China is two Europes and richest provinces catching up to middle income Europe

China (1.4 billion) has nearly twice the population of Europe (742 million). The populations of China’s 33 provinces is comparable but larger than the 44 countries of Europe.

China will have an overall per capita GDP at the end of 2017 of about $9000 compared to $24000 per capita GDP in Europe. Europe has slow GDP growth of 1-2% per year. China should be at $12500 exchange rate GDP per capita in 2021. This will be about half the GDP per capita level of Europe.

On a per capita PPP GDP level, Europe is at $32000 now while China is at $17000.

China has a narrow range of GDP per person than Europe. The richest European country, Luxembourg is over 50 times richer than the poorest, Moldava on a per person basis. China richest province is about 5-6 times richer than its poorest.

China’s poorest province Gansu is richer than Armenia, Ukraine and Moldova.

Cyprus and Slovenia are at about the European average for per capita GDP. They are both slightly richer than Portugal.

2016 statistics

Beijing, Shanghai And Tainjin are at or slightly above the Cyprus level based upon PPP per capita GDP in 2017. Combined they have a population of 60 million.

Jiangsu with about the population of Germany at 80 million will be above the Portugal level of PPP per person.

Beijing, Shanghai And Tainjin should pass Portugal on exchange rate basis per capita GDP in 2018.

By 2024, the top 7 or 8 provinces with over 300 million should be pass the Portugal level of exchange rate basis GDP per capita.

By 2027, the ten richest provinces in China with about 400 million people will be at about the middle income level of Europe Portugal to Italy level. The richest cities in China will be like France in per capita income.

China has 33 provincial level regions with almost half with populations higher than Poland. Poland is the 8th most populace European country with 38 million. The 9th most populace European country is Romania with 19.7 million. Only 5 of China’s provinces have populations lower than Romania.

23 thoughts on “China is two Europes and richest provinces catching up to middle income Europe”

  1. I wouldn’t get too excited about that until you factor in demographics. China, like the rest of the world, has a demographics cliff coming up. Europe, Japan etc. most of the world is facing this problem. The only reason why the US isn’t is because we bring in a lot of immigrants. Maybe China will as well, but just like everywhere else what is meant by “Chinese” will change. Not a bad thing, but if China doesn’t either import people then expect that 1.4 billion people number to be cut in half. That one child policy really was effective, more so than the people that enforced it could have expected.

  2. This is as ridiculous as in the 1990s when they said the acreage of the Japanese Imperial Palace grounds in Tokyo was worth more than all of New York City’s real estate combined.

  3. These sort of comparisons are close to meaningless. China is getting richer, we get it, but throwing numbers like this is offending to the readership. Within Europe you are comparing Luxembourg (a tax heaven inhabited by a few hundred thousand people) with Moldova (a country outside the EU). Kinda the same for China.
    What about comparing the richest 10% with the poorest 10% of a defined (super)national entity, assuming they are both similar in size (i.e. 50-150 million people)?

    By the way, after the Communist Party Congress it is clear that Chinese leadership is willing to reign on their credit issues, even if that means slower growth. A more stable country is better than a country modestly richer in 5 or 10 years. Is this included anywhere in these models o are these “forecasts” just worthless linear projections?

    • Congress it is clear that Chinese leadership is willing to reign on their credit issues, even if that means slower growth.

      Hahaha…talk about meaningless drivel!

  4. a) Article is littered with grammar (and syntax) errors. Are you a recent immigrant Mr Wang?
    b) “China richest province is about 5-6 times richer than its poorest.” Europe doesn’t claim “Socialism with European characteristics”. Your country does and this number then is a disgrace.
    c) Wealth and well-being is NOT measured accurately by GDP per capita. You cannot spend or save GDP per capita. You can use disposable income per capita, China’s is about $7,000 (PPP) annually, which is about half that of Mexico’s(!). But Beijing’s and Shanghai’s are catching up Latvia’s and Hungary’s.

    • Well, since you want to be a stickler for English grammar, I also find that your grammar is not anything to write home about either. You said “But Beijing’s and Shanghai’s are catching up Latvia’s and Hungary’s”. Don’t you think it’s better saying that “But Beijing’s and Shanghai’s are catching up TO Latvia’s and Hungary’s? Are you a recent immigrant from Moldova? Maybe it’s time for Europe to implement socialism with European characteristics to narrow it’s disgraceful wealth gap of 50:1 knowing that China’s wealth gap is only 5:1 under it’s policy of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

      • Then how is it that China has given rise to the concept of “princelings”, wumao? Are they being counted in your self-serving 5:1 statistic? You’re lecturing someone on the use of “to”, when you don’t even know the difference between “it’s” and “its”. :p

        • I think you have a very troublesome reading comprehension problem. I didn’t write the article. Unlike the article writer, I definitely know the difference between “it’s” and “its”. When it comes to the statistics, you’d better ask the writer of this article, my boy. So my advice to you is that you read my comments carefully before ranting. By the way, I’m not Chinese. I happen to be an American who served as a PARATROOPER in wartime with the 82nd Airborne Division of the U.S. Army. Have you ever served in the military?

      • “Are you a recent immigrant ”

        Sorry, but wtf does ones immigration status have to do with the argument made in the article?

        • Read Elias’ comment first. Then you will know It’s my response to Elias’ sarcastic comment asking the article writer whether he is a recent immigrant. While you question why I asked Elias whether he was a recent immigrant, but you don’t question why Elias asked the article writer whether he was a recent article. I can see you are full of it,boy.

  5. China’s One Belt One Road will threaten German primacy within EU, and hence the cold shoulder from Berlin. Germany would lose under One Belt One Road, while Russia would stand to benefit. China will actually end up wasting and squandering its resources on the futile effort of trying to build a land bridge to Europe – a bridge too far – classic overreach.

  6. Without information on wealth distribution in countries and provinces, this information is somewhat meaningless…Of course, it would be relatively difficult to believe stats on wealth distribution produced by the Chinese central government anyways….

    • How about American ratings agencies giving AAA ratings to subprime mortgage-backed securities thus bringing about the disastrous 2008 global financial crisis? The Chinese central government statistics are fine. It’s the Chinese local governments’ statistics that have problems. This is the reason the central government’s National Bureau of Statistics disregard many of the local governments’ numbers and does it’s own surveys. About 2 years ago, The Economist said the same thing.

Comments are closed.