Talk:Statistics relating to enlargement of the European Union

Untitled

don't you think that ukraine and moldova are better of being at the "russia etc". category? or countries that have no hope of joining soon be in a different category?

i would prefer that moldove ukraine and belarus will be part of the "better chances of joining" category.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ifeldman84 (talk • contribs) 17:30, Apr 14, 2006 (UTC).

Well Ukraine probably has more chance of joining sooner than Russia and Kazakhstan. Moldovoa , since it closely borders both Romania and Ukraine, also. But this does not represent any political viewpoint, I simply copied and updated the tables the previous writer had made. It is simply a guide to statistics, not an indication of when specific countries may join Rob.derosa 23:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are the earlier statistics shown using modern data? It's a bit confusing... Also the GDP per capita data is confusing... 68.17.200.204 23:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Find better data then. Also how is it confusing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rob.derosa (talk • contribs) 22:58, May 16, 2006 (UTC).

It's not just confusing; it's incorrect. It reflects the average (arithmetic mean) of the countries' GDPs per capita, rather than actually indicating the overall GDP per capita of the member states. For example, look at the 1958 data. The EEC6's GDP per capita is stated as $35,129.83. There are two problems with this. First, only tiny Luxembourg has an income above $32,000; the actual GDP per capita of the EU6 is $29,869.18. Second, giving a number accurate to seven significant figures is impossible, since the GDP is only given to four. Thus, one ought to give the GDP per capita as $29,870, as anything else gives a false sense of accuracy.

Furthermore, it's ridiculous to give present GDPs when the organisation was founded 50 years ago. For example, the Republic of Ireland was by far the poorest country in the EEC9, but is now one of the richest in the world. Furthermore, Germany is assumed to have included East Germany way back in 1958, whilst Greenland is assumed to have never joined. This article doesn't even attempt to reflect that. Bastin 14:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the most useless article I've come across on Wikipedia, bogus statistics and speculation. The only truth in this is the section about the 2004 enlargement. --Bjarki 15:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I found out that the statistics used here, are not on the same level as they are used in the topic of List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. For an example, the statistics on this page suggest that Germany and Belgium have a higher GDP than The Netherlands. However, accourding to the page of List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, The Netherlands has a higher GDP than both Germany and Belgium. So what are the right/ official/ correct statistics??? --84.104.123.100 17:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Flawed calculations

The GDP per capita figures seem to have been calculated as a simple average of the GDP per capita of the single countries, instead of dividing the total GDP by the total population of the different blocs. The corrected calculations give very different values - which I've substituted only in the first and second table (that's why you see a very noticeable error in the third one, where it gives a blatantly erroneous figure as for the variation of GDP per capita compared to the former bloc). Anyone can continue? :-/

Leaden´skij 20:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• This article should be deleted for making false calculations based on false assumptions. Pavel Vozenilek 00:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Although it shouldn't be deleted, it should be thoroughly over-hauled, requiring a four-point approach:

1. Statistics should be found, and used, for area, population, and (most importantly) GDP at the time of entry into the organisation. Data should be found to allow comparisons with current situations (e.g. EEC6 in 1973, EEC9 in 1981, etc).
2. All of the 'future expansion' sections should be deleted, with the exception of Romania, Bulgaria, and the three official candidate countries.
3. Special regions' circumstances should be reflected. Thus, Greenland should be treated as being in the EEC until 1985, whilst East Germany and Berlin should not be until 1990.
4. Statistics should be given correctly; averages should be given correctly and data should not be given to beyond an appropriate degree of accuracy.

If any one of these points cannot be addressed, for lack of will or lack of information, the article ought to be deleted. Bastin 10:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Requiring Editing

I'm sorry but the area "Barcelona Process" drives me insane. It is obviously written by someone without English as a first language, which makes some of the paragraph hard to understand. Also, a thorough use of the shift key is in order. If someone with a better grasp of language than myself could edit, perhaps . . . 82.19.8.110 19:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment and I have edited as follows:

Barcelona Process nations

These nations aren't likely to join the EU, because they are outside Europe, but on the other hand they are participants in the Barcelona Process, with the aim of aligning themselves and integrating with the EU (but not joining it). This will lead to significant improvements in their relations with the EU, which in some cases are already better than EU relations with some Eastern European countries already mentioned. For example relations between the EU and Tunisia are better than relations with Belarus, so it is more likely in that sense that Tunisia or Israel would join than Belarus. In addition, the reason why Cyprus joined was not because of its geographical location, but because of its historical, cultural and political connections with Europe. If there is to be further integration, this could also apply to the Barcelona Process participants, which is why it is worth mentioning them in this context.

• The ``Barcelona Process`` would be like Japan becoming part of the United States. No chance of happening. Ever.

/me eu citizen

Another problem! The Barcelona Process mentions nothing about Libya, yet on the map Libya is colored in blue. I beleive the fault is in the latter, as Libya was not present at the conference. -Alexandre-Jérôme

Why Ukraine is grupped with Caucasus?

Why Ukraine is grupped with Caucasus and Belarus is not? I think Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus and probably Russia should be grupped together. And Caucasus shown separately.--Nixer 23:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed in theory, but nobody really cares. The only potential members that should even be mentioned should be Bulgaria and Romania (as they'll join in a few days) and Croatia, FYROM, and Turkey (as they're officially accession candidates). Gazing into a crystal ball is just not on. Bastin 23:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleting all and sundry as potential members?

Should I go ahead and delete statistics related to those countries that aren't explicitly within the plan to expand the European Union? It really isn't encyclopaedic, and, IMO, the removal of all except the current 27 members and 3 official candidates is a requisite for this being an acceptable article. Bastin 16:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed numbers

Changed Croatin joinig GDP -1.74% of 25,160.59 is not 23,649.21 but 24,722.79

Contemporary data

I've corrected the data to reflect the actuality of the time (as promised above), but it's not quite complete. I've haven't taken into account Greenland or French Algeria (i.e. they're treated as though they've always been outside the EU). Furthermore, the source from which I got all this data only has stats for up to 2006. Hence, I've had to use the current data for the 2007 expansion, which is clearly accrued with a different methodology. Thus, it doesn't really make perfect sense. However, it's still a vast improvement over before.

That fixes the first point raised above. I'm still in favour of deleting all speculative entries (i.e. those 'future expansions' that affect non-candidate countries). If that's done, the 2007 expansion gets the same treatment vis-à-vis contemporary data, and the hash of ignoring Greenland and French Algeria is amended, this article would actually be worth something. Here's to hoping, eh? Bastin 19:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Speculation has now been deleted. I'm going to try to find statistics for French Algeria and Greenland, and add them. Bastin 20:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Bastin never actually found stats about Greenland and French Algeria. I'm much more worried to find a lot of errors in very basic additions about Population figures after 1981. I've corrected a few of them, but it seems very hard to guess if they are good enough, as no source has been cited to this moment. MarcoZec (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Further Statistical Inconsistencies

The GDP and GDP per capita figures for Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia are according to PPP whereas the the figures for the 2004 Enlargement countries are nominal.. The GDP figure for Macedonia is nominal but the GDP per capita is based on PPP (!) GDP and GDP per capita figures for Turkey are nominal. Also, the population figure for Turkey is over 3.5 mio more than compared with the figure in its wikipedia article. I think this article should either get its figures right based on the same criteria or should be deleted.. Yucina (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect figures

The figures for the founding 6, per capita GDP in 1958 may be incorrect. A good source is Andic, Suphan and Peacock, Alan T (1961). The International Distribution of Income, 1949 and 1957. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (General). Vol. 124, No.2, pp. 206-218. Italy's per capita GDP was 51% of the average and Luxembourg's was quite higher. The present per capita GDP do not look correct, Turkey's looks underestimated by 30%. I am using as a source this document from the EU: http://ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/others/58/countries_en.doc Tbenbrahim (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Tony BenBrahim

The source for these data is the Groningen Growth and Development Centre Total Economy Database.

The reasons, I would suggest, for the disparities between the data that I have used and those that you have presented, are three-fold:

1. The Groningen data are GDP, whereas the Andic et al data are GNP.
2. The Groningen data are PPP (US$, 1990), whereas the Andic et al data are nominal.
3. The Groningen data are given retrospectively, whereas Andic et al data are derived from contemporary national account statistics.

I would suggest that the disparity with Italy's number is a product of the latter two factors. Italy had a low cost of living, whilst national account statistics would have been significantly under-reported due to the high-intensity of the underground economy in Italy back then. The Luxembourg disparity is probably due to the first factor, as the economy of Luxembourg was heavily dependent upon companies operating overseas, such as Arbed (now part of ArcelorMittal).

Whether one uses PPP or nominal is a matter of preference (that is, of what is supposed to be illustrated). I suggest that we stick to these figures for the reason that it is the only reliable source that I've found that presents both key statistics (GDP and population) for all countries, over the entire time series. Bastin 12:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

"Candidate countries" accuracy

The various subsections that estimate various EU28 rely on different statistics for EU27 (which are themselves not the same as the 2007 statistics presented earlier). They should either rely on the same baseline or different ones, but in either case the baseline data should be included.

Aside from that inconsistency, it's obvious the data is plain wrong: for example, the ratio of GDP per capita decrease percentage to population increase percentage is lower for Iceland than for Croatia, which makes no sense as the GDP per capita is closer to EU27 average in Iceland. --Shenanenigans (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added the EU27 stats for 2011 for clarity purposes. If anyone wants to amend the other figures, be my guest. D-Notice (talk)

I've added Serbia D-Notice (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Updated Croatia D-Notice (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Iceland too D-Notice (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Macedonia as well D-Notice (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

... and Turkey D-Notice (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

added Montenegro D-Notice (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

If someone could check my figures I would be very grateful.... D-Notice (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviosly something is wrong with the Icelandic figures. If any country with a higher GDP per capita than EU27 joins the collective GDP per capital will increase. The figures for Iceland shows a collective decrease, even thou Iceland haw a higher GDP per capita than EU27. Because of Icelands relative small population this could be either a mistake in rounding numbers or in calculation og either EU27 or E27+1.94.145.236.194 (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

GDP should be in Euro

Why are GDP quoted in US$? the majority of the countries listed use Euros and do their accounts in Euros, so the "real" figure is the original amount in Euros, before converting to a foreign currency. The Wikipedia convention is always to quote the original units if possible, then show any conversions. Most people from European countries are more familiar with Euros than any other currency. Also with the current variable exchange rates, the figures are very difficult to convert back to the original currencies as their is no indication about which exchange rate was used (that on the date the figure refers, or the current rate). TiffaF (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Algeria in 1973 Enlargement

The map shows 1973 enlargement already without Algeria, but the area figure for existing members is the same as in 1958. Igor Naumov (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Candidate section

Candidate section has been updated to 2021 figures. Should the banner be removed? Hetsre (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Brexit

Even if this article is about the enlargement of the European Union, I think Brexit should be addressed. Maybe the article should be renamed as well? Hetsre (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Needs updating

Bosnia and Herzegovina and Georgia are official candidates Iktsokh (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)