Which is the most prosperous city/region in the EU ?

[Grumpy]

Well I would love to know , tell me :)

[nito]

Well I would love to know , tell me :)Inner London according to Eurostat.

[crisp444]

Here is the list of all the provinces/states/regions and their comparison with the EU average, which is set at 100. Inner London is 277.6, making it the highest.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996,39140985&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=en&product=SDI_MAIN&root=SDI_MAIN/sdi/sdi_ed/sdi_ed_inv/sdi_ed1130

[Minato Ku]

Why it is inner London normaly It should be Greater London:koko:
(Inner London is not a region and not a city).

Why for France it is Ile de France and not Paris (Paris is a city and a departement)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_London :)

[Jonas]

Indeed, I don't see base on which Inner London is considered as a region (why not Greater London or even London metropolitan area?). Comparison of a few boroughs in London ("Inner London") against an entire chunk of some other countries (and not such small ones) seems rather sensless and unprofessional.

[Metropolitan]

Well, if you determine the GDP of the Opera district in Paris, the banking district in Frankfurt or the City in London, you would get sky-rocketing figures, but rather pointless.

Anyway, even outside the GDP of an overall region or province, I guess it would be interesting to know the regions in Europe having the highest growth currently. Actually, I don't have very recent figures about this.

[Jonas]

Top growers countrywise for the last few years in Europe were Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia with rates between 7 and 12 per cent annually and the banks don't seem to be considering to change their outlooks for the next 2-3 years for these countries. So naturally regions of the capital cities (where most of the growth occurs there) should be the fastest growing ones at rates of 10 to 15 per cent per annum.

[Grumpy]

Here is the list of all the provinces/states/regions and their comparison with the EU average, which is set at 100. Inner London is 277.6, making it the highest.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996,39140985&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=en&product=SDI_MAIN&root=SDI_MAIN/sdi/sdi_ed/sdi_ed_inv/sdi_ed1130

Great link, thanks

[villelumiere]

It's probably the Republic of ireland isn't it. Their per capita GDP is something staggering after 15 years of celtic Tiger growth.

[SSLL]

I think Luxembourg is higher!

[brisavoine]

What do you mean exactly by "most prosperous"? If you mean the city with the highest GDP per capita, there was a study done by the GEMACA II research group a few years ago. This is a partnership of the London School of Economics, the Greater Paris Institute for Urban Planning and Development, the State and City's Development Research Institute of North Rhine-Westphalia, and the Dublin Institute of Technology. They compared metropolitan areas (not just cities proper) across northwestern Europe, which is the richest part of Europe.

Here are the GDP per capita in 1999 for the northwestern European metropolitan areas:
- Paris metro area: 33,630 euros per inhabitant
- Rhine-Main metro area (Frankfurt, Mainz, Wiesbaden): 32,970
- Dublin metro area: 31,920
- London metro area: 30,950
- Randstad metro area (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrecht): 26,550
- Brussels metro area: 26275
- Rhine-Ruhr metro area (Cologne, Düsseldorf, Essen, etc.): 25,850
- Manchester metro area: 19,440
- Birmingham metro area: 18,210
- Liverpool metro area: 16,500

[Mercutio]

^ 1999 is very out of date now. Shifting exchange rates alone will have shifted those GDP figures all over the place - and then there are the different growth rates in these cities over the last 8 years.

[Marcu]

GDP Per Capita in USD

1 Bermuda $ 69,900 2004 est.
2 Luxembourg $ 68,800 2006 est.
3 Equatorial Guinea $ 50,200 2005 est.
4 United Arab Emirates $ 49,700 2006 est.
5 Norway $ 47,800 2006 est.
6 Guernsey $ 44,600 2005
7 Cayman Islands $ 43,800 2004 est.
8 Ireland $ 43,600 2006 est.
9 United States $ 43,500 2006 est.
10 Jersey $ 40,000 2003 est.

EU as a whole is at $ 29,300

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

[safta20]

I thought the german cities had the highest GDP/capita in Europe. Look at these numbers:

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=233922005

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4781048.stm

[Mercutio]

^ Dodgy statistics. German cities are often defined only as the historic city centre. The GDP stats therefore account for all the economic output generated in the city centre by commuters who actually reside outside the official city limits. Luxembourg's national GDP is inflated in exactly the same way - many of the workers who generate Luxembourg's economic output actually live over the border in Germany or France. To get a more accurate picture you need to average GDP per capita of both the city centre and the surrounding areas.

[R@ptor]

What's the purpose of this thread other than that it creates the usual London vs. Paris flame war ???

[JEH-NYC]

What's the purpose of this thread other than that it creates the usual London vs. Paris flame war ???

That and to educate people like me that had never heard of "Equatorial Guinea", much less reckoned it to be a wealthy state (#3 on Marcu's CIA list).

[Minato Ku]

I found this in Wikipedia :haha:

2 in TOP 3 are in France in GDP per capita in NUTS-2 region

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/395/nutay0.jpg
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/1153/gdpeuropedx0.jpg

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/eurostat/ramon/nuts/codelist_en.cfm?list=nuts

[brisavoine]

^ 1999 is very out of date now. Shifting exchange rates alone will have shifted those GDP figures all over the place - and then there are the different growth rates in these cities over the last 8 years.
We're comparing European cities here which have the common euro currency, so there are no shifting exchange rates. Only the English cities on the list have a different currency, the sterling pound, but the exchange rate of the sterling pound vs. the euro is almost exactly the same as in 1999. As for different growth rates over the last 8 years, it would have altered the ranking, but not to the point where it's completely different. Dublin would be further up now I reckon, but for other cities I think they would pretty much rank the same.

[Marcu]

That and to educate people like me that had never heard of "Equatorial Guinea", much less reckoned it to be a wealthy state (#3 on Marcu's CIA list).

It's a tax shelter. Same reason Bermuda is up there.

[staff]

I think the Öresund Region is doing really good right now.

[cityskyscrapers]

GDP is probably not a good measure for 'most properous'. Taking an average per inhabitant sure isn't (would you consider a region with a few super rich and many poor more properous than a region with no super rich and no poor and everyone doing quite well?). Better is to look at poverty statistics on basis of household budget surveys. Then you are measuring the income and/or expenses of real people and not companies.

Some figures are 'PPP', which is 'Purchasing Power Parity', which means that the relative price difference between countries was taken into account and corrected for, to make comparison possible.

[pricemazda]

GDP isn't a good measure at all, for example the UAE is inflated because of oil revenues, but the wealth that it generates is limited to such a tiny portion of the population.

GDP only measures economic output, not prosperity

[Jonas]

GDP isn't a good measure at all, for example the UAE is inflated because of oil revenues, but the wealth that it generates is limited to such a tiny portion of the population.

GDP only measures economic output, not prosperity

So what is a better measure than GDP? GDP is normally regarded as the wealth of the country even though it's not always accurate because of reasons you mentioned (and some other reasons perhaps, as well). In Western Europe or N.America, however, the situation with UAE can hardly be applied since wealth distribution is much more equal here. And in the end of the day all statistics are calculated in terms of arithmetic mean where GDP (per capita) is not an exception.

[pricemazda]

maybe average salary might be a better indicator of wealth. Perhaps the level of poverty might be a good way to work out prosperity as those at the bottom of society who have the least would show the minimum overall level of wealth.

[Jonas]

maybe average salary might be a better indicator of wealth. Perhaps the level of poverty might be a good way to work out prosperity as those at the bottom of society who have the least would show the minimum overall level of wealth.

I noticed that average salary often matches (well, more or less) nominal GDP per head so essentially this won't make a big difference.

And how exactly we can measure poverty? It's a relative measure in every different country. If say 17% (according to the CIA factbook) of the UK population live below poverty line, does that mean that Thailand (10%) or Libya (7.4%) are more prosperous than the UK? That would be nonsense. GDP per head still indicates the prosperity most accurately.

[Minato Ku]

Some figures are 'PPP', which is 'Purchasing Power Parity', which means that the relative price difference between countries was taken into account and corrected for, to make comparison possible.

Nominal GDP is higher than PPP GDP in France Germany U.K Italy and in the majority of rich european countries.

In exemple

France according CIA factbook.
Nominal GDP: $2.154 trillion (2006 est.)
GDP PPP: $1.871 trillion (2006 est.)

[Marcu]

Nominal GDP is higher than PPP GDP in France Germany U.K Italy and in the majority of rich european countries.

In exemple

France according CIA factbook.
Nominal GDP: $2.154 trillion (2006 est.)
GDP PPP: $1.871 trillion (2006 est.)

Nominal GDP is a meaningless stat since it just means real GDP without figuring in inflation.


There's really no better measure than real GDP. Poverty rate is too focused on only one segment of the population. Salaries only measure income of people that work, when in reality such a large portion of the poplation does not live of a salary (e.g. through investment, real estate holdings, pensions, student loans, etc.). GDP is certainly not perfect and should certanly not be the only factor, but if you're measuring "properity" it's the best we got. Of course nations that want to boost their standing might instead choose to focus on the one thing they are really good at, for example Switzerland can focus on bank holdings. Others might focus on highly subjective factors like "hospital care" comprised of factors chosen to achieve a certain result and that are just too human influenced to be an effective measure. The UN is notorious for this. At my job, the ten or so statisticians all have one consensus: UN stats are almost worthless.

[Mercutio]

We're comparing European cities here which have the common euro currency, so there are no shifting exchange rates. Only the English cities on the list have a different currency, the sterling pound, but the exchange rate of the sterling pound vs. the euro is almost exactly the same as in 1999. As for different growth rates over the last 8 years, it would have altered the ranking, but not to the point where it's completely different. Dublin would be further up now I reckon, but for other cities I think they would pretty much rank the same.The pound is now stronger against the Euro compared to 1999 (see chart below) and in the same time period Britain's GDP per capita by both nominal and PPP measures has overtaken France's and Germany's - so the ranking would clearly not be the same as in 1999.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Euro_exchange_rate_to_USD%2C_JPY%2C_and_GBP.png

[brisavoine]

The pound is now stronger against the Euro compared to 1999 (see chart below) and in the same time period Britain's GDP per capita by both nominal and PPP measures has overtaken France's and Germany's - so the ranking would clearly not be the same as in 1999.
Wrong, and wrong. The exchange rate of the pound vs the euro now is pretty much the same as in 1999. In 1999 the average exchange rate for that year was 1 pound = 1.51912 euros. Today (February 12, 2007) the exchange rate is 1 pound = 1.50354 euros, i.e. almost the same. In 2006 the average exchange rate was 1 pound = 1.46725 euros, which means the pound was worth less than in 1999. Do your homework being posting your messages. You can find historical exchange rates on http://www.oanda.com/convert/fxhistory

As for GDP, the UK registered significantly higher growth rate as a whole than either France or Germany in recent years (although things are changing now), but not London.

Compare London with Paris for instance. According to the French national statistics office INSEE, Greater Paris's total output (measured as GDP at constant prices) registered 2.01% growth per annum between 1999 and 2004 (the last year available). According to Greater London Authority and Experian Business Strategies, in the same time period (1999-2004) Greater London's total output (measured as GVA at constant prices, a measure identical to GDP at constant prices) registered a 2.10% growth per annum. So the growth rate of both metropolises was almost identical over these five years overall.

In the past 10 years the best year for Greater London was 1998 with 5.62% growth compared to previous year. For Greater Paris the best year was 1999 with 5.51% growth compared to previous year. On the other hand, Greater London experienced recession from the fourth quarter of 2001 to the first quarter of 2003, whereas Greater Paris experienced no recession. The worst year in Greater Paris was 2004 with only 1.16% growth, whereas the worst year in Greater London was in 2002 with negative growth (recession) of -0.51%.

Again, you should have done your homework.

[Mercutio]

^ LOL I have done my homework. I already gave you a chart of the value of the pound relative to the euro since 1999. How much more specific can I be? What more do you want? And the UK has grown faster than France since 1999 and overtook France in GDP and GDP per capita in 2000. It has remained ahead of France since then despite shifts in exchange rates. London/SE has also grown considerably faster than the UK average over that time period. According to Manuel France's fastest growth is in the south - not Paris.

[brisavoine]

There's your belief, and there's what official statistics show. I prefer official statistics to your very personal belief.

[brisavoine]

London/SE has also grown considerably faster than the UK average over that time period.
Wrong again. This graph below was published by the Greater London authority. It shows Greater London growth rate compared to the UK growth. In the five years between the end of 1999 and the end of 2004, Greater London's growth rate has been below the UK growth rate for most of the time. It is only since the 4th quarter of 2004 that Greater London's growth rate is again above the UK growth rate, but only slightly. I think you're confusing with the period from the end of 1997 to the end of 2000 when Greater London's growth rate was vastly outperforming the UK growth rate. You neeed to update your figures, these days are gone.

As for Greater Paris, according to INSEE its GDP growth rate has slightly outperformed the national French GDP growth rate in 2000, 2002, and 2003. It has been slightly below the national French GDP growth rate in 2001 and greatly below in 2004.

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/5948/londongvahm7.jpg

[Mercutio]

"Wrong again"? LOL - I've been right about everything! London/SE's growth has exceeded that of the UK average (I can prove it from the National Satistics) and the UK average was considerably higher than France's. That means that Paris's growth would have to seriously outperform France's average to keep pace with London/SE. It hasn't. Therefore it's safe to assume that London's metro economy has gained on Paris's. I was right about exchange rates too. Sorry Brice but just as Britain has substantially gained relative to France then so has London relative to Paris. The only way you can disprove that is if London grows far below the national trend (it hasn't - indeed somewhat the reverse) or if Paris has substantially outperformed France's average (it hasn't). I win. :)