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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by cityskyscrapers

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]

Originally Posted by Minato Ku

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]

Originally Posted by brisavoine

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.

[brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

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]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

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.

[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.