BD’s economy; apparent, noticed and unnoticed.

[Skies]

Anyway, Every detail DATA about India, Pakistan and BD:

http://api.worldbank.org/datafiles/IND_Country_MetaData_en_EXCEL.xls

http://api.worldbank.org/datafiles/BGD_Country_MetaData_en_EXCEL.xls

http://api.worldbank.org/datafiles/PAK_Country_MetaData_en_EXCEL.xls

 

[gslv mk3]

Per capita Electricity consumption

The per capita energy consumption in Bangladesh is one of the lowest (136 kWH) in the world.
Electricity sector in Bangladesh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bangladesh
Bangladesh's installed electric generation capacity was 4.7 GW in 2009; only three-fourth of which is considered to be ‘available’. Only 40% of the population has access to electricity with a per capita availability of 136 kWh per annum."
India
The electricity sector in India had an installed capacity of 210.544 GW,Captive power plants generate an additional 31.5 GW,
Per capita-571kWh
(though As of January 2012, one report found the per capita total consumption in India to be 778 kWh.)
Pakistan
Electricity – total installed capacity: 19,505 MW (2007)Electricity Consumption per Capita = 430.183 kWh/capita

 

[Skies]

The per capita energy consumption in Bangladesh is one of the lowest (136 kWH) in the world.

No, it was 251 KWH even in 2009 in case of Electricity (not total energy sector including gas, coal, oil etc.) according to the World Bank DATA which is more authentic than Wikipedia which can be edited by anyone.

So check the World Bank DATA of ALL Countries: http://databank.worldbank.org/databank/download/WDIandGDF_excel.zip (78 MB Download )

 

[TopCat]

Indias HDI is far better than Pakistan
And our rural areas are getting really better than pakistan with all microfinance (adopted from you) and government policies like roads like this
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Bijupara-Khalari_Road_-_Jharkhand_1648.JPG

HDI is highly manipulative data. For instance it varies due to the definition of literacy, exchange rate etc.

On an average a rural Pakistani eats and dress far better than a Indian and BDians. There is nothing shameful to accept the truth.

 

[gslv mk3]

HDI is highly manipulative data. For instance it varies due to the definition of literacy, exchange rate etc.

On an average a rural Pakistani eats and dress far better than a Indian and BDians. There is nothing shameful to accept the truth.

What is your definition of literacy

have you compared 1.2 billion Indians,Bangladeshis with Pakistanis????

 

[Skies]

Actually, weighted values are used in HDI calculation. So in some cases HDI may not reflect the reality very well.

 

[Skies]

Saw a report in Prothom-alo yesterday, and as like I discussed about the Middle Income and Moving Gap before (as a part of reality check), I also asked myself whether it's time to say that BD’s economy (although it is emerging, so do other 11s) will be as per Today's Europe's economy in future (like in 2050).

Then I have done another analysis based of the difference between PPP GDP per capita and Nominal GDP per capita among some countries to find out the position of BD.

Result: My analysis suggests that it's not the time to say that BD’s economy will be as per Europe's economy in future. Because we still have bigger difference between PPP GDP per capita and Nominal GDP per capita.

Suggestion: Once the bigger difference between PPP GDP per capita and Nominal GDP per capita in BD starts to decline for several consecutive years (like China now), then it would be more logical to say that BD’s economy will have the probability to be as per Today's Europe's economy in future.

If you do not have prior knowledge about the implications of the difference between PPP GDP per capita and Nominal GDP per capita, then you can read the links in the reference below before going to the analysis part.

Before showing my analysis, I want to show a few rules that are always true. Those are:

1. The lower income level (more poor) the country is, the larger gap between PPP GDP per capita and Nominal GDP per capita is.

2. The lower income level (more poor) the country is, the bigger number (the number that is found by dividing PPP GDP per capita by Nominal GDP per capita) is.

3. Nominal GDP is roughly how much of an internationally traded good (diamonds, DVD players, Snickers bars) a person can buy in their country.

4. PPP GDP is how much of a local good (like real estate, labor, or locally grown produce) a person can buy in their country.

5. Nominal is an attempt at an absolute measure, a sort of immovable standard that remains the same from country to country.

6. PPP is an attempt at a relative measure, taking factors of each country into consideration in order to put a number on a person’s standard of living within that country.

7. Poor and developing countries tend to have a higher (better) PPP GDP than nominal G.

8. Developed countries have higher nominal GDP than PPP GDP.

9. Bigger difference between PPP GDP per capita and Nominal GDP per capita in a country may imply bigger level of social and income inequity in that country.

Analysis:

In the picture-1 below, we can see the PPP GDP per capita (column B) and Nominal GDP per capita (column c) of some countries (both rich and poor) in 2011. There we can see that (as per rule 1) Lower income, Bangladesh, and Middle income countries have bigger difference between PPP GDP per capita and Nominal GDP per capita, and those are 759, 1033 and 2680 respectively.

On the other hand, EU and Higher income countries have more Nominal GDP per capita than PPP GDP per capita (as per rule 8); and the difference between PPP GDP per capita and Nominal GDP per capita are even negative (-2248 and – 2720 respectively) compare to the poor countries (with big positive difference between PPP and Nominal).

Larger view picture 1: http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/7387/pppnomiratio.png

Again (as per rule 2) Lower income, Bangladesh, and Middle income countries have bigger numbers (the number that is found by dividing PPP GDP per capita by Nominal GDP per capita) which are 2.31, 2.39 and 1.5 respectively. On the other hand, EU and Higher income countries have smaller numbers (the number that is found by dividing PPP GDP per capita by Nominal GDP per capita) which are 0.935 and 0.933 respectively.

Suggestion: We should not start dreaming to be like EU countries unless we can reduce the gap between PPP GDP per capita by Nominal GDP per for several years at least, and reduce the Number (the number that is found by dividing PPP GDP per capita by Nominal GDP per capita) close to 1. Even China had 1.54 in 2011.

In the graph-picture-2 below, the gap (as per rule 1) between PPP GDP per capita and Nominal GDP per capita for BD has been always increasing since last 20 years, where for China, the gap has started to fall for a few years recently (look at the red circles) that indicates that China is minimizing its gap between PPP GDP per capita and Nominal GDP per capita (gap was 2955$ in 2011), and China's labor and production cost of cheap products are more expensive now.

Larger view picture 2: http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/7430/pppnomi.png

On the other hand, the gaps (as per rule 1 and 8) between PPP GDP per capita and Nominal GDP per capita for France (-7131$) and Germany (-4568$) are largely negative which is a sign of a developed country.

Suggestion: We should not start dreaming to be like EU countries unless the gap (as per rule 1) between PPP GDP per capita and Nominal GDP per capita for BD starts to fall for some consecutive years and goes close to the 0 level.

In the table-picture-3 below, the PPP GDP per capita and Nominal GDP per capita are shown for Bangladesh, China, Germany and France for last 20 years, along with the gaps between PPP GDP per capita and Nominal GDP per capita for BD, CN, GR and FN for last 20 years.

Larger view picture 3: http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/9512/pppnomidata.png

Suggestion: We should not start dreaming to be like EU countries unless the gap (as per rule 1) between PPP GDP per capita and Nominal GDP per capita for BD starts to fall and goes closer to the gap shown by Germany or France.

Data source:

PPP: http://api.worldbank.org/datafiles/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD_Indicator_MetaData_en_EXCEL.xls
Nominal: http://api.worldbank.org/datafiles/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD_Indicator_MetaData_en_EXCEL.xls

Study reference:

1: The Difference Between GDP Nominal And GDP PPP « Apple Butter Dreams
2: Globalization - Support Program on Integrated Humanities

 

[UKBengali]

@Eorl - Sorry you simply have no understanding of economics.

I am not trying to insult you but you really need to stop talking about things
you know nothing about.

 

[idune]

Eorl X good effort and analysis. There are many different angles to reach the conclusion your analysis did. Even in plain sight its quite visible we are way behind in institution and infrastructure and innovation; which I would call 3i. Our growth engine had been garments and remittence earning and country like ours can not even sustain let alone excel with growth with just these two. More importantly our focus should be most immediate needs and how to deal with

1) massive debt burden Awami League regime imposed on with rental power plant, excessive borrowing, sovereign bond, foreign currency debt etc.
2) Address energy and electricity issue
3) Land shortage and industrialization issue
4) Employment specially manpower export decline
5) Education, innovation and professionals
6) Business and legal institutions
.....

We also have to be innovative in learning and making significant progress even within not so smooth political environment. I do see there are changes in dynamics in investment scenarios. If we can address most of above issues we can make headway. Until we reach certain level of development and have sustainable 3i to support that development, all these 2050 pipe dreams are politically motivated and idiotic at best.

 

[Skies]

@Eorl - Sorry you simply have no understanding of economics.

I am not trying to insult you but you really need to stop talking about things
you know nothing about.

Please specify the wrong points made by me, and specify the points/factors I did not consider to go to my conclusion. I know all factors are not considered, but let's see if inclusion of other factors can make my points wrong.

And assuming that I do not understanding anything, show me all the stages and in detail on how BD would achieve Middle Income status by 2021 and EU status in 2050 considering the GDP per capita, so that I can think the claims are more feasible. Otherwise, I do not listen to you.

All I am trying to pointing out is, BD is growing because of rural level development, economical shift to Asia and more access to information, but not growing as per said by the politicians.

 

[Skies]

GDP and GDP per capita both are connected to each other. If the GDP growth rate is high then so is the case for GDP per capita as well. If not then compare GDP per capita growth from 1972-2012, you will find a much higher GDP growth then your east Pakistani time. Already I have shown from 1972-2012 average GDP growth rate for Bangladesh is 7.7% which is not only higher then east pakistani period but also from that of Pakistan.

I have also taken into the account of destructive activities and still it came as 7.7% average GDP growth.

1975 was not an usual year to begin with. Due to receiving of aid money and sudden nationalization of all the industries there were an artificial spike on GDP only for that year which never represented the reality of Bangladesh which eventually brought down to the level of previous year gdp just next year. Bangladesh reached the sustainable GDP level in 1984 which was there due to sudden spike in 1975.

If you really like to take the war affect out it should be started from either 1976 or 77 as from that point Bangladesh started to achieve sustainable growth rate. Otherwise if any one take an unusual year like 75 it would never represent the real growth rate even 100 year has been taken for consideration.

The below GDP curve vs year validate my argument. Anyone looking into the curve can say that 1975 was unusual year. But propagandist like you has chosen that year cleverly to demonize Bangladesh's achievement and to do Pakistani dalali. Anyone not having idea about that will surely fall as a victim of that propaganda.

[/url][/IMG]

1. Seems you are intentionally ignoring the significance of GDP per capita over GDP, or you do not have the idea why GDP per capita is far more significant than simple GDP volume, and because of that India has huge GDP [OMG! it's a trillion dollar economy] but also has huge poverty [because of lower GDP per capita]. Because GDP per capita represents the living standard better, so I use GDP per capita. Anyway.

2. Okay, look at this calculation carefully, I have done it from 1976 this time, as you want to ignore 1975, plus World Bank has published a new data, as the value of Dollar has changed, where values are slightly changed from the previous year's I used earlier. Anyway, the calculation is given below.

link: Row#49: http://api.worldbank.org/datafiles/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD_Indicator_MetaData_en_EXCEL.xls

Calculation:

Equation: LN (End Year/First year)*(1/Number of years)*100

Here:

End year GDP per capita in 1969 = 130.88
First year GDP per capita in 1961 = 86.29
Number of years = 1961-1969 = 8
Result = 5.20%

Calculation:

Equation: LN (End Year/First year)*(1/Number of years)*100

Here:

End year GDP per capita in 2012 = 747.33
First year GDP per capita in 1976 = 136.36
Number of years = 1976-2012 = 36
Result = 4.72%

Comment: 5.20%>4.72%, so sill I can see that the BD at PK-era had higher rate than the last 36 years from 1976 -2012. And it proves that the talking about the discrimination was exaggerated.


4. Noh, anyone not having idea about what I am saying will simply not get my message, and would believe you naively looking into your only GDP consideration, not GDP per capita.

5. Can you make a post without personal attack, I feel offended, lol.

 

[Skallagrim]

1. Seems you are intentionally ignoring the significance of GDP per capita over GDP, or you do not have the idea why GDP per capita is far more significant than simple GDP volume, and because of that India has huge GDP [OMG! it's a trillion dollar economy] but also has huge poverty [because of lower GDP per capita]. Because GDP per capita represents the living standard better, so I use GDP per capita. Anyway.

2. Okay, look at this calculation carefully, I have done it from 1976 this time, as you want to ignore 1975, plus World Bank has published a new data, as the value of Dollar has changed, where values are slightly changed from the previous year's I used earlier. Anyway, the calculation is given below.

link: Raw 49: http://api.worldbank.org/datafiles/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD_Indicator_MetaData_en_EXCEL.xls






Comment: 5.20%>4.72%, so sill I can see that the BD at PK-era had higher rate than the last 36 years from 1976 -2012. And it proves that the talking about the discrimination was exaggerated.


4. Noh, anyone not having idea about what I am saying will simply not get my message, and would believe you naively looking into your only GDP consideration, not GDP per capita.

5. Can you make a post without personal attack, I feel offended, lol.

Get over him! people who think the economy will keep growing at 7% forever just because it has grown at that rate for a few years are not worth your time.

 

[CaPtAiN_pLaNeT]

1. Seems you are intentionally ignoring the significance of GDP per capita over GDP, or you do not have the idea why GDP per capita is far more significant than simple GDP volume, and because of that India has huge GDP [OMG! it's a trillion dollar economy] but also has huge poverty [because of lower GDP per capita]. Because GDP per capita represents the living standard better, so I use GDP per capita. Anyway.

2. Okay, look at this calculation carefully, I have done it from 1976 this time, as you want to ignore 1975, plus World Bank has published a new data, as the value of Dollar has changed, where values are slightly changed from the previous year's I used earlier. Anyway, the calculation is given below.

link: Row#49: http://api.worldbank.org/datafiles/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD_Indicator_MetaData_en_EXCEL.xls






Comment: 5.20%>4.72%, so sill I can see that the BD at PK-era had higher rate than the last 36 years from 1976 -2012. And it proves that the talking about the discrimination was exaggerated.


4. Noh, anyone not having idea about what I am saying will simply not get my message, and would believe you naively looking into your only GDP consideration, not GDP per capita.

5. Can you make a post without personal attack, I feel offended, lol.

So your argument has turned now from average GDP growth rate to average per capita gdp growth rate and comparison is selected 8 year of Pakistan era to that of long 40 years of independent Bangladesh.

GDP growth and GDP per capita growth rate are two different thing but closely related to each other. From the time of 1950-70 Bangladesh witnessed a population growth rate was on average 1.96% each year where population in 1950 was 45,645,964 and in 1970 population was 67,331,349. In contrast in post independent Bangladesh population growth rate was 2.08% on average this year where in 1972 population was 70,676,996 and in 2012 it was 161,083,804. That means Bangladesh had to share its GDP and its growth with higher number of people.

Bangladesh Population 1950 - 2050

And interestingly you used this long 40 years average per capita GDP growth to say it is exaggerated to say there were discrimination when it was in all sectors and can be seen clearly in GDP when it was almost same in 1950 but in 1970 it increased by more then 60% for west Pakistan.

Now lets look your argument more closely.

So your argument is from 1961-1969 average per capita GDP growth was high compared to post independent Bangladesh's long 40 years. Is that really true??? Did it really elevated the living standard of Bangladesh so much??? Answer is a clear no which can be seen from the average per capita GDP growth rate curve which has been shown below:



We can see from the curve due to heavy discrimination West Pakistan never witnessed negative per capita GDP growth where as east Pakistan witnessed negative GDP growth rate in each consecutive second year.



Growth rate of East Pakistan was as below:

1962 - 2.58%

1963 - -3.19%

1964 - 7.79%

1965 - -1.42%

1966 - -.68%

1967 - -5.09%

1968 - 6.05%

1969 - -1.52%

If we do an average of this 8 year we can find that the real average growth rate is a mare .565%.

But still in terms of US value it increased at a higher rate which only explains the reason and it is none other then fluctuation of Pakistani rupee at that time against US dollar not for any economic prosperity or any higher living standard. Out of the 8 year East Pakistan witnessed 5 times negate per capita GDP growth where as west Pakistan seen none!!! As it was likely mainly because West Pakistan due to heavy discriminatory policy used to transfer all the revenue generated to the West where despite East Pakistan had almost 60% of the total Pakistani population. In terms of rupee East Pakistan did not see much economic prosperity from 1950-1970.

But despite all the destruction in 1971 Bangladesh started outperformed Pakistan in average GDP growth from 1990 in clear way which we can see from the curve which never would be possible under East Pakistan era. Now see Bangladesh's economic growth is going up but for Pakistan it is going down!!! As population growth rate is coming down in recent time Bangladesh is goign to witness more high average per capita GDP growth rate then earlier times but the case for Pakistan is reverse for dual reason, 1st low GDP growth rate and 2nd higher population growth rate.

Most importantly Pakistan specially west Pakistan was witnessing higher growth rate mainly due to Korean war there were demand for jute bags which Pakistan was exporting.

How ever as Bangladeshi Taka gained strength against USD as of 2012 per capita GDP should be higher then 747.

For information Bangladesh is still using backdated 1995 year as the base for calculating GDP which does not count a big portion of the GDP. Bangladesh is going to witness at least 15-20% GDP rise if it has been rebased. In 2000 when it was rebased from 1985 to 1995 GDP witnessed close to 30% GDP growth.

With rebase and 15% GDP growth from 1976 to 2012 Bangladesh's average per capita GDP growth rate will be 5.48% but the present 4.82% growth with 1995 base is not also bad for this long 36 years.

Where as average per capita GDP growth reduced to 4.76% if we measure the year from 1962 instead of 1961. As I already said earlier in terms of real per capita GDP growth east pakistan did not witnessed much.

However I checked the per capita GDP growth rate from 1972 to 2012 Bangladesh achieved 5.39% GDP growth year on year and now it is going towards more higher trend. This is the most important part here. This is not only higher then 1947-1970 period but also from 1961-1969 period. Without independence this would never be possible as The above graphs and discussion clearly shows that due to heavy and massive discrimination East Pakistan never witnessed sustainable growth from the 1947-1970 period. Now Bangladesh has crossed Pakistan in HDI as well. This is a matter of time for Bangladesh to cross Pakistan in terms of per capita GDP as well.

 

[CaPtAiN_pLaNeT]

Get over him! people who think the economy will keep growing at 7% forever just because it has grown at that rate for a few years are not worth your time.

Instead of talking like an idiot just go and read what is the discussion is all about!!! and where you have found that I have said that Bangladesh is going to maintain 7% growth forever!!! Instead this is your Pakistani dalal friend who has brought an argument that from 1961-1969 GDP growth rate of East Pakistan was high and for this he is comparing long 40 years average growth rate to say that West Pakistanis did not discriminated East Pakistan and it is all false story. He at first brought GDP growth rate story then he has brought average per capita GDP story. I have just shown him post independent Bangladesh from 1972-2012 witnessed both higher GDP growth and per capita GDP growth then selective east pakistani period of 1961-1969. I know this also will make you sad. But nothing can be done about it.

 

[UKBengali]

@CaPtAiN_pLaNeT:

There is no question that BD is so poor now because of the former Pakistan era.

As the decades pass, then if things continue like they have for the last 2 decades, BD will catch and then increase it's lead in GDP/capita over Pakistan.

BD is increasing GDP/capita by 5% a year while Pakistan achieved around 3% a year in the 1960s and the 1980s - it's best decades since independence. Those two decades were unique as in the 1960s, Pakistan was able to take billions from Bangladesh in fiscal transfers and in the 1980s the US supplied billions of dollars in aid due to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

I hate to say this but Pakistan has yet to prove in 65 years of independence that it an grow relatively fast without external resources.