Talk:Economy of Paris

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To the anonymous user who keeps vandalising this page (using IP 82.35.100.95, 82.35.100.238, and 80.195.235.28): please read carefully the text you have repeatedly removed. Greater London plus all the NUTS2 regions around it is much larger than the metropolitan area of London. It includes Oxford, Newbury, Chichester, Folkestone, Ramsgate, Cochester, etc, which no definiton of the London metropolitan area ever include in the metropolitan area. To say that the global GDP of all these NUTS2 regions is the GDP of the metropolitan area of London is simply an exageration, and that's why I call it vandalism, whereas the text in the article gives two numbers, one for Greater London alone, and one for Greater London plus all the NUTS2 regions around it, and makes it clear that the real figure for the metropolitan area is somewhere in between, but where exactly it is not possible to say. So please stop removing this. Hardouin 12:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] World metropolitan areas with the largest GDP

In my humble opinion, this section has nothing to do in an article about Paris economy. If you're interested in the topic, this could indeed make a proper Wikipedia article which could indeed be linked to Paris economy article, however it doesn't describe what Paris economy is about and as such I consider that specific section as off topic. As such, I'm inclined to remove it. If you really want to keep it, then explain me why wouldn't it be a proper article. Metropolitan 17:57, 15 March 2005 (CET)

Why don't you create this article then, instead of merely deleting the information? Hardouin 23:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Well actually I've thought about it. But then I realized I didn't know how to name it ! Anyway, the information is still available in former versions we can read in "history". If you're ready to make such an article (which would certainly be noteworthy), you could post a link in that article about the economy of Paris. I think it would be better this way instead of having three paragraphs about the Americas, Asia-Pacific and Britain. What do you think about it ? If your list is only about the Top6 metropolitan areas, that's already a good start. I'm sure many editors will increase it later. ;) Metropolitan 01:58, 16 March 2005 (CET)

[edit] Message to 82.45.217.219

Okay, I'm sick about people vandalizing this page with silly datas. There is no official metropolitan areas for London. That's specifically for that reason that I consider such kind of ranking as totally out of place. Indeed, there are estimations of London metro area at 14 million people, others at 11 million people, it goes in all direction. Once the metropolitan area is something in itself which is backed by no relevant data, how its GDP could be ?
In my humble opinion. No ranking should be given at all. Metropolitan areas are very subjective statistics as they are based on national datas (which don't even exist in the specific case of London) and aren't meant for international comparisons. We can simply say that "Paris metro area is among world's largests". There's no need to fight to know whether its ranking figure is "5" or "6". Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprized that both Paris and London will be overtaken by Hong Kong, Shanghai and Beijing in the next 10 years to come. Metropolitan 10:41, 17 March 2005 (CET)

This guy is a well known vandal. He/she has vandalised this article for months already. He/she also frequently vandalises the Paris article. He/she uses always IPs starting with 82 or 81. This guy edits only Paris and London articles. At the Paris articles he/she always try to undermine the importance of Paris in the world, but in his/her London edits he/she always try to maximize the importance of London. It's so childish it's almost funny. The only thing we can do is keep watching.
About what you say regarding no definition of metropolitan areas, there ARE definitions of metropolitan areas in France, US, and Japan, and the GDP data I presented were for French, US, and Japanese metropolitan areas. Only the UK do not, and that's why I specifically said we cannot know for sure the GDP of London. Metropolitan, if you are concerned about this, you should check the London article. This anonymous user wrote his/her GDP figure in the London article, saying it is the GDP figure of the metropolitan area of London. Go to London and explain to people there is no such figure, or delete the figure yourself yourself.
I still think the fact that Paris is the fifth largest metro area in the world in terms of GDP should be mentioned in the article, as it is noteworthy. What you say about Asian cities is wrong. There is no chance they can overcome Paris in the next 10 years. In 2003 the GDP of Paris metro area was US$506.7 billion. That same year the GDP of Hong Kong territory was $158.6 billion. In 2004 the GDP of the municipality of Shanghai (including all suburbs and beyond) was $120 billion. In 2004 the GDP of the municipality of Beijing (50% more land area than the whole Ile de France) was $69 billion. These figures for mainland China municipalities include the recent revision upward of Chinese GDP. So as you see, even assuming a very low 1.5% GDP growth of Paris metro area in the next years, in order to overcome Paris, HK would need 14% growth rate every year, Shanghai would need 17.5%, and Beijing would need 24%. That's totally unrealistic. There's no way these Chinese cities can overcome Paris in 10 years. Hardouin 11:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This anonymous user, after being warned of blocking his IP address, has finally provided some references, instead of merely vandalising the article without justification. The reference provided comes from the GEMACA II study. This study, although very interesting, is, well, just a study and not an official figure. Different studies by different private research groups will yield different numbers, therefore one cannot use the GEMACA II study to "prove" that the GDP of the London metropolitan area is higher than the GDP of the Paris metropolitan area. In the absence of official definitions, the GEMACA II research group have their definition of the London metropolitan area, and other research groups would have other definitions. At the moment, in the absence of official figures, it is best to leave it as it is already in the little table in the article, where there are listed two figures in between which lies the GDP of London metro area. Hardouin 10:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expert tag

Someone needs to examine the competing claims of the two anonymous editors about whether the GDP of Paris is ranked 5th or 6th. Tom Harrison Talk 17:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AOL proxy

Not only the conflicting edit between two anon IP's; the 'defender' IP is a blacklisted AOL proxy. In seeing the low contributor traffic this article gets, it is highly likely that the proxy is being used by an already-contributing editor as a means to circumvent the WP:3RR rule. THEPROMENADER 11:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

It has been mentioned many times before in other Paris articles that, although the Île-de-France and the Paris aire urbaine are similar in size, they are definitely not interchangeable as this article would suggest. The INSEE aire urbaine statistical area has an only very limited statistics-only use in France, and only consensus data is taken there; economical data is calculated in France's départements and régions, so it is wrong that this article suggests otherwise. The data for a "Paris metropolitan area economy" is not only "not available": it does not exist.

As for the chart, the base of an almost year-long revert war: this is just silly. First off, the (inexistant) "Paris metropolitan area GDP" is linked to Île-de-France GDP figures as a source, and secondly, there exists no London metropolitan area, and certainly not any economical data for the same, as would convey the vague 'between' figures next to this equally nonexistant area.

Also, "metropolitan area" has never been an official translation of aire urbaine in any documentation I've seen, so it would be kind of the contributor of this to provide a confirming source.

Although the article does link to Île-de-France and Paris aire urbaine sources, interchanging these or making misleading statements about their origins/importance, with and in addition to all the above, amounts to original research. This article could use some knowledgable attention for sure.
THEPROMENADER 14:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 195.93.102.35

Hello - will the user of the blacklisted AOL proxy 195.93.102.35 please desist from using such means to avoid the WP:3RR rule? It is quite obvious who it is. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 20:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that there's no need in an article about the economy of Paris to draw a list of the Metropolitan areas with the largest GDP's. Knowing that there's no international way to determine metropolitan areas, comparing those GDP figures is about comparing apples with oranges. Saying that it is as big as some countries should be enough to make understand that it is powerful.
Now, it's true that the behaviour of the anonymous user who has as hobby since several months to rank London above Paris according to unofficial studies he finds here and there on the net is particularly annoying. And the fact that this anonymous user never registers on Wikipedia to explain himself leads me to often revert any of his edits. Though I'm neither 195.93.102.35 nor Hardouin.
I believe this tables ranking section still need to be removed, and that doesn't imply that any side is right. Metropolitan 22:02, 18 september 2006 (UTC).
I totally agree with you. Especially in the light that GDP figures exist neither for the Paris arire urbaine nor the nonexistent London Metropolitan area. Not only are both users comparing apples to oranges, but both are brandishing fruit of thier own invention : ) THEPROMENADER 22:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Promenader making accusation here now. Aren't you happy to already fill the talk pages at Paris and List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris with lengthy accusations? Do you have to make accusations in every Paris-related article? So this time it's Metropolitan who is targeted. You really don't like this guy, do you? Metropolitan, you should be aware that Promenader has filled a complaint against you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Economy of Paris. For all I know, since we're making accusations, if IP 195.93.102.35 is Metropolitan trying to bypass the 3RR, then IP 82.35.101.215 could very well be you, Promenader, also trying to bypass the 3RR. You've been spending the last year doing your best to belittle Paris in every Paris-related article, so I wouldn't be surprised if that anonymous IP address was you trying again to belittle Paris by placing it below London. Or perhaps it's more Macchiavelian, perhaps you're simply generating an edit war in an attempt to discredit the article, which seems to have worked out (cf. the tag placed on top of the article). Simply put, Promenader, don't make accusations lest you be prepared to have your own behavior called into question and investigated. Metropolitan, if you feel this accusation against you was offensive, feel free to file a complaint against Promenader on the incident noticeboard. I think that's the only way to stop him using smearing tactics. Hardouin 11:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Read again, User:Hardouin. It was quite obvious that Metropolitan made it quite clear that it was not he, even though I never accused anyone directly - and I believe him. What exactly are you trying to accomplish? THEPROMENADER 12:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
PS: Why does this quite legitimate complaint offend you so? You were never named, not even once. THEPROMENADER 12:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
If your complaint is "legitimate", then why is your complaint directed only against IP 195.93.102.35? why is it not also directed against IP 82.35.101.215? You really think both Metropolitan and I are stupid, don't you? Hardouin 12:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The complaint was against a blacklisted AOL proxy - the other IP is a simple anon from the UK. Proxies are Wiki-bad, and blacklisted anon proxies even more.
I've never even metioned Metropolitan in any of this, nor made any accusations - why do you insist on making it seem that I am a) making accusations against b) someone I have no complaint against? What are you trying to accomplish? THEPROMENADER 13:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Then if you're not making accusations against anyone, why do you use language such as "It is quite obvious who it is."? Metropolitan apparently thought this was addressed to him (he had to insist: "I'm neither 195.93.102.35 nor Hardouin"), and any person reading this (including me) would also believe your nasty comment was addressed to Metropolitan. Hardouin 13:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Dissuasive language, until I thought it better to complain. This page has no mention of any problem with Metropolitan and myself, but it would seem that you are doing your best to invent one. What is your goal here? The anon AOL proxy is not he, I know it is not he, so why are you protesting so much? THEPROMENADER 13:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I had a look into the page history to see what all the fuss was about. The table in question was not in place when I created it from the Paris article [1], but in looking at the page history it would seem that that the table's author is Hardouin [2], and almost the entire page history [3] has been a revert war between, in descending order, Hardouin and an anon and between two anons, between Metropolitan and an anon and betweenHardouin and Metropolitan.
Metropolitan has never reinstated the table, and this was actually the object of a short revert war between Metropolitan and Hardouin. With the anons, there have been only four major contributors to the article. THEPROMENADER 16:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "Table of dispute" removed. Other corrections needing attention.

Since there exists neither a London metropolitan area (or GDP data thereof) nor a Paris metropolitan area GDP, the subject of this months-long revert war was pretty pointless: both positions are Original Research, and because of this, unverifiable. In other words, this battle is not only pointless, but endless.

In this page alone, all the "metropolitan area GDP" with citations link to Île-de-France INSEE figures - this is wrong, and not only purposefully misleading, but Original Research as well. The aire urbaine statistical area is only used for collecting census data, and economy data is only collected (calculated) in départements and régions - stick to fact please.

Even the term "metropolitan area" as a translation of aire urbaine is doubtful and misleading, as the French INSEE aire urbaine statistical area has little to do with its North American counterpart in concept nor calculation. Also, the term "Paris metropolitan area" is to be found nowhere in any English INSEE documentation as a translation of aire urbaine - they use the term "Paris area" instead. In addition to being Original Research, this inventive translation aims to cater to a master schema quite contrary to Wiki "follow local conventions" naming conventions.

THEPROMENADER 07:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Spare us new accusations Promenader. Accusing other editors of original research when there's no evidence of it simply contravenes WP:FAITH, which you should read again and again. The US and Japanese metro areas have official definitions, and all data come from official sources (Government of Japan for Japanese metro areas, and Conference of US Mayors for US metro areas). The Paris metro area is also officially defined and its territory is very nearly that of Ile-de-France. Absolutely all economic books I've read use the Ile-de-France regional figures for the Paris metro area simply because both areas are almost exactly the same. Only the most pedantic person would insist that we don't use Ile-de-France regional figures because strictly speaking the Ile-de-France region and the Paris metro area have slightly diverging borders. Metropolitan, can you explain to Promenader that a few more fields or a few less fields on the edge of Ile-de-France change virtually nothing to the overall figures? Finally, the only metro area that has no official definition is London, and that's precisely why the article says that we cannot give a figure for the London metro area, and that's why it gives figures for Greater London and for the entire South-East England, which are both verifiable.
In answer to Metropolitan, I would also like to say that these metro area GDP figures are more interesting than country GDP figures. In a way, comparing the GDP of Paris metro area with the GDP of countries does not tell us much about it, whereas comparing it with other world cities is a better measure of where the Paris economy ranks in the world. There's a trend now among economists to consider that with globalization it is more and more relevant to compare metro area GDPs/economies, whereas comparing country GDPs/economies is becoming less and less relevant, because major world metro areas behave more and more like "islands" disconnected from the country in which they are located and interconnected with other large metro areas in the world. There was a young French economist, whose name I can't remember now, who published some years ago a list of metro area GDPs for all the large metro areas in the world. It was an impressive research, and it reflects this new trend among economists. That's why I think the current list is important, and should not be removed just because some English anonymous users don't like the ranking and vandalize the articles. Metropolitan, you should know that French related articles are vandalized almost on a daily base by anonymous English and American editors (check France for instance, one of the most vandalized article on Wikipedia). So if we remove the list simply because it get vandalized, then we're basically giving in to French bashers. Hardouin 12:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
PS: The GDP list comes from official sources (contrary to what Promenader insinuates), and this is so true that I will update the figures as soon as the Japanese government publish their 2004 local GDP figures (US Mayors and INSEE have already published their 2004 GDP figures). Hardouin 12:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Hardouin, why are you reverting? Theories based on fact are not fact - they are theories - and Wiki is not interested in any Wikipedian's theories. If the box is not Original Research, provide some links to Paris metropolitan area GDP or Paris aire urbaine GDP figures please. THEPROMENADER 12:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Pedantic arguments, same as the pedantic arguments already used by you at Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris and at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-10 List of Tallest buildings and structures in Paris where you insist that nothing outside of the administrative City of Paris can be called Paris. Here you insist that we can't use Ile-de-France regional figures for the Paris metro area, although all economists do so. I wish you had studied economics, Promenader. Perhaps you would have a less pedantic and "litteral-reading" view of the world, perhaps you would realize that economists make do with whatever data they can get. Hardouin 13:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
So if economists use Paris metropolitan area GDP statistics, then they should be readily available for reference. Are they? THEPROMENADER 13:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong in asking for fact? If you could prove your assertations were fact, you would have satisfied my question and the discussion would end - but instead I get excited vitriol as a reply. I don't see any cause for such fuss. Anyhow I've better things to do with my lunchtime. THEPROMENADER 13:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Re-read what I wrote, apparently you didn't understand. Economists use whatever data and figures they can find. Promenader, I'm sorry to tell you, but this ain't a perfect world. In a perfect world, economists would have available all the data that fit exactly the object of their study, but in the real world they make do with whatever data they can find. If an economist studying the Silicon Valley can't find exact data for the Silicon Valley (such as GDP), but instead has access to data for Santa Clara County, which is slightly larger than the Silicon Valley, of course s/he'll use these data. Probably people like you would say that it is unacceptable, POV, and whatnot, because the Santa Clara county is not exactly coterminous with the Silicon Valley. But then I'm sorry to tell you, you're not living in the real world. Hardouin 13:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
So if these figures exist, then you should be able to provide them. If you can't, and the numbers are of the contributor's own concoction, then that contributor would be guilty of Original Research. Pretty simple. THEPROMENADER 14:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
PS: Am I correct in assuming the contributor in question is you? THEPROMENADER 14:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you're insinuating again. As the French saying goes: "Calomniez, calomniez, il en restera toujours quelque chose." All references are at the bottom of the article, the rest is just smearing tactics. Hardouin 14:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

But I don't see any Paris metropolitan area GDP figures. What do you mean? THEPROMENADER 14:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


ThePromenader, you should really stop your silly habit consisting in attempting to marginalize people you disagree with. This can only antagonize oppositions and that is certainly not what Wikipedia needs. I have enough of those little tricks and those little moves which do not help anyone to enforce his opinion but on the contrary which simply generate pure rivalries. Simply stop your argument about Ile-de-France and the Paris metropolitan area. Knowing that the metro area is marginally more populated and more urban than is Ile-de-France, the conclusion can only be that the Ile-de-France GDP is an estimation of the metro area GDP which is marginally inferior to it.

My problem with this ranking is that it has no significant meaning in this article. Granted, Hardouin, you want to say that the Paris metro area is very powerful worldwide, and that only a few metro areas are more than Paris. You read a lot more about this than I do and I can only trust you on your conclusion. What disturbs me though is that I don't believe any ranking is necessary to come up to that conclusion.

Those rankings, knowing that they are based on different national definitions of metropolitan areas can't make any consensus. There is no standardized datas to back up this, to say which one has the biggest economies and in which order. As such, I think it's probably better to simply say that the Paris metro area is one of the few generating a GDP over 500 billion dollars or something similar, and that's it. You would have already proven your point that Paris is economically something very important in this world.

The problem with rankings when it deals about non-standardized datas is that they necessarily lead in opposing people having other non-standardized datas saying that their place should be better ranked. Wikipedia should be above that kind of rivalries... especially when they deal about marginal differences such as it's the case for London and Paris. And the fact that your datas come from national official publications which is not the case of the anonymous user don't change much, as that table invites in itself to that kind of opposition.

Frankly, this article about the economy of Paris would earn more legitimacy and as such more visibility without this table ranking non standardized datas. If we get over this, perhaps this article could finally move forward as it is currently rather incomplete.

As for the anonymous user constantly adding his petty London claims, all his IP should be banned. If he has something to say, than he should register to express it. Metropolitan 16:24, 19 september 2006 (UTC).

"ThePromenader, you should really stop your silly habit consisting in attempting to marginalize people you disagree with."
Thanks for the advice, but all I have ever done is ask for references to anything I see that does not concord with reference. I have never targeted anything else. If no references can be found to back the claims in question, then there is a problem, and this alone is enough to marginalise the text in question. I could care less about contributors - in fact, I don't even recognise my own contributions any more. Only what's written matters to me. THEPROMENADER 16:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I guess we can safely assume that Paris metropolitan area GDP statistics do not exist. THEPROMENADER 01:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In 1999, the part of the population of the Paris metropolitan area living in Ile-de-France represented 98.996% of its total population. The same year, the part of the population of Ile-de-France living in the Paris metropolitan area represented 97.023% of its total population. In 1999, the demographical difference between Ile-de-France and the Paris metropolitan area was about 2%. There's nothing illegitimate in considering the Ile-de-France GDP as an estimation of the Paris metropolitan area.
Actually, the conversion from Euros to US dollars leads to a much stronger approximation of that figure, knowing that both currencies have fluctuated in a margin of 10% in the last 12 months.
You see, ThePromenader, your behaviour is in here exactly the one I can't stand anymore. It consists in finding a little trick to make disappear a valuable information, for a reason I fail to understand. The GDP of Ile-de-France is definitly a legitimate estimation of the Paris metropolitan area which is perfectly legitimate to mention in the article about the economy of Paris. Metropolitan 17:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC).
Normally, I would agree, however.... WP:NOR. You need to have a precise source for the data, estimations from data on other regions/populations is considered original research. --Bob 01:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No, no and no. If there are no GDP figures for any "metropolitan area", one cannot cross-calculate numbers on his own to make the term fit and still call it fact - especially through calculations based on data so non-sequitur as land area and population - GDP is calculated on the number of businesses, and the revenues thereof, within a given territory, not land and population. If one insists on using the aire urbaine as a base for GDP, he will have to do the data gathering in the said area himself, as no fiscal data has ever been taken only in the wedge of extra-IDF territory covered by the AU.

This sort of maniplation is the very example of Original Research. Because it is in error, is Original Research and unverifiable, it is of no factual nor informative use to anyone. Certainly not to Wiki. THEPROMENADER 18:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC) (revised 09:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC))

The GDP data should be rewritten or removed as it is original reserach. From WP:NOR: An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following:
It introduces original ideas;
It defines new terms;
It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
By stating that IdF data is a guestimate of Paris metropole thereby original research. --Bob 15:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GDP numbers Paris - London

Problem resolved - I have inserted the figures based on the Eurostat definition for Larger Urban Zone. Eurostat is neutral and not involved in any of these debates. INSEE has also agreed to the new harmonized Eurostat definitions. It would be useful if one would start following Eurostat's urban defintions (such as the one of Larger Urban Zone when talking about metropolitan areas). Something tells me that the table will be removed for sure now :)JGG 23:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

(Grin) poking aside, that is good news, and especially when the new definition is backed by the INSEE as well. Can you provide a link to this INSEE support as a bit of extra "factual glue" to ensure that things stay in place ? THEPROMENADER 07:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Most of the information on this project comes from Eurostat but I assume they would not claim the National Statistics Offices including INSEE have agreed if they had not. Some specific documents from CNIS regarding INSEE and this topic: http://www.cnis.fr/Agenda/CR/CR_0147.PDF, bottom of page 27 and all of page 28. Here INSEE clearly accepts that the French definitions such as "urban area" cannot just be applied to other EU countries and explains they are working with Eurostat on comparable statistics. Important note: In the Urban Audit 1 there was still disagreement about the definition of Paris and London (no surpirse, this seems to be a matter of national pride for the French and British) and therefore they were excluded from Urban Audit 1 but for Urban Audit 2 there clearly was agreement and hence both cities are now included. The Eurostat definition of both cities is in many Eurostat presentations / publications of the time around 2003, so it must have been a difficult debate! JGG 09:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Oy, edit conflict - I'll answer the rest later. I wasn't questioning you sir, but, as this page was a source of long conflict, some may question even fact here. After reading, it seems that the project was organised even in collaboration with the INSEE. THEPROMENADER 09:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I can imagine that it was a difficult debate. Although the "unité urbaine" concept does its best to comply to international UN "urban area" standards, I still find that both are only effective in a single-nation study, as living habits, #habitants per apt, density, etc tend to change with culture. Actually, the same "apples to oranges" argument could be used in the case of certain cities - Marseille and Paris, for example. Although both "structure densities"/population may qualify for UA status, try to compare the sprawl of US "one-family-house-only" suburbs and compare them to Paris' ville dortoirs - hell, the debate can go on forever. At least now there's some sort of reference-worthy agreement - "big city" races are both boisterous and rife on Wiki. THEPROMENADER 10:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Nota: Mind you, although I do find the above fascinating, I am still quite the layman, so excuses if I've overlooked anything. THEPROMENADER 10:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison with economies of Brazil and Russia

Another thing, this comparison with the Brazilian economy, ouch. Ever heard of PPP? When one compares economies of highly developed countries such as France with average developed countries such as Brazil, the appropriate measure is PPP adjusted GDP numbers. Anybody who has ever been to Brazil will understand that this claim about the Paris economy being larger than the Brazil economy is arrogant, to say the least. Ditto for the Russia comparison.JGG 23:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. GDP's in purchasing power parity are good indicators of development but they are not good indicators of economical strength. Internationally speaking, the economical influence is better measured and compared by GDP's at current exchange rates. If your currency is weak, then you have a weak international purchasing power. As such, no, it's not that silly to consider that Paris is as powerful economically speaking as a poorer country having the same GDP at current exchange rates. Now this being said, this was true in 2003 and we have no clue to know whether it's still true nowadays. Currencies exchange rates have massively varied in later years.
By the way, JGG, you who seem so concerned about factual accuracy, why is it still written that Eurostat definitions of "LUZ", which are based on political regions, are the most accurate comparison of urban demographics ? Metropolitan 12,38 20 October 2006

[edit] Applying PPP to metropolitan GDP figures

The more I think about it, the more I think this table needs a serious footnote. PPP is equally important for cities than for countries. Why? Take the example for countries first. If Brazil produces 100 breads costing $.10 each and France produces 100 breads costing $.40 each (because of differences in labour cost and other input costs), then the nominal GDP of France will be four times the nominal GDP of Brazil. Yet the real GDP is the same. The same goes for cities. Differences in real estate prices feed through into labour costs. Hence a Big Mac may cost more in London or Tokyo than in Paris. If GDP only consisted of Big Macs and assuming all cities produce the same amount of Big Macs, does it really mean the Tokyo or London economy is larger than the economy of Paris? No it is just a measuring difference. Also no surprise that Osake is so high on the list. It does not mean I would erase the table, but I would suggest to put it in the right context. There is a relevancy of starting to calculate and measure the economies of alpha cities as indeed they have a higher correlation one with another than with the country they belong to. JGG 16:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Description of the Paris economy

I just read this part of the intro: "The tourism industry, for instance, employs only 3.6% [3] of the total workforce of the metropolitan area (AU) (as of 1999) and is by no means a major component of the economy. The Paris economy is essentially a service economy. Its manufacturing base is still important, the Paris metropolitan area remaining one of the manufacturing powerhouses of Europe, but it is declining, while there is a clear shift of the Paris economy towards high value-added services, in particular business services."

If tourism is not a crucial economic sector in Paris, I wonder in which other city it would be. The rest this paragraph gets the reader confused. 1) Paris is a service economy 2) Paris is a manufacturing powerhouse 3) Paris is becoming a service industry.

So would it not be better to say: "The Paris economy is well balanced between manufacturing and services, with an ongoing shift towards services and high added value industries. For instance, tourism is an important contributor to the Paris economy, but it employing only 3.6% of the the total workforce of the metropolitan area (AU) (as of 1999) shows how balanced the Paris economy really is."

Opinions appreciated.JGG 15:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you'll look at the "reference" attached to the tourism phrase you'll see that it is a .pdf on how important the IDF is for France's tourism. Of course not the entire IDF is a magnet for tourism - only the city and a few "satellite attractions" are - so it is only natural that Paris' tourism spread over the entire région does not amount to much for the whole; it would be more informative (and straightforward) to state it in this perspective.
True - I am just saying this paragraph needs to be rewritten because right now it looks very strange, particularly where one say it is a services centre and then one say it is a manufacturing powerhouse. JGG 16:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, then by all means, please do, sir. You seem to know much more about it than I do. THEPROMENADER 17:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Let's see whether there are any further opinions. It is easy to change numbers, this sentence is a bit more difficult because it tries to summarize a complex situation in a few words.JGG 23:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes. That would be the normal thing to do, but I am quite familiar with this page's origins/history; I don't think there'll be any rush of commentary any time too soon. If you like, take it up directly with the author of the text in question - that would be User:Hardouin. THEPROMENADER 07:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
It is strange ... it looks like there was a civil war raging about this article only a few weeks back and now it seems so quiet. I will give it a few days because there is no point of spending a lot of time changing everything with good intentions and then having it reverted. Anyway, I think there is a fundamental issue with this article and maybe it needs more than just a few cosmetic changes. It seems to have been written as an answer to a question. I would phrase the question as "I do not believe Paris is an important economic centre, please prove me wrong". The table and the comparisons with other countries such as Brazil and Russia contribute to that impression. But does that question represent public opinion around the world or is it just fed by anxieties in France? What will be our conclusion when we read this article and the discussions in 10 years' time? JGG 14:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Since the only Economy data available is based on the IDF region (and its départements), I think it would help reader comprehension if everything was based on this area (as "the Paris region"). The aire urbaine is only used to determine commuter activities (and the only data gathered within is census data), so this should be used only for citing info of this type - employment figures are fine. THEPROMENADER 16:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Which brings us to another point, i.e. about the "aire urbaine". This seems to be very much an INSEE concept and I was surprised to see how much it is promoted on Wikipedia. I just spent a few hours addressing some of the misunderstandings sbout this on Largest urban areas of the European Union. For Eurostat it is simple: the metropolitan area of Paris (the Larger Urban Zone as they call it) is the IdF.JGG 16:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Not only that, but for many North Americans, the "Metropolitan Area" covers an agglomeration and then some [4] - in most cases an extension of the limits of an urban area to the closest county border. France's commune is too small for "county comparison", but départements... - anyhow all this is just speculation because even the INSEE doesn't use the term "metropolitan area" in any of their English documentation concerning France - they use "Paris area" to describe the Paris aire urbaine. In short, I would hesitate to use the term "metropolitan area" to signify the IDF or Paris aire urbaine. Vague and unverifiable. THEPROMENADER 17:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You'll find that the Wiki is perhaps the only (what is supposed to be) mainstream reference (apart from the MSN nonsense cited) to use the term "metropolitan area" to speak of anything France. I've been accused by the author of all this of "hating" the term, but I just don't see it used elsewhere, and certainly not as an official translation, that's all. The Aire Urbaine, on the other hand, way beats the NA MA as a precise demographical tool, namely because it is based on the map of France's (often tiny) municipal communes. Myself I elect to just to use official and referencable terms to avoid anything smacking of original research. THEPROMENADER 17:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
It also gets very confusing because IdF is translated as Paris Region abroad. Now I went to Meaux the other day, coming from the North on the A1. I exited just before Paris. Amazing, it was just 30 kms of fields. No urban sprawl, just agriculature, and tiny villages. I have never been in a MA like that.JGG 18:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the sparse urbanisation would be éparpillement. Only 20% of the IDF is urbanised in reality [5]. Unless it is explicity spoken of, think the term "Paris region" should be used before IDF on English Wiki to describe Paris beyond its agglomeration, as it is the official translation [6] - but perhaps it would be wise to put IDF between brackets at first mention of the term. Okay for cleaning this up too. THEPROMENADER 19:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Rewrite

So what can be improved? First off, I still have doubts on that table - I'm still persuaded that the data within is rather apples to oranges, or in any case, certainly not based on anything that can be called a "metropolitan area". The Tokyo and Osaka "県" is certainly not this and, again, there is no Paris AU GDP. Isn't there a similar study somewhere that can be sourced directly?

As for the comparisons... I would agree that, as they are, these seem trumpeting simply because they have no context. Comparisons are useful in describing national/international market evolution (eg. the Paris region WWI - WWII machine and motor industry and its role in the European economy/production, now moving to services), but "bigger than that country" is pointless - especially when the reader doesn't have a clue about the economy of the compared-to country.

If anything, this article should be rewritten in using terms and regions used by the economists of its own country - this is the only way it can be verifiable. Any "bending" of names and figures to the goal of international comparison, unless it is a direct citation of a respectable reference doing the same, smacks of original research. In short, this article should place the numbers where they are, and not be an exercise bent to a "greater schema" of international comparison.

How do English references speak of the Paris Economy? There should be the guideline, methinks, as it bypasses all "international understanding" arguments forwarded thus far. I have the 2006 Britannica - Time for a gander. THEPROMENADER 15:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Figures

So London has finally overcome Paris ? Well, at least the French had the fair-play to say that Paris and London were equal, and didn't push into figures examination and manipulation in order to put their city above the other by all means. Anyway, the external link that gives the GDP of London doesn't seem to work all right, can it be fixed ? Enmerkar 17:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I really do not know what fair-play has to do with establishing facts. I am not French, I am not British but I thought the table was rather stupid and I completed it. Now we are comparing two Larger Urban Zones, as independently defined by Eurostat. I would delete the table and also the naive nominal comparisons to Russia and Brazil (which do not really mean anything) but as this seems a very sensitive subject I will not do it until there are some more opinions on this duscussion page. I do not understand why you say the link does not work, I just tried it and it works well.JGG 18:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table

Some new Wiki member just reverted the table in order that Paris the Paris economy would appear larger than the London economy.

The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion this table is meaningless.

Firstly, there is the debate about what the "city defintion" should be. If we compare on basis of the administrative city definitions, the Paris economy would get a much lower ranking. Yet, I think it is fair to look beyond administrative levels and I think most of us could live with the IdF being used as base. But then the Parisians need to allow the same to happen for other cities. So that is why for London we now use the Larger Urban Zone, which is still considerable smaller than the IdF in terms of surface and marginally larger in terms of population. When Eurostat compares between cities, it will take the IdF for Paris as its LUZ and for London it takes Greater London plus a few home counties as LUZ. On that basis one should allow London to come up in the table with the GDP for its LUZ. There are other studies that come up with much higher numbers for London and I can quote these if you are interested but I think this is a fair comparison as it uses the neutral Eurostat methodology.

Secondly, the table does not consider cost of living. London and Oasaka may actually have a lower GDP than Paris on a PPP adjusted basis (I am pretty sure they have).

Thirdly, the table does not really contribute anything. Why not say that Paris is one of 10 largest city economies globally and that is it. We'll be able to argue perpetually whether it is no 3 or 8 or whatever.

So I reverted the table for it to be at least factually correct. But we really need to ask ourselves the question whether we should keep this table. Also the comparisons with Brazil and Russia are unhelpful because on a PPP adjusted basis these economies are multiples of the Paris economy. On top of that it reads as quite belittling to anybody from these countries. Can we please have a discussion here before we start changing the text?JGG 10:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite intro

This is the current intro:

-- The metropolitan area of Paris is one of the engines of the global economy. In 2003 the GDP of the metropolitan area (Ile de France) of Paris as calculated by INSEE was US$513.4 billion [1] (at real exchange rates, not at PPP). If it were a country, the metropolitan area (IdF) of Paris would be the 14th largest economy in the world (as of 2003)[2], above Brazil (US$492.3 billion) [2] and Russia (US$432.9 billion) [2].

Although in terms of population the Paris metropolitan area is only approximately the 20th largest metropolitan area in the world, its GDP is the sixth largest in the world after the metropolitan areas of Tokyo, New York, Los Angeles, Osaka and London.

The economy of Paris is extremely diverse and has not yet adopted a specialization inside the global economy (unlike Los Angeles with the entertainment industry, or London and New York with financial services). The tourism industry, for instance, employs only 3.6% [3] of the total workforce of the metropolitan area (AU) (as of 1999) and is by no means a major component of the economy. The Paris economy is essentially a service economy. Its manufacturing base is still important, the Paris metropolitan area remaining one of the manufacturing powerhouses of Europe, but it is declining, while there is a clear shift of the Paris economy towards high value-added services, in particular business services. --

I think does intro read very badly and contains a lot of illogical sequences such as the argument that Paris is essentially a service industry but then that it is a manufacturing powerhouse in Europea at the same time.

Why not write it the following way:

-- The metropolitan area of Paris is one of the leading city economies in the world, alongside the other alpha cities such as New York, London, Tokyo, etc. In 2003 the GDP of the metropolitan area (Ile de France) of Paris as calculated by INSEE was US$513.4 billion [1]. This GDP puts Paris well into the top ten city economies globally and if it were a country, the metropolitan area (IdF) of Paris would be the 14th largest economy in the world as of 2003 (at real exchange rates, not at PPP).

The economy of Paris is extremely diverse and has not yet adopted the same degree of specialization as other cities such as Los Angeles with the entertainment industry or London and New York with financial services. Yet, Paris has positioned itself as a global beacon in industries such as fashion and luxury goods. Paris' economy has both a domestic and international dimension and is essentially a service industry, although it still has pockets of manufacturing industry, mainly in high-added-value areas.

The Paris service economy benfits from its position in France where it faces no true domestic competition. Paris benefits form an excellent internal transportation system and excellent links to the rest of Europe, Paris also being the most important node on the European high-speed-train network and the second largest European airport hub. In recent history, Paris has known an extended period of rapid economic growth following the second world war but has faced slower growth during the 90s and early 00s, contributing to a serious unemployment problem. Yet the Paris economy has been outperforming the French and eurozone economies and is currently growing strongly again.

--

I'd love to have comments on this. To me it seems less of a propoganda text and much more credible and balancedJGG 10:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I do like your version. As for article credibility, I'd have a look at other articles/references on Paris' economy [7]. You'll find that the term "metropolitan area" is never used when speaking of Economy - data on this is taken in départements and régions. When speaking of Paris' economy, it is generally understood that it englobes the entire Île-de-France. Verifiability would make this the base of the article, but the "aire urbaine" statistical area (that only vaguely translates to "metropolitan area") can be used, as it is in reality, to cite individual census data (such as place of employment, trade, salary, etc) it is used for. Anything outside of this, as stated before, is Original research and unverifiable. THEPROMENADER 12:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that GDP figure is for the IdF and it may be better to explain that properly. The text should not contain any original research but I have tried to create a fluid text rather than a list of dry facts. Of course I am just observing from a distance and may not be aware of every detail but that makes it sometimes easier to synthesize. I just find it a pity there are no French wikipedians giving their opinion. Fact is the current intro looks very bad upon Paris. JGG 23:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
If I may, what do you mean by "bad"? Are you talking about the trumpeting tone? THEPROMENADER 09:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed that's it. It somewhat appears like an artcile written by a promotion agency. It also hides every negative aspect that is also relevant in the consideration of the Paris / IdF economy. For instance, the world "unemployment" never comes up in the article, whilst we all know that this is one of the problems Paris and IdF are struggling with (9% unemployment is considerable, that's over half a million people for the IdF region).JGG 11:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how many people include the "metropolitan areas" of NYC, Tokyo, etc. but since it can be expanded very much away, I think the GDP of the cores are more interesting. Maybe it should be added in the intro that the 6.2 million inhabitants Paris has a much higher GDP that the 7.2 million London. Enmerkar 15:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The concept of "Metropoltian Area" is vague to say the least. In the US a Metropolitan Area is set at the county borders closest to an unbroken urban growth - if France's communes were treated as counties then France's unité urbaine (urban area) would be this, not the aire urbaine statistical area as one has done his best to prove here. Tokyo's prefecture limits are set in a kilometre radius, and not at all anything like a Metropolitan area - nothing at all comparable! Apple to oranges I say. For sure a city's urban area would be a best base for comparison - unfortunately France's economical data is taken where people pay taxes - in départements, summed together into régions, meaning Paris' Île-de-France.THEPROMENADER 15:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/c/o/Talk%7EEconomy_of_Paris_4c99.html"