Adding other countries together to equal China’s GDP and population

China’s population estimate 1.33 billion in 2007 (0.6% increase) Add in Hong Kong and Macau 8 million. Total population in 2008 1.35 billion. This analysis was related to a question from Tom Craver, what would China’s GDP look like if you split it into two countries ?

The overall GDP was 3.3 trillion (2007) and heading to over 4 trillion at the end of 2008 with GDP growth and exchange rate increases. The future GDP of China will be rising quickly. the IMF thinks about 7 trillion by 2013 and others believe closer to or exceeding the $14 trillion PPP figure in 2013 because of a more rapidly strengthening chinese currency. The rapid rise in nominal GDP (exchange rate basis) means that the additive country mix to get the equivalent of China is rapidly changing. China is adding a Belgium (10 million) in population each year.

By 2013, China is either something in the range of a Germany in GDP or adding a Germany and Japan in GDP. The population of China in 2013 will be about 1.4 trillion.

As fast as China’s national GDP is growing, the 4 richest Chinese provinces plus Shanghai are growing at 14% per year. The wealthiest are growing even faster. Plus their population is growing with more migration from poorer provinces.

Currently, the bottom one billion would approximate the economy of India but would be richer by 200% [US$2 trillion, or kind of like India plus Mexico with a bit fewer people] and the then the top 350 million (including Hong Kong) would be like Brazil but richer and more populated by 60%.

By 2020, when China will likely have passed the economies of Europe and the United States. China will be equal to a supersized Europe population with comparable economy or Europe plus India to equal population and GDP.

The top 4 provinces in China in terms of GDP plus Shanghai and Hong Kong.

Guangdong 3.3 trillion yuan (2008)
[US$480 billion, $5k/per cap]
Shandong 2.7 trillion
[US$390 billion, $4k/per cap]
Jiangsu 2.6 T yuan
[US$380 billion]
Zhejiang 1.9 T yuan
[US$280 billion]
Shanghai US$165B(U$9000 per cap)
Hong Kong US$218B in 2008

330 million people
US$1.9 trillion GDP.

The Guangdong provincial GDP has jumped from 1350.2 billion RMB in 2002, to 3060.6 billion RMB in 2007, with an average annual growth of 14.5%. About US$500 billion. Its ratio in proportion to the national GDP increased from 1/9 to 1/8. Guangdong’s GDP, after overtaking those of Singapore and Hong Kong, has surpassed that of Taiwan. Guangdong’s GDP per capita has reached 4000 US dollars. Guangdong population at the end of 2007 is 94.49 million

Is China’s economy being statistically underestimated

China’s economic projection

List of China’s administrative divisions bu GDP

Jiangsu population (2006) 75,495,000 (5th)
GDP (2007) CNY 2.56 trillion (3rd) CNY 33,689 (5th) per cap GDP

Zhejiang Population (2004) 47,200,000 (11th)
GDP (2007) CNY 1.86 trillion (4th) CNY 37,128 (4th) per capita

In 2007, the nominal GDP for Shandong was 2.59 trillion yuan (US$340 billion). It’s GDP per capita was 27,723 yuan (US$3,646), ranking seventh.

Shanghai 18.5 million, GDP US$157.8 billion (7th), per cap US$8,949 (13th) [2007]

10 thoughts on “Adding other countries together to equal China’s GDP and population”

  1. It kind of depends how you define a millionaire. Americans, being on the individualist end of the spectrum are more likely to look at an individual’s net worth. But a more relaxed definition would count everyone living in a household whose total household net worth exceeded $1 million, which produces a lot more millionaires, partly because everyone who lives with an individual millionaire gets counted and partly because two people who are each worth $500,000 both become millionaires if they move in together.

  2. Woops. Did this post a little fast.
    The world numbers were correct in terms of how the top 10% and 1% are doing. Thanks for the catch.

    I found a reference for median net worth according to the US census
    Median household net worth increased from $49,932 in 1998 to $55,000 in 2000.

    Therefore, the 50 percentile american is far closer and a little behind the top 10% in the world at 60K.

    How we feel about the wealth is separate from the statistical question of millionaires.

  3. I think you’ve got MEAN and MEDIAN confused in this post. If the MEDIAN wealth were $144K, half of adults would have that much or more.

    Also, mere $$ assets doesn’t really say a lot about how well off someone is – how wealthy they feel and behave.

    A better way to define wealth is on income per person – which includes the value of your investments, health, education, family situation (married vs unwed mother), etc.

    A retiree earning $30K (including social security) a year with savings of $120K is poorer than someone earning $45K with savings of only $10K, all else being equal.

    Of course, if the latter person is about to retire and start living on $20K/year, they might be considered even poorer.

Comments are closed.