The Bangladesh Development Update: Economy Progressing, but Below Potential

[UKBengali]

This runs contradictory to your previous statements!
Not only per capita income is lower than that of India, it is also costly! Why would any Indian immigrate there? This only proves that BDians go to India, they have the incentives...

No, there probably is very little difference in GDP/capita between BD and India now. When BD re-bases to 2011-2012 base year then the two countries GDP/capita will be pretty much equal.

For educated middle class people India is better, but for the poor BD offers a better standard of living.

 

[Kloitra]

No, there probably is very little difference in GDP/capita between BD and India now. When BD re-bases to 2011-2012 base year then the two countries GDP/capita will be pretty much equal.

For educated middle class people India is better, but for the poor BD offers a better standard of living.

The current PPP difference is too great, more than double. Just changing base year won't cut it.

 

[extra terrestrial]

Sorry, my mistake, I was thinking of GDP and didn't properly checked.
Here is per capita income of West Bengal for year 2012-2013: INR 62831 around $1160 for that fiscal.
http://pib.nic.in/archieve/others/2013/dec/d2013121703.pdf
Bangladesh for same period was at 1044.
Sikkim has higher than $2000.

Well, then again take into account the base years for Bangladesh and India where India used 2011-12 and Bangladesh used 1994-95 for that fiscal. Also, Indian economy didn't have any growth during 2013-14, so the per capita income must be stagnant or even declined for this fiscal. Compare the recent data and you'll see Bangladesh's per capita income is higher than West Bengal.

GDP/Captia of Maharsashtra and WB are bigger because they serve whole India through their port. Take the port out of the equation then you will see its advantage is gone.

Mumbai has quite high port handling but Kolkata's annual container handling is half of that of Chittagong.

 

[Kloitra]

Well, then again take into account the base years for Bangladesh and India where India used 2011-12 and Bangladesh used 1994-95 for that fiscal. Also, Indian economy didn't have any growth during 2013-14, so the per capita income must be stagnant or even declined for this fiscal. Compare the recent data and you'll see Bangladesh's per capita income is higher than West Bengal.

Dude growth was small, not non-existent. Bangladesh barely grew 1% more than India, for last fiscal. And Indian growth has picked up. Also, West Bengal had over 14% nominal growth for last fiscal. Lets wait for the real data to come before claiming anything, and lets keep comparison in PPP.

 

[extra terrestrial]

Dude growth was small, not non-existent. Bangladesh barely grew 1% more than India, for last fiscal. And Indian growth has picked up. Also, West Bengal had over 14% nominal growth for last fiscal. Lets wait for the real data to come before claiming anything, and lets keep comparison in PPP.

Well, all of India added only $18 billion in that fiscal while Bangladesh added $20 billion. Since, India's main growth regions are Maharashtra, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka etc., I'm guessing most of those $18 billion would be added to those regions. Besides, India's overall per capita GDP actually declined during that fiscal.

If you could bring PPP data of West Bengal then sure.

 

[Kloitra]

Well, all of India added only $18 billion in that fiscal while Bangladesh added $20 billion. Since, India's main growth regions are Maharashtra, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka etc., I'm guessing most of those $18 billion would be added to those regions. Besides, India's overall per capita GDP actually declined during that fiscal.

If you could bring PPP data of West Bengal then sure.

All India added only $18 billion because Rupee value dropped by more than 10%. Actually, despite Rupee falling more than 10% India added $18 billion, on the contrary, despite Taka gaining value, BD only added $20 billion.

 

[extra terrestrial]

All India added only $18 billion because Rupee value dropped by more than 10%. Actually, despite Rupee falling more than 10% India added $18 billion, on the contrary, despite Taka gaining value, BD only added $20 billion.

$20 billion is not a high addition but quite significant compared to India since Bangladesh's economy is about 10% of India.

 

[Kloitra]

$20 billion is not a high addition but quite significant compared to India since Bangladesh's economy is about 10% of India.

You missed the point of currency valuation. Taka went up, while Rupee significantly fell, more than 10%.

 

[UKBengali]

The current PPP difference is too great, more than double. Just changing base year won't cut it.

Wrong again.

According to IMF, BD capita PPP is 3,400 and India is 5,800 dollars.

When BD re-bases to 2011-2012 then BD will get even closer to India.

 

[farhan_9909]

Wrong again.

According to IMF, BD capita PPP is 3,400 and India is 5,800 dollars.

When BD re-bases to 2011-2012 then BD will get even closer to India.

why is IMF not updating Pakistan GDP nominal for this year?while PPP is already updated

 

[Kloitra]

Wrong again.

According to IMF, BD capita PPP is 3,400 and India is 5,800 dollars.

When BD re-bases to 2011-2012 then BD will get even closer to India.

Base year would affect world bank data, not IMF. And for world bank data currently the difference is more than twice!
Even if you assume IMF data, the difference is too big to be changed by base year.

 

[extra terrestrial]

You missed the point of currency valuation. Taka went up, while Rupee significantly fell, more than 10%.

I got that which is why I said Bangladesh's addition was significant in comparison to India, Bangladesh went from $141 bn to $161 bn, about 15% increase, India went from $1858 bn to $1876 bn, about 1% increase. Anyway Taka didn't gain that much, 1 USD was 81 BDT in 2012 and 79 BDT in 2013.

Base year would affect world bank data, not IMF. And for world bank data currently the difference is more than twice!
Even if you assume IMF data, the difference is too big to be changed by base year.

Base year would affect all the data, as I said earlier World Bank is yet to update their database, once they do it, there would be little difference.

 

[Kloitra]

I got that which is why I said Bangladesh's addition was significant in comparison to India, Bangladesh went from $141 bn to $161 bn, about 15% increase, India went from $1858 bn to $1876 bn, about 1% increase. Anyway Taka didn't gain that much, 1 USD was 81 BDT in 2012 and 79 BDT in 2013.

Around +2.5% due to change in dollar? While -10% for India.
Growth for BD was 6% while 4.5% for India. Just about 1.5% more. And last few years have been lowest growth period in a long time.
Besides, India still has higher per capita income and gdp. Certainly makes it better place than BD.

Base year would affect all the data, as I said earlier World Bank is yet to update their database, once they do it, there would be little difference.

From what I remember, WB uses base year currency and conversion rate for calculations, while IMF uses current year. And this is why there is a difference between their numbers. I may be wrong though.

 

[extra terrestrial]

Around +2.5% due to change in dollar? While -10% for India.
Growth for BD was 6% while 4.5% for India. Just about 1.5% more. And last few years have been lowest growth period in a long time.

Take a look at my last post again.

Besides, India still has higher per capita income and gdp. Certainly makes it better place than BD.

Well, I'm talking about the neighboring Indian states that surround Bangladesh.

From what I remember, WB uses base year currency and conversion rate for calculations, while IMF uses current year. And this is why there is a difference between their numbers. I may be wrong though.

Both World Bank and IMF depend on the national statistic bureaus of the member countries, they follow the same base years that those national bureaus follow for the respective countries.

 

[Kloitra]

Take a look at my last post again.

I did. I am just trying to tell you that USD figures don't paint real picture, as they are affected by varying conversion rates. Look at the growth rate. The difference is barely 1.5%, that too, in one of the worst years of Indian economy.

Well, I'm talking about the neighboring Indian states that surround Bangladesh.

I gave you data earlier. Even West Bengal has higher income/GDP than Bangladesh.

Both World Bank and IMF depend on the national statistic bureaus of the member countries, they follow the same base years that those national bureaus follow for the respective countries.

Why would there be so much difference in there data than? Well, I am not sure how do those figures work, but this are option from IMF site:

Gross domestic product, constant prices
National currency

[2/2]

Gross domestic product, constant prices
Percent change

[2/2]

Gross domestic product, current prices
National currency

[2/2]

Gross domestic product, current prices
U.S. dollars

I could not find the option for constant price in USD, they are in current prices.