population estimate, the gdp of the roman empire would be 130 billion dollars, about 65% of the global gdp.--RafaelG 03:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Who is Peter Termin? deeptrivia (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, a mean the Economist Peter Temin.--RafaelG 01:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of the arguments in this disputed page seem to only be saying the the estimates of China and India are too large, and that the Roman Empire in europe should be given more due credit. However, all estimates show that India and China were the trading hubs of the world that brought in a large amount of revenue, the roman army never truly engaged in sea trade like these two nations, which could explain the discreptency. And saying that these countries are considered just for their population seems to have no scientific weight behind it. Is it not true for most of the era before 1 BC, europe had registered a very low per capital GDP while the chinese had already possessed relatively advanced technology and india was united under major kingdoms, the fractured nature of europe before the coming of the romans, just as the fractured nature of india when the british invaded, could have reduced the GDP considerably.

I believe silver, gold and copper coins were in use in India, and valued according to the prices of the metals themselves in barter value, while China used paper currency.

Apart from this, I have no idea how anyone could attach an exact number, and so reasons should be given.

@RafaelG "To his estimates, the roman empire had 20% of the global gdp, if Termin estimate is computed with the most accepted population estimate, the gdp of the roman empire would be 130 billion dollars, about 65% of the global gdp."

In that case you're ignoring the GDP of India and China. If you say that the population of Rome is ::incorrect that it isn't ~55-60 million, then the 50-55 million figure of the Han Dynasty isn't ::correct either. So even if the Roman empire had 120 million people, it still wouldn't have anything ::close to 65% of the world's gdp. You're just pulling numbers out of thin air there. Remember that ::the Romans, like the Han and India, were all primarily agricultural states. Trade was important but ::farming still provided the main source of income and taxation.

Intranetusa (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. These estimates are absurd and ridiculous, without any base. And, of course, the Roman Empire was larger, more unified and more efficient than any Indian or Chinese Empire by then.--88.18.148.161 (talk) 07:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC) you have to remember that this data is coming from an english source, which means it probably has a western bias to being with, so this probably means that the roman empire was even less wealthy than in this chart. im sure if you look at indian, or chinese data, it will place them at even higher levels than in this chart. youre also wrong about china, and india being agricultural states. does the silk road mean anything to you? of course not, you probably have 0 knowledge of eastern history. the reason why columbus tried to get to india and china was specifically to get things that they could not get in europe, and the reason why the europeans decided to sell opium in china was because the chinese did not want to buy anything from the west, while there was an abundance of items that the west wanted from china. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 23424X234234 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Candidate

Is anyone going to put this article for deletion or is it all talk? This article is full of propaganda started and used by an Indian private company (India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF)) to highlight the greatness of India (see also “Invisible side of India” on Youtube which is up loaded by the same people (IBEF) and refers to this article as evidence to India’s greatness). I doubt that anyone can learn anything useful from this article; it is no more than unreliable, un-credible targeted propaganda. Country names are not real (for that time) no real data to rely on (such as number of population and income) It is clear case of COI and data distortion to serve a commercial purpose I don't think Wikipedia is the place for such patriotic junk...! KS™ 17:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawishie (talk • contribs)

This is ridiculous - any kind of ppp comparison going back more than a hundred years is incredibly difficult to reliably calculate, and to go back to 1ce is absurd. No economic data whatsoever exists from this time, let alone sufficient quantities of information to permit comparative studies. This is fictional drivel, and is an arbitrary list of assumptions pulled out of thin air. This should be deleted. --Corinthian 17:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, even in the case of roman egypt with we have a very large ammount of papyrus preserved with mentions prices and financial data is impossible to make even a imprecise estimate for the total output of the economy.--RafaelG 21:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This is as good or bad as any other estimate related to history. I think the assumptions involved must be clearly mentioned in the article. I don't see any rationale for deletion. deeptrivia (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This page was created and used for commercial use by an Indian company (India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF)). It is currently using this page as part of a advertising campaign. It is a clear case of COI and must be deleted--KS™ 00:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

---

These estimates appear to be influenced by nationalists of varying stripes. For example, according Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones' research in their 1978 Atlas of World Population History (Penguin), China had 50 million people to India's 34 million as of 1 AD (using modern geographic boundaries instead of 1 AD's political boundaries). I'd like to see the source that verifies the claim that China's per capita GDP was only 68% of India's back in 1 AD.

Furthermore, I challenge the idea that specie in circulation is an accurate measure of GDP. Russia should not be ranked higher than Japan on the 1600 chart (one of many egregious errors). Japan had a bigger population, more internal trade, a powerful state, and the productive capacity to build two fleets significantly larger than the Spanish Armada in the decade following 1588. Spain didn't have that kind of manufacturing power- nor did Russia, or really any power other than India, China, and perhaps France.

This whole list should be discarded for the nationalist clap-trap it is. Barring that, I would like to see a calculation as to how these numbers are arrived at. Is pre-modern GDP measured in trade activity, resource extraction, agricultural productivity, some other metric, or the combination of aforementioned factors?

7.3.06, -08:00 GMT -Khakjaan Wessington,

China's per-capita GDP today is about 51% of India's...

I do agree that historical GDP figures are almost meaningless, however, even rough estimates can be useful. I would not support the deletion of this article but rather a better explanation of how the numbers were produced. Most of the difficulties involved are similar to those of estimating GDP in largely subsistence-based economies today, or estimating the size of black- or gray-market economies. It makes sense to use a default value -- and $450 is reasonable -- to represent "subsistence," then supplement this value where additional data (on trade, manufacture, or specie) is available.Stuffisthings 17:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This article should be deleted because it is impossible to calcule gdp for centuries ago since we do no have the data that is used to make gdp calculations, these numbers are all guesses.--RafaelG 04:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The very moment I glanced at this article I wouldn't for a moment use it's data, not withstanding the claims about how it is impossible to come such figures, but simply for the reason that the nations stated did not exist in the same form. For example, since when was there a 'United Kingdom' in 1500, or a 'France' to term precisely or a 'Germany'... I could very easily carry on and list practically the whole bunch of nations, because these countries did not exist in the same manner that we understand today. I am sure this is entirely obvious to everyone that views this article. It would be far more accurate to state the countries in the lists as what they were known as in that precise period, thus increasing its potential usage when referring to history. Not for a moment should data be used when it is obvious you cannot compare the 'United Kingdom' and 'France' in, for example, 1500. There was no such kingdom that was united, as each country stood individually until 1707, and a country such as Germany was made up of very different territories to what we not it to be today. A more accurate term to use for Germany up to 1806 would be 'The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation,' as historians would understand what borders were thus being referred to.

Other References

Data from UN's National Accounts Main Aggregates Database : (Just for reference)

Estimates of GDP at current prices in Billion US Dollars

1970				1980				1990				2000
Rank	Country	GDP		Rank	Country	GDP		Rank	Country	GDP		Rank	Country	GDP
—	World	3,257.4		—	World	11,771.2		—	World	21,944.3		—	World	31,654.6
1	US	1,025		1	US	2,768.9		1	US	5,757.2		1	US	9,764.8
2	USSR	402.7		2	Japan	1,062.8		2	Japan	3,039.7		2	Japan	4,746.1
3	Germany	208.7		3	USSR	928.4		3	Germany	1,711.9		3	Germany	1,900.2
4	Japan	204.4		4	Germany	915		4	France	1,231		4	UK	1,438.2
5	France	148.8		5	France	690.6		5	Italy	1,102.4		5	France	1,328
6	UK	123.6		6	UK	536.1		6	UK	989.6		6	China	1,080.7
7	Italy	107.7		7	Italy	448.8		7	Canada	574.2		7	Italy	1,074.8
8	China	91.5		8	China	301.5		8	Russia	569.7		8	Canada	714.5
9	Canada	85.1		9	Canada	265.3		9	Spain	526.4		9	Brazil	601.7
10	Brazil	67.1		10	Brazil	245.9		10	Brazil	438.3		10	Mexico	580.8
11	India	61		11	Spain	228.4		11	China	383		11	Spain	580.7
12	Australia	42.9		12	Mexico	207.7		12	India	324.3		12	S. Korea	511.7
13	Spain	40.2		13	India	183.3		13	Australia	310.5		13	India	464.9
14	Mexico	39.6		14	Netherlands	178.2		14	Netherlands	294.8		14	Australia	387.5
15	Netherlands	35.4		15	Australia	166.1		15	S. Korea	263.8		15	Netherlands	370.6
16	Sweden	34.8		16	Saudi Arabia	147.6		16	Mexico	262.7		16	Argentina	284.3
17	Argentina	31		17	Sweden	129.7		17	Sweden	240.2		17	Russia	259.7
18	Belgium	25.6		18	Belgium	121.8		18	Switzerland	235.8		18	Switzerland	246
19	Switzerland	22.6		19	Switzerland	111		19	Belgium	197.2		19	Sweden	239.6
20	Poland	20.7		20	Nigeria	92.1		20	Austria	197.2		20	Belgium	228.4

I don't think anyone can find accurate GDP statistics before late 40s. --Kerry7374 22:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Another reference.

Real Historical Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for Baseline Countries/Regions (in billions of 2000 dollars) 1971-2006

1970				1980				1990				2000
Rank	Country	GDP		Rank	Country	GDP		Rank	Country	GDP		Rank	Country	GDP
—	World	12,423		—	World	17,736.6		—	World	24,072.4		—	World	31,716.6
1	US	3,803.3		1	US	5,211		1	US	7,120.5		1	US	9,817
2	Japan	1,787.1		2	Japan	2,765.4		2	Japan	4,130.8		2	Japan	4,746.1
3	Germany	977.8		3	Germany	1,278.1		3	Germany	1,586.6		3	Germany	1,870.3
4	UK	719.1		4	UK	872.1		4	UK	1,137.4		4	UK	1,439.4
5	France	614.3		5	France	850.7		5	France	1,086.1		5	France	1,308.4
6	Italy	515		6	Italy	734		6	Italy	918.1		6	China	1,080.7
7	USSR	319.6		7	USSR	435.4		7	USSR	550.1		7	Italy	1,074.8
8	Canada	263.7		8	Canada	400.2		8	Canada	527.6		8	Canada	713.8
9	Spain	228.5		9	Brazil	391.1		9	Brazil	455.9		9	Brazil	601.7
10	Mexico	178.3		10	Mexico	340.5		10	Spain	434.6		10	Mexico	581.3
11	Brazil	173.6		11	Spain	326.2		11	China	411.5		11	Spain	561.8
12	Netherlands	167.1		12	Netherlands	222.9		12	Mexico	407.3		12	S. Korea	511.9
13	Iran	166.3		13	Argentina	212.3		13	S. Korea	288.5		13	India	457.4
14	Switzerland	158.9		14	Australia	200.2		14	Netherlands	276.6		14	Australia	389.1
15	Argentina	158.7		15	Switzerland	179.9		15	Australia	271.4		15	Netherlands	370.6
16	Australia	144.3		16	China	170.8		16	India	268.3		16	Taiwan	307.8
17	Sweden	127.3		17	Iran	156		17	Switzerland	220.4		17	Iran	303.5
18	India	113.2		18	Sweden	154.5		18	Iran	203		18	Argentina	284.2
19	Belgium	107.9		19	India	151.9		19	Sweden	191.6		19	Russia	259.7
20	China	101.8		20	Belgium	150.2		20	Belgium	183.7		20	Switzerland	246.2

• Source: World Bank World Development Indicators, adjusted to 2000 base and estimated and projected values developed by the Economic Research Service. [1]

--Kerry7374 19:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Obviously, the article is not a "list of countries". They only have 14 western European countries + Russia + US + Mexico + China + Japan and + India. Even no Canada, Brazil and Australia. That's inappropriate to make ranks here. --Kerry7374 19:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion or refocusing

Apart from all the other faults mentioned above on inaccuracy and wild speculation and inavailability of data, the article is also misleading because political boundaries have been extremely variable in the past. When one says "India" in reference to the patchwork of kingdoms existing around 1 AD, it is more than inaccurate, it is misleading. Also, political boundaries have a great effect on the GDP of a particular nation.

In addition, it makes no sense to single out certain years -- 1600, 1700, etc. -- just because they are "round", as this does not take into account periodic troughs or crests in economies.

These factors, coupled with the inaccuracies and biases (the data is from just one source, for instance) mean that the article's data prior to 1950 should be discarded wholesale, and a more detailed overview of 1950-2000 be substituted, for this is the era for which meaningful and widely accepted GDP statistics can be obtained, and the era in which the political divisions of the world settled down close enough to modern boundaries to permit meaningful comparisons.

laddiebuck 23:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The very moment I glanced at this article I wouldn't for a moment use it's data, not withstanding the claims about how it is impossible to come such figures, but simply for the reason that the nations stated did not exist in the same form. For example, since when was there a 'United Kingdom' in 1500, or a 'France' to term precisely or a 'Germany'... I could very easily carry on and list practically the whole bunch of nations, because these countries did not exist in the same manner that we understand today. I am sure this is entirely obvious to everyone that views this article. It would be far more accurate to state the countries in the lists as what they were known as in that precise period, thus increasing its potential usage when referring to history. Not for a moment should data be used when it is obvious you cannot compare the 'United Kingdom' and 'France' in, for example, 1500. There was no such kingdom that was united, as each country stood individually until 1707, and a country such as Germany was made up of very different territories to what we not it to be today. A more accurate term to use for Germany up to 1806 would be 'The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation,' as historians would understand what borders were thus being referred to. If such discrepances cannot be altered than this document has no historical withstanding and should be highly considered for deletion.

Rock_Rose 11:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for backing me up. I think the whole thing is taken from a book someone read and decided to type in. Maybe we should add a VfD template. laddiebuck 00:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the information is based only on the availability of Data wrt to present boundaries in case of India. I saw 'The Story of India' Series on Discovery Channel which mentioned that Indian GDP upto Akbar's reign was the largest in the world but started declining after his reign. Pravictor (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

agreed

we should write a caveat to this article... depending on the economic source that a person can quote, these countries can have different rankings. For instance, in many economic tallies, the chinese empire, the roman empire, the mongol empire, would have occupied the number one spot depending on the time period. Further, it is odd that we are using only one source of economic information... Not only that, the subcontinent of india for most of the pre-1945 era was subdivided into various kingdoms and it wasn't until the moghuls came along that the country looked similar to what is seen today. Don't know how that economist made these numbers. I'll add a disclaimer to the top of the page to reflect our discussions. Kanga1 22:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand why the validity of these data is any business of wikipedia to assess - the source of it is clearly indicated, this should be enough. If someone can quote a review of the book used in this article that criticises its assesment, this should be mentioned too of course. And if other data by other analists can be shown, that should be included too, for comparison. Anything more is imo against the no original research policy. Its no business of any editor here to asses the credibility of the author, unless very specific instances and/or published critiques of those assesments can be quoted. It would be great if other sources of informations were used too, provided there are comparable analysis. I find the fact that post-medieval europe is calculated fragmentary, state by state a greater problem than making imo logical summation of values for various states of antient india - aggregating it so makes the data imo more readable; more comparable. Who would wish to have a precise idea of some ancient indian state's economic status comparative to other such entities, to varrant discomodating someones interested in aggregated india's status?--83.131.155.121 04:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Between World Wars

I notice that there are no statistics for the countries' GDP in between WWI and WWII. I think it would be very interesting to include a table with data from, say, 1920,'30, or '40, if possible of course. Daniel Montin 10:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre boundaries

It is absurd that two of the largest empires (Abbasid Caliphate and Ottoman Empire) in world history aren't even listed in the centuries they were simply the most powerful countries on earth. Instead they are probably scattered into West Asia, Eastern Europe, and North Africa. However the comparable territory of Roman Empire is kept intact. No caliphate in 1000, no Ottoman Empire in 1600, who are they kidding?

Other that that, in the 20th century listings, the same few European countries seem to be listed repeatedly while there were many other larger economies.

Funny, "two of the largest empires " are unable to provide info to Wikipedia, who to blame?

So should we contact the Porte and ask them to submit their financials? ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruist22 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

add middle east data

there seems to be a gap in the info

How is China's GDP per capita about 51% of India's today? Where did u pull this from?

Urgent need for balance

It seems that this list is based on the work of one economic historian, Angus Maddison, which is controversial at best. I have noticed is that Maddison accomplishments (which are substantial regardless) have been finessed here and there. Thus he is referred to as "director of OECD," which he never was. As I say on the Talk:India page, Madison was an undergraduate at Cambridge, England; attended McGill and Johns Hopkins for graduate work, but didn't finish graduate school; thereafter joined OEEC (later OECD) in 1953 and became Assistant Director of Economic Development in 1963; left OECD in 1964 and became a consultant for the next 15 years, before joining Groningen University in 1978 and remaining there until his retirement. Maddison's book The World Economy: Historical Statistics has been criticized in many circles. Here are excerpts from a review by Brian Haig (Australian National University), the last sentence of which is a withering assessment of Maddison's Australian statistics:

Expand to read excerpts of review of Maddison's book by Bryan Haig:

“ ... "Maddison's estimates seem to be full of such indirect estimates, or simple assumptions. He seems to have a passion for believing figures once they are written down, no matter how they were estimated, and often prefers his own estimates or those of others without much explanation or justification. However, national income estimates are 'fragile'. Difficulties discussed by estimators include: the impossibility of identifying and measuring realistically the output of service industries; the lack of a framework for estimates before the 20th century as provided, for example, by population estimates needed to ensure consistency; and limitations of price series due to inadequate price data and index number problems (Wilson, 1946); (Deane and Cole, 1962; p. 4). On Australian estimates, Maddison is apparently dissatisfied with Butlin's estimates (Butlin, 1962), as well as my own, and has constructed a new series by joining the two estimates at 1910 for some unknown reason. Perhaps the intention is to have a bet each way. He makes no attempt to reconcile the estimates (which are not congruent), so his series can best be described as a hotch potch of inconstant estimates ... Maddison does not explain why he prefers my series to Butlin's before 1910, and Butlin's after 1910, apart from a reference to problems of estimation that are common to both series ... Maddison ignores, or is unaware of, the extensive criticism of Butlin's figures, by national accountants and economic historians, published in various Australian and overseas journals. Reference to other estimates described in Studenski (1958) shows Butlin's estimates to be probably the most criticized series in the history of national accounting, and probably the most unreliable. Maddison is also careless with references. He states, for example, that 'Butlin did not take his price indexes from the shelf', whereas Butlin (1962; p. 454) stated that he had used 'available price series'. He believes the industrial prices given by Sheregold in his chapter on 'Prices and Consumption' in Vamplew (1987) complement Butlin's price series, but they are, in fact, identical. He considers McLean to have added to available prices for deflating value added, but McLean's paper deals only with retail prices, considered by Butlin as irrelevant for the purpose. On my estimates, he states that I rejected Butlin's estimates en bloc and made two specific criticisms. In fact I did not criticize Butlin's overall results, but simply commented that 'My estimates are put forward as an alternative series', 'they also have limitations, and for this reason they are checked against the historical record'. Nor did I make the criticisms Maddison contends I made ... Finally, a reference should be made to the work of Sir Timothy Coghlan, the real pioneer of historical estimates, who compiled historical series of real income for New South Wales from the early 1820s to 1900. Coghlan considered the only true measure of real income was real wages, and he rejected the use of real product, because the series did not reflect the effect of overseas events on domestic income, including capital inflow and changes in the terms of trade. Roland Wilson in the 1940s (in the earlier cited reference) also rejected the use of real GDP in preference to series of real wages. Stiglitz has recently pointed out that real wages, another and possibly better measure of material welfare, declined over the post 10 years in the USA, and this despite an increase in real GDP per capita of some 1.9 per cent a year from 1991-2002. Maddison's results (based on Butlin's figures) are completely different to Coghlan's series, and by the standards of Australian official statisticians, they are inaccurate and irrelevant as a measure of Australian real income in the 19th century." ”

This article needs balance more than anything else. A Wikipedia article or list should not be based on one idiosyncratic work. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are excerpts of the review of Maddison's earlier book: Caldwell, John C. (Sept. 2002). "Reviewed Work(s): The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective by Angus Maddison", Population and Development Review, Vol. 28, No. 3., pp. 559-561.

Expand to read excerpts of review of Maddison's previous book by John Caldwell:

“ Having just coauthored an examination of the empirical basis for historical population estimates (Caldwell and Schindlmayr 2002), I wondered about the quality of the economic estimates. Our article concluded that the near consensus on population figures since 1650 rested essentially on the work of Walter Willcox, first published in 193 1 and drawing heavily for the earlier years of that period on contemporary estimates of uncertain origin mostly gathered together by Johann Siissmilch in the eighteenth century. There is now an even more shakily based agreement on population estimates over the last 2,000 years. Of those participating in this effort, Maddison has curiously elected to follow closely the work of McEvedy and Jones (1978), a highly derivative compilation, perhaps solely because they present their work in the context of modern national borders and dates suited to his approach. Maddison seems more concerned with providing estimates in "a common currency" than with the derivation of the basic economic measures. Parity purchasing power is provided by conversion into 1990 international Geary-Khamis dollars (i.e., US dollars in that year). In contrast, the explanation of the derivation of his basic economic measure (GDP per capita) for the thousand years up to AD 1000 is given in a page (pp. 259-260). The explanation refers readers to his earlier work on China (Maddison 1998), which concluded that there was little evidence of change in its level of prosperity over the first millennium and that the rest of Asia and the Roman Empire were probably not dissimilar. Economic growth estimates for the period 1500-1820 derive for much of the world from a wide range of sources on agricultural change, levels of urbanization, and prosperity. For Europe, recent modifications by Kuznets (1973) are employed. For both periods the conclusions often rest on assumptions about rates of growth of per capita income; this introduces a dangerous circularity because the purported significant findings are then often those of economic growth. ”

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And excerpts from a review by W. W. Rostow of a still earlier work by Maddison: "Reviewed Work(s): Phases of Capitalist Development. by Angus Maddison," The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 45, No. 4. (Dec., 1985), pp. 1026-1028.

Expand to read excerpts of review of Maddison's 1982 book by W. W. Rostow:

“ Maddison is a committed, even belligerent advocate of macroeconomic analysis and deplores the kind of sectoral disaggregation insisted on, for example, by Schumpeter and by me. This affects both his view of economic history and his analysis of the two phases into which he divides the period since 1950. With respect to the latter, for example, it leads him grossly to underestimate the role of falling basic commodity prices from 1951 to the mid-1960s and the consequent lift of almost 20 percent in OECD terms of trade. Because he redoubtably refuses to identify leading sectors, he misses the role of the automobile, durable consumer goods, and related industries in the extraordinary growth of Western Europe and Japan in the Golden Age, as well as the deceleration of those sectors (and rise in the marginal capital-output ratio) from the mid-1960s. For the same reason, he misses the emergence in the mid-1970s of a new round of technologies now revolutionizing manufactures and agriculture as well as services: the microcomputer, genetic engineering, the laser, new industrial materials, and so forth. In short, I would assess Maddison's analysis of his final two phases as quite incomplete. This excessive macroeconomic bias also causes him to mis-date, in my view, the beginning of what he calls the capitalist era at 1820 rather than, say, the mid-1780s; although he refers uneasily to the 1780s (p. 29) as the interval when the British took over the productivity lead from the Dutch. (By that time the technological race was, in fact,no longer between the Dutch and the British but between the French and the British.) ”

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Finally, excerpts from W. J. MacPherson's review: "Reviewed Work(s): Class Structure and Economic Growth. India and Pakistan since the Moghuls by Angus Maddison." The Economic Journal, Vol. 82, No. 328. (Dec., 1972), pp. 1470-1472.

Expand to read excerpts of review of Maddison's 1972 book by W. J. MacPherson:

“ MOST historians would be diffident at tackling India and Pakistan since the Moghuls in little more than 160 pages. Not so Maddison, already the author of several excellent "instant" comparative growth studies. He ranges in time from the days of Akbar to the recent disintegration of Pakistan; in subject from caste to the five-year plans; in area from Kashmir to Kerala. The penalty is superficiality or, in his own words, the treatment of certain topics in "a somewhat brusque and summary fashion." ... Caste, for example, is too facilely dismissed as an obstacle to growth, its precise impact on factory performance and labour mobility is not examined. Morris's criticism of the dogma on caste is relegated to a footnote, there is no reference to Lambert's Poona survey and the role of the joint family is far more complex than Maddison allows. For the non-specialist, however, this is an invaluable review of Indian economic history, much superior to books in the same genre, avoiding crude criticisms of the Raj and suitably cynical about governments since Independence.... He is weaker on demography, unduly stresses the harmful effects of the " drain " and exaggerates over-valuation of the rupee as the cause of falling exports from 1913 to 1937 (p. 60) ... ... The political historian may complain that a chapter of only four and a half pages is devoted to nationalism. But in this serviceable introduction to Indian development, with its select up-to-date bibliography, Maddison again demonstrates his qualities of conciseness, dexterity with dubious comparative data and comprehensibility if not comprehensiveness. ” W. J. MACPHERSON Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

1820 data is nuts

It is impossible for French GDP to be merely $38 billion as that implies wages were at par with China then. The correct figure should be atleast $90 billion (or 50% of China) considering the large population of France and wages had climbed to atleast 6 times that of China then. Anwar 15:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually we have detailed figures for what wages were for England AND France. http://www.le.ac.uk/hi/bon/ESFDB/RJB/RJB.htm http://www.le.ac.uk/hi/bon/ESFDB/OBRIEN/obrien.html You can compare them here. You will note that in both cases the data on this page is wrong. --Gothicform 14:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

1870 data is nuts

By 1870, Indian GDP is widely believed to have shrunk to 80% of the USA due to collapse of central authority of the Mughal dyasty since 1720. Anwar 15:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Far East v. Korea and Mongolia

I think it is better to say Korea and Mongolia instead of saying Far East. According to the Far East article, there are only six countries in the Far East, which are Mongolia, China, Taiwan, North Korea, South Korea, and Japan. However, China and Taiwan have been one unified country until 1949, and the two Koreas were an unified country until 1948. So it is better to call it Korea and Mongolia.

→ I don't agree. I don't know the definition of "Far East" in this context. Probably, i guess it includes more nations than what you mentioned. Even if the GDPs of Korea are Mongolia are added, this value is still much smaller than that of Japan, so, I think your claim is wrong. My guess is that "Far East" in this context includes other nations such as Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia... etc.

This page is very useful, thank you. We don't know if it is accurate or not, but it is very useful indeed.

Inclusion of Korea

Considering the kingdoms of Korea were much richer and much more powerful than Japan until the 15th century, I find it surprising Japan has a GDP figure but not Korea... Intranetusa (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC) korea was under chinese suzerainty at the time. so was okinawa. korea didnt really split from china until japanese occupation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 23424X234234 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Turkish/Ottoman Empire

Where is the economy of this major empire of the medieval period? It needs to be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.59.94 (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

without ottoman empire after 15th century this lists are joke! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.178.56 (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are Canada & Australia grouped together?

--64.180.226.234 (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact I'm reading the article specifically looking for Canadian vs Australian GDP... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.197.100 (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

1000?

An interesting article, but the data for 1000 simply doesn't seem believable at all. 1500 does make some sense, but this one frankly seems absurd. Kievan Rus and the Byzantine Empire, which could be included into Russia or Eastern Europe, were clearly on par with Western European states. The GDP of Poland seems to be larger than that of the entire Western Europe, even though it was freshly formed and was still struggling against the HRE (which I suppose is Western Europe). On what grounds is it excluded from Eastern Europe? Why is there no notification of its exclusion next to Eastern Europe? It is quite difficult to understand to what regions or nations do the terms used in this particular table refer. Say, Africa obviously refers to Northern Africa, yet it is impossible to understand this without knowing a little history. Perhaps it would be for the better to mark this period with an additional notification emphasising the extreme unreliability of the data once again, or exclude it altogether. --Humanophage (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

British Empire and U.K.

How can you possibly have two separate entries for the British Empire and the U.K. unless the latter was included in the former? Indeed, for the $265 billion figure, the U.K. is explicitly included in the British Empire, and yet is still separately listed. If so, the figures cannot possibly add up to 100%.

Also, why am I the first to notice this glaring error?

The data in the table needn't add up to 100%, each table only shows what info is available. So for that time, data was available for the British Empire, and the UK, so both pieces of information are given. Somebody using this list might not want to know the GDP of the whole empire, but just the UK itself, so why not give both? Deamon138 (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The logical solution is 2 entries Great Britain & British Overseas possessions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.155.229 (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

India?

It is absurd that such a large country as India should be seen as one region. Keeping in mind that India was only unified for two centuries (3rd and 4th BC) and was then divided into a number of Middle Kingdoms, why is the historical GDP of India seen as a whole? The division for the other countries is obviously not by modern geopolitical boundaries, but for existing empires at the time - take the Roman Empire and the Han Empire. They were by all means historical empires. If India is taken as one region, so should France, Italy, Germany, etc. (and whatever other countries there were in the Roman Empire), be taken in terms of GDP separately, as according to the divisions today - China should be taken as a whole as well, not just including Song China, for example, but the Liao and Xi Xia kingdoms, which occupied the north of China as it is today. Another possibility is to consider the Middle Kingdoms of India separately for GDP, after all, why should they be all considered together, when no such empire existed at the time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whipster (talk • contribs) 12:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Most likely for the very reason that is given in the article, "It is important to note that for the earlier dates there is an almost complete lack of the kind of hard data that today is used to calculate GDP values." The data for the individual parts of India just probably doesn't exist. Deamon138 (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

India????

India doesn't even exist until the British empire united all kingdoms around India and decided to call the country "India". India is practically a country created by the British. It's not suppose to be among those ancient kingdoms like Romans and Chinese. It is a well known fact that China is the most powerful empire in the ancient world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.225.192 (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, please don't insert new sections in the middle of the text. I had to move my last comment to where it was supposed to be, in the section above.

"It is a well known fact that China is the most powerful empire in the ancient world." Very POV. Depends on your definition of "ancient" since at all sorts of different times different empires were more powerful: Romans, Macedonians, Persians, Mongolians etc etc. Deamon138 (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

China's GDP per capita today is much higher than India's... check the wikipedia article on GDP(PPP). I think India's figures for 1000 and 1 AD are clearly overstated; at those times, India's economy was in tatters due to collapse, and China mostly likely had a much higher population due to the fact India was in civil war. Also, Song dynasty's GDP should be much higher, as Chinese invented and used paper money during that time, and Song dynasty had a much more advanced form of production(mercantilism) than say India or Medieval Europe(feudalism). They also had much more liberal economic policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teeninvestor (talk • contribs) 00:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you know that India was in Civil War and the Economy was in tatters? Also, I believe that the classification should be made taking into account past political scenarios and not the present boundaries. but such hard data is difficult to get I think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.99.99.53 (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

if the british are supposed to have united india, what about the maurya empire (322–185 BCE)??? see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire Samar60 (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

... or the mughal empire (1526-1858)??? see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire Samar60 (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think every one is patriotic about their countries and history, but one can't overlook the fact that India was indeed a very rich economy. Else why would the Europeans came in search of India and also why they called native Americans as Indians? why was America discovered. the decline of Indian economy was only due to the systematic attempt of colonization by the Britishers. they completely destroyed the Indian industry and agriculture by promoting England made clothes instead of Indian clothes and growing crops like indigo and cotton.Even for the historical notes it is a well known fact that clothes from India were too famous and used for Egyptian mummies. I guess people should also look into India's glorious past before making comments. --Guruduttdeshpande (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Organization Seems to Be a Mess

What are we to make of lists adding to 100% that include both "Western Europe" and individual Western European countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.197.100 (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Medieval Poland

What's with Medieval Poland having 10% of world GDP?

Ruler in 1000AD: "At the time of the reign of Mieszko there was no single place serving as the capital, instead he built several castles around his country."

10% of world GDP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.197.100 (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Per capita would be the most interesting add

Per capita would be the most interesting add TomasCantorFriedman (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"India" is correct.

I'm aware that AO333 is trying to POV-push his anti-India bias into this article, but keep in mind that "India" does not mean "Republic of India". The entire subcontinent was united, for example, under Asoka. This is why the #1 spot states India but links to History of India. It is correct that way and if I may quote Arjun024's comment above:

"Indian Subcontinent" is a geographic term; it's probably derived from the fact this part was once a floating continent that jammed with Asia or due to the boundaries of the Indian tectonic plate. Whatever, such a term that has only geographic connotations cannot be used to tag with the aggregate GDP of that region; Moreover, the term "India" doesn't mean the "Republic of India" when you are talking in an article that has to do with history. we know terms like "British India" but not "British Indian subcontinent". Also we have an article dealing with history of pre-partition India titled History of India in Wikipedia, (where I assume that this topic has been discussed and well settled there, because its a much more popular topic) which supports my case. Therefore, we have to use "India" and link it to "History of India".

Try as you might. It's staying that way. GSMR (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Roman Empire

Who calculated the value of "22 000" citing Goldsmith as reference? This is what he actually wrote on p. 263 (the p. 267 reference given leads nowhere):

In terms of settled territory the early Roman empire with about 3.3 km2 was the largest political, economic and monetary unit in the Western world until it was overtaken by the expansion of the United States and of the Russian empire in the mid-19th century. With about 55 million inhabitants it was more populous than any western country until, again, the mid-19th century, equalling even the present population of the large European nation-states-France, Germany, Great Britain and Italy; and probably was not surpassed by its only two competitors, the Chinese empire and the less durable empires that arose from time to time in the Indian peninsula, until about AD 1000. Finally, in terms of real national product, a comparison which is much more difficult to make, the Roman empire with a national product of, as will be shown below, slightly over 20 billion sesterces (HS), equal to about 1,700 t of gold, probably surpassed any Western economy until the early 19th century. On all three tests, then, the early Roman empire was the largest Western economic unit for nearly two millennia.

So how became 20 billion sesterces 22 000 international dollars? Any takers? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

None? Thought so. Even for a dim-wit, it must ring true that Raymond W. Goldsmith could not have computed this value in terms of 1990 International Dollars, since he died in 1988...So who is in charge of this splendid piece of article? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1