From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Question 2 Absurd Estimates 3 Deletion Candidate 4 Other References = 4.1 Deletion or refocusing 4.2 agreed 4.3 Between World Wars

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] Deletion Candidate

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)

---

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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)