Talk:List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Update and Expand

I do not quite see why we should completely exclude available information about super rich countries like Brunei, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Andorra, and San Marino. The Vatican would be an interesting case, too. We can mark them to be estimations and provide the sources, but keeping it as it is means pretending the people in the top listed countries were the richest in the world, and this is not at all the case. Get-back-world-respect 20:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • An update for 2006? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.132.242.1 (talk • contribs).
see September 2006 data available on this page. --Van helsing 21:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of cities/conurbations/metropolitan areas by GDP

Is there any list on the GDP per capita of cities, conurbations or metropolitan areas? — Instantnood 09:32 Mar 7 2005 (UTC)


Would it be possible to feature the number of developing countries (and their population) by continent? I have not been able to find this information anywhere else. Thank you.

[edit] Taiwan/ROC

160.39.195.88 changed "Republic of China (Taiwan)" to "Taiwan". — Instantnood 16:46, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Umm... and what's the problem with that? Enchanter 13:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed "Republic of China" to "Taiwan(R.O.C)", because "Republic of China" may confuse many people with "People Republic of China," namely China. --Nicolehayashi 16:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, one way to solve that problem is to make sure there is a Wiki-link. And the (R.O.C.) might also confuse peopel. the way things are now are the way they should be: the official name of the country is given first (perhaps abbreviated if it's quite long, as is the case for Venezuela and Macedonia), and then the unofficial name in parentheses if such is useful: Republic of China (Taiwan), Republic of Korea (South Korea), Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea). etc. Interlingua talk email 02:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Equatorial Guinea

There is an apparent mistake: Equatorial Guinea can't be 31st with about 23k. They are now 7th or 8th. Some prankster messing around I feel. Please Change

That "prankster" is known as IMF. Blame it on them. —Cantus…☎ 22:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Another prankster moved Ecuatorial Guinea to 129th despite the IMF sayying that their GDP PPP per capita is $33,994 and should be in 7th in the list. Please revert changes. Check here

Now someone should ask themselves: Is an African nation with 30% unemployment among the 10 wealthiest nations in the world? Or could the IMF contain an error? Which is more likely? Also consider that the CIA Factbook gives the figure $2700 per capita.

Please revert to the reverted changes. Check here: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ek.html

Cantus is claiming that $60 oil has caused per capita gdp to skyrocket. Looking at this, it seems they are producing 350,000 barrels a day, which at $60 a barrel comes to $21 million per day, or nearly $8 billion a year. The population of the country is tiny, 535,000 people. So the additional $8 billion divided by the tiny population gives an additional $14,000 or so in per capita gdp. Adjust for purchasing power parity, and you could get something like $34,000 a year. So maybe E.G. does properly belong in the top 10 after all. Good for them. TimShell 07:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
This makes no sense: Cantus has not documented his claim (the IMF link only links to Wikipedia's article on this institution, without any direct reference to Equatorial Guinea at all) and, according to the data contained,in the article on Equatorial Guinea, sourced in the CIA factbook, this republic has a GDP (PPP) per capita of just $2,229, making it the 138th in the list, between Sudan and Mauritania.
I have the feeling that Cantus is making some sort of undocumented vandalization of this list. What makes me quite angry, specially because he is a registered user with apparent dedication. Yet he has insistently reverted EG to the 6th post without any documentation to back it. --Sugaar 15:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It appears Cantus may be correct. The CIA factbook now reports $50,200 (2005 data) up from $2,700 in their previous survey. My apologies Cantus, it seems you were right all along. Very strange but it appears true. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ek.html Jan 25, 2006

[edit] Aruba

Why is Aruba excluded from this list? — Instantnood 12:11, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of missing dependencies, too. The only dependencies added are those that appeared in the IMF study. If you want to add the missing dependencies, use the data from the CIA World Factbook. —Cantus…☎ 18:50, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rankings

Can it be two-column - one for ranking of sovereign states, and the other for all countries listed? — Instantnood 12:11, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest no, because then you lose the ability to directly compare to other countries. —Cantus…☎ 18:46, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] updates

I've recalculated data down to "Russia" on the list of countries by total GDP, someone else needs to complete this.

[edit] Tunisia

what about Tunisia?

[edit] Just Curious

I have to ask: how can the GDP per capita for any country be reported for the year 2005 as of August 1, 2005?

Another question: Luxembourg always comes in number 1 by way of some nebulous "accounting anomaly". Does anyone know exactly what this anomaly consists of?

On the Luxembourg question, commuting is likely to be a large part of it. GDP measures the value of output produced within a country's borders. This means that if, say, a Frenchman lives in France and commutes to work each day in a French owned factory sited in Luxembourg, the value of his output is all counted as part of Luxembourg's GDP (even though it is the French that are getting all the benefit). A large number of commuters commute into Luxembourg (I think it's something like a quarter of the workforce), so Luxembourg's GDP includes their output, even though they are not in Luxembourg's population figures. So it's likely that this has inflated Luxembourg's per capita GDP figure. Enchanter 18:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Only one source should be used and all for the same year

There is a great deal of estimation involved in producing these figures. Results published by different organisations can be quite different. Even with the same source, they can change their minds from year to year. (I keep track of the CIA figures, and they downgraded the US from 158.8% of the UK figure in 2000 to 136.5% of it in 2003, and they nearly doubled their estimate of Russia's PPP per capita in the late 1990s, despite the collapse of the Russian economy.) If this rule is not applied, people can pick and choose the most favourable figure for their country and add it to the table. 82.35.34.11 13:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

What happened to having 2 seperate lists, one for IMF and one for CIA figures? I thought that was much more useful. This has both figures mixed in; not a very reliable resource if countries are compared with different metrics from different organizations. Frogular 07:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taiwan

Taiwan is under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China and should be labelled as such. This list ignored various overlapping claims made by various governments and presents the de facto situation. Please do not label it as being part of the PRC. That is POV. --Jiang 09:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The PRC has never exercised sovereignty over Taiwan. They want to promote the idea that there is exactly One China, and that the geographic region of Taiwan is part of that notion of China. Howver, they are deliberately vague about who, if anyone, represents that One China. In order for both sides to agree on this issue (as attempted for example in 1992), the PRC cannot claim that China equals the PRC, as the ROC would never agree to that. Part of our duty is to report all relevant sides of an issue, and since this issue is complex, it requires one or more whole articles; political status of Taiwan is a good place to start. However, we also have a duty to report what is real and factual. In this case, we cannot hope to reduce a complex issue to a simple short description, but we clearly need simple short descriptions, and in such a situation it's best to pick descriptions that are grounded in reality. --MarkSweep✍ 10:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I would have thought the most appropriate label is just "Taiwan". There is absolutely no disagreement or controversy about where the borders of Taiwan are - it's the name of an island. The political controversy over whether that island ought to belong to the PRC or the ROC or be independent is completely irrelevant to this article, which is just giving the GDP per capita of people living on that island. Enchanter 14:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The Republic of China governs not only the island of Taiwan, but also the islands of Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu. (Stefan2 06:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Singapore

Should be 27,800$ per capita[1], and not 26,800.

See comment above about using a single source. IMF places Singapore lower, CIA places Singapore higher. Frogular 07:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VOTE!! - HDI in Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template?

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a standard UN measure/rank of how developed a country is or is not. It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment. However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.

Thus, the following question is put to a vote:

Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template:

(1) Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;
(2) Rank of country’s HDI;
(3) Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?

YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here

Thanks!

E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discrepancies

I was checking the GDP figures in the articles for Germany, Uk and France, and noticed that they are nit the same those listed here. Can someone sort out which figures are correct, or perhaps why they are different figures so disagree?? Sandpiper 12:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Also have a look at China (#4 of the world re GDP) and USA, Germany, Japan as the largest economies. E.g. per capita of Germany (population 82mm) is some $30k (in reality is more than $32k))whereas the one of China (population more than 1bn, so way more than 10x as large) is $7k according to the ranking. Does not match at all, don't you think?

[edit] Intertemporal Comparison with CIA data

I have a question about the CIA World Factbook that might pertain to this article, since it uses CIA data. The issue is whether one can do an intertemporal comparison of national economies using the GDP section of the Factbook? One issue is that the Factbook is often irratic between years when it comes to national GDP. For example, in 1999 (from the 2000 factbook), the CIA listed the GDP of Russia (PPP) as being $620 billion; then in 2000 (from the 2001 factbook), it was listed as being $1.12 trillion, about 80% growth. Given that the Russian economy did not grow 80% in 2000 and the calculation is PPP, is it not true that the CIA must have changed the method that it used to calculate the statistic? In this case, does the CIA have estimates as to what it thought the Russian economy really was in 1999? If not, how do they explain the discrepancy? The official growth rate of Russia in 2000 was about 10%.

Of course, the issue is not limited only to Russia. If they changed the criteria in one case, they presumably did in other cases as well. In general, is it possible to do intertemporal comparison with factbook statistics such as the GDP PPP and per capita GDP PPP? I would appreciate especially if an employee who knows how the CIA factbook works sees this discussion. I have also posted this comment on the CIA article. 18.251.6.67 02:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that in 1999 Russia had $620 billion, but almost 86% inflation rate and that the value given in 2000 was 1.12 trillion. I also understand that in 1998 Russia was in a really tough depression that continued over to 99. 2000 had a bomb wih rising oil and Putin was able to get inflation down to normal. So 86% of the change came from inflation and the other 4 from economic growth.dualdual

[edit] Consistency with List of countries by GDP (PPP)

I propose we should have multiple tables, 1 from IMF and 1 from CIA factbook, to show variation between calculation methods and also stop the incessant number changes that supporters of various countries perform. Frogular 22:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the IMF figure for world GDP (PPP)? It was on the page just three weeks ago, and now it's gone. This is quite annoying. Disappearing data corrodes the credibility of Wikipedia. Knappster 18:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
IMF does not provide a per capita version of the World GDP (PPP) value, total GDP (PPP) they do provide. Before the split in IMF and CIA factbook tables (19 March), the World value in the (one) IMF table was sourced (with a footnote) from the GDP (PPP) list and the factbook, not IMF.--Van helsing 20:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Then couldn't we just take that figure for total worldwide GDP (PPP) and divide it by 6.5 billion people? Am I missing something here? Knappster 19:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where's Cuba?

The third poorest country in the Americas (after Bolivia and Haiti), is missing from this list.

According to the much-debated article on Cuba, it should rank as the 126th country, with a per capita figure of $3,000, very close to Bolivia. By the way, both the figure and the position number given for Bolivia (#125 and Int. $2,817, respectively) are wrong, as they are in fragrant contradiction with the data in the article for Bolivia for 2006 (GDP Int. $949).

At any rate, the $3,000 figure for Cuba looks extremely fattened and unreliable (nothing to be surprised about).

Hopefully someone with access to solid, reliable information fixes these errors.

AVM 18:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Which source would you consider to be solid and reliable?
I would say: help yourself and ‘fix these errors’ --Van helsing 09:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


"for all 180 members of the International Monetary Fund" the IMF article says "With the exception of North Korea, Cuba, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Monaco, Tuvalu and Nauru, all UN member states either participate directly in the IMF or are represented by other member states." Hence data for these countries should be added at the end as it's not like-for-like compatible. Lichenstein would have been very near the top I would expect. Rich Farmbrough 21:56 19 May 2006 (UTC).


[edit] Romania: Consolidated Budget Revenues at €9.23 bln in Jan-April '06

14:55 - 01 June 2006 - Romania collected revenues of 32.6 bln lei (€9.23 bln) to the consolidated state budget in the first four months of 2006, accounting for 10.1% of the country's GDP, said the Romanian Ministry of Finance.


The country's spending in the first four months of 2006 stood at 29.2 bln lei (€8.27 bln), which is 9.1% of the country's GDP. Tax on profit generated 3.1 bln lei (€877.9 mln) of the country's consolidated state budget revenue during the reported period, while collection of income tax generated 2.8 bln lei (€792.9 mln), value added tax (VAT) contributed 8.1 bln lei (€2.29 bln) and excise tax generated 2.9 bln lei (€821.28 mln) of the total.

The Romanian Government had initially envisaged a budget deficit of 0.5% of GDP for 2006, which increased to 0.9% of GDP after the first budget revision in April 2006.


Source: http://www.reporter.gr/fulltext_ENG.cfm?id=60601145531 --212.227.101.15 19:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So GDP is 92,30 Billion EURO in 2006. --212.227.101.15 19:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] paragraph about accumulated wealth versus income

I removed the following paragraph (along with restoring the IMF figures due to an other editor):

In the case of countries that have seen a dramatic increase of personal income only recently, one must also remember they might not yet have much accumulated wealth, so a comparison based only on current income (however measured) risks overstating the prosperity of places that have seen recent booms. In a place that has been prosperous for a long time (and not experienced war or major disaster recently) many buildings and much of the infrastructure will usually have been there for a long time, whereas a place that does not have much existing assets has to spend a lot of their income on building such things. It is much like the difference between two households with exactly the same current income, but one household spends much of that income on rent whereas the others own a house on which they paid off the mortgage loan some years ago.

It sounds all logic to me, but is it original research, or appropriate having it in this article (quite elaborate for a list off-article), can we use it somewhere else? Van helsing 13:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Percent of Average

Recently, I have added the column for how many percent about the average a country is. However, the way I calculated the average was simplistic, taking the plain average of the values of the first column of the table. That average does not take into account the populations of the countries or the economic power of the countries. Coming up with a better way of calculating the average would be helpful. Given we are interested in the figures per capita, taking the populations of the countries as the weight for building a weighted average rather than plain average would probably be the best way to do it.

[edit] Hong Kong

Why isn't Hong Kong on the map?

It is #9 on the list. Contact the map creator for the image problem if there is one. SchmuckyTheCat 22:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Supposedly it's the list of countries right? And Hong Kong is a part of China isn't it? And Hong Kong is not a country is it? Including is a merit, not including is still valid in my opinion. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 06:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what is a country and what is a sovereign state? 22:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One color picture literally unreadable

On a high-contrast LCD monitor, 40k+ countries and 20k+ countries are completely undistinguishable, and 10k+ countries are indistinguishable from the former unless one looks VERY carefully. This image is much less informative than the multicolor copy. Practicality is more important than aestetics, put back the old image.

Agree, have put the old one back (sorry Distantbody). --Van helsing 14:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September 2006 data available

The IMF has published their newest data for September 2006:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/02/data/weoselgr.aspx

(MD 08:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC))

Where's Iraq???

I have updated with 2006 data from the link above. This also removed the pro-US (insertion of CIA data into an IMF table resulting in higher rank) and pro-Lebanon (addition of another digit in front of figure) vandalism by unregistered users. Ajeleonard 10:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
We’ll better wait till this year (2006) is finished, though List of countries by GDP (PPP), 2006 would be a good place for it (second column). --Van helsing 12:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's time to change over to 2006 data now? We're well into 2007 :) MD 12:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
IMF updates their databases in April and September ([5]), I think that that update in April is the moment to wait for, not the fact that we’re in 2007 now. They probably need that time to collect and analyze all the 2006 data; that update in April 2007 will give more reliable figures than the current database of September 2006. Besides, we have List of countries by future GDP estimates (PPP) (note that "current" figures can only be based on previous years) --Van helsing 12:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DPRK?

Where in the list can I find information about the DPRK? (Stefan2 06:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] List is incorrect

Ok,who totaly f***ed up the table,this is not the IMF ranking of estimates for 2005,for example in this list Croatia no.60 GDP 11,600,IMF website Croatia 2005. no.54 GDP 12,324,Serbia and Montenegro is listed twice with impossible GDP estimates...--BorgDrone 19:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok,the list is fixed,thnx to Polaron.--BorgDrone 23:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azerbaijan

According to the [CIA https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html] statictics the GDP of Azerbaijan is 4,800 not 4,600 little diference but could somebody update the numbers please Baku87 21:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an IMF list,there is a separate CIA World fact book statistics list.--BorgDrone 23:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American abnormal GDP

A thing with much GDP per thing of an American is not what I can be proud of. A thing from each other G7 countries with many 5,000 dollars - 10,000 dollars is abnormal, too. An American of low wage includes it, too, and a number swells because I waste it borrowing money.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.145.14.86 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Luxembourg or Bermuda

Data Interchanged —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.33.162 (talk • contribs). (and reverted)--Van helsing 11:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If you where to read the CIA Factbook, you would find Luxembourgs GDP PC is $55,600, this is being replaced with Bermudas GDP for some reason.
https://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/lu.html#Econ
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.33.162 (talk • contribs).
Sorry, but maybe you should read the article and find this:
--Van helsing 11:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ooooh

Yep..., and by the way, Welcome. --Van helsing 12:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Equitoreal Guinea

GDP only 16,000, cia factbook says it is third with a gdp of 50,000, just type in cia factbook in google

[edit] Ireland

Ireland appears to be on the list twice... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.142.177 (talk • contribs).

Yep, for one day, and not anymore since three days, but thanks anyway. --Van helsing 18:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update to 2007 estimates

I think we should update the list to the 2007 estimates. The articles of the individual countries list the 2007 estimates anyway, and sometimes they compare them to these 2005 datas, leading to incorrect rankings. Frigo 17:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greece is incorrect

Greece should now be 14th on the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.90.160.165 (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Netherlands Antilles, Netherlands... but not Aruba

Just wondering: number 29 in the table is 'Netherlands Antilles, Netherlands'. Why isn't Aruba included?

According to Netherlands,

"The Netherlands ... is the European part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands ... which consists of the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles, and Aruba."

I would have thought the figure would be for either:

  • Netherlands [meaning the country in Europe]; or,
  • Kingdom of the Netherlands, or alternatively Aruba, Netherlands Antilles, Netherlands?

What have I missed here? --Shirt58 09:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The entities Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles and Aruba are listed separately by the used sources (see for instance the 3rd column in List of countries by GDP (PPP)). In this article, the source (IMF) didn’t provide the figures for Aruba (and we choose not to mix sources in one table for comparability reasons). --Van helsing 09:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I get the feeling that IMF includes Aruba in their Netherlands Antilles listings, and the CIA world fact book doesn’t (compare the columns in List of countries by GDP (PPP)). --Van helsing 09:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qatar

I'm pretty sure Qatar is not 11th in the list. Apple 15:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the source it is. There is a lot of oil/gas and petrochemical industry there. --Van helsing 16:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] the list is confusing

the list is based upon two different systems of data: one system is the IMF estimation for 2005 - based upon (extrapolating) 2004 data, whereas the other system is the CIA estimation for 2006 - based upon the most updated data (including 2006 data). e.g. Israel's data are taken from the (most updated) data of the CIA, whereas most of the other countries are exhibited with the (less updated) data of the IMF. Please fix the list, either by updating the data for all other countries according to CIA estimation for 2006 (based upon the most updated data including 2006 data), or by giving all the countries the same (less updated) IMF estimation for 2005 (obtained by extrapolating 2004 data). Eliko 13:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting the wrong Israel entry. The listed values are intended to be identical to the IMF source. The Israel entry was vand… changed here, repaired. --Van helsing 10:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the IMF source is updated (including historical years) each half year. This one is from September 2006, not 2004. The next update is expected in April 2007. --Van helsing 10:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Van helsing

You've been absolutely wrong: what was published by the IMF in september 2006 - is an estimation for 2005 - based upon (extrapolating) 2004 data, and that's clearly declared in the very document of IMF. There are also further estimations for 2006 and even for 2007 - all of which based upon (extrapolating) 2004 data. Furthermore, Wikipedia has an article for all of these estimations, named: "List of countries by future GDP per capita estimates (PPP)". All of these estimations are based upon (extrapolating) 2004 data, making no use of more updated data. However, the data supplied by the CIA are based upon the most updated data - including 2006 data. e.g. in 2006 Equatorial Guinea became third in the world, since - in this year - much oil and gas was suddenly found in the country, but IMF doesn't even hint at this new fact, because IMF just extrapolated 2004 data (for the estimations of following years), so Equatorial Guinea is still located very low in the list of IMF, even in the estimates for 2006 and 2007 - which were unfortunately obtained by (extrapolating) 2004 data. Eliko 12:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you’re absolutely right. What’s the point in updating and publishing their databases twice a year without actually updating the data for each year? I got a very different picture from the answers they gave on their FAQ page: How often is the online WEO database updated? & How often are GDP estimates revised?. I thought IMF was one of the more “neutral” sources, but it seems they’re not exactly quick in supplying the newest info. Not sure which source is considered the best to use now (IMF, Worldbank, CIA) for all those GDP articles. --Van helsing 13:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me help you:
IMF has the official GDP reports (supplied by the countries), of which the most updated data are currently - as of 2004. These data facilitate IMF to make estimates for following years: The estimations included in our current article - refer to 2005, and they are only estimates for 2005 (based upon 2004 data), but there are other estimates for 2006 and 2007 (based upon the same 2004 data), and these estimates appear in the article: "List of countries by future GDP per capita estimates (PPP)".
The World Bank has the official GNP reports (supplied by the countries), of which the most updated data are currently - as of 2005, so the World Bank needs no estimations for calculating 2005 data. Therefore, the data exhibited by the World Bank are simply 2005 data (I assume you know the difference between GDP and GNP: the first refers to the money made in the given country, no matter which nationality the worker has, whereas GNP refers to the money made by all the citizens of the given country, no matter where the money has been made).
The CIA has no official reports (supplied by the countries), but information obtained by the intelligence service of the CIA. This infornation includes the most updated data the CIA could obtain (including 2006 data), and also estimations - when the data could not be obtained, thus making the whole "2006 estimate" (for most countries).Eliko 15:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I’m still surprised (which I shouldn’t be) that the most recent data the IMF uses to base their estimations on, is from 2004. So summarized:
  • IMF: official GDP reports sound appealing to use as a source (in a data reliability sense), but relative “old”
  • World Bank: official reports, supply GDP and GNI per capita but not GDP per capita (not appropriate for this article)
  • CIA: no "official" reports, but most up to date.
I would like to suggest to use both the IMF and CIA data in the article, in separate tables (like here and here), plus how recent the data is for each entry, plus the difference between the sources you give above (do we have a reference for your explanation, to use in the article?). --Van helsing 16:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australia

I find the IMF results to be quite inaccurate. Either the IMF or the Australian Government have got it badly wrong according to this document (when comparing it to the IMF results): http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/fs/aust.pdf (Mattrix18 02:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

Identical in both cases ($ 30,897 - recent economic indicators: GDP per capita PPP (US$) (c) row, 2005(a) column). I’m actually surprised that there isn’t even one dollar difference, as it is supposed to be an estimate from IMF, the Australian department for foreign affairs and trade apparently trusts it to be correct . --Van helsing 11:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A problem

The name of the article - is "list of countries", but the two lists differ on defining the very term of "country". The IMF list deals mainly with (sovereign) states (plus two non-states: Netherlands Antilles - belonging to Netherlands, and Hong Kong - which is a part of China), whereas the CIA list deals - not only with (sovereign) states - but also with a lot of dependent territories (e.g. autonomous colonies, economic entities, and son on), thus adding other 31 non-states to the original list of the IMF. Here is the full list of 33 non-states (according to the order in the CIA list):

Bermuda, Jersey, Guernsey, Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, Hong Kong, Isle of Man, Faroe Islands, Gibraltar, Falkland Islands (=Islas Malvinas), Macau, Aruba, Greenland, Puerto Rico, French Polynesia, Netherlands Antilles, New Caledonia, Guam, Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Cook Islands, Anguilla, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, American Samoa, Niue, Mayotte, Wallis and Futuna, Montserrat, Saint Helena, West Bank, Gaza Strip, Tokelau.

84.228.175.207 21:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Since the name of the article suggests that independent countries are being ranked in this page, I think we should omit information about non-sovereign states such as Bermuda, Jersey etc. If the Wikipedia community really wants to keep the information, I would recommend to put it in parenthesis, not rank it, or a similar alternative. Please give your opinion what we should do. Thanks, (Eddie 19:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC))
I agree. All of the 33 dependent territories - should really me indicated with their GDP figures, but shouldn't be ranked. Just as the "world" and the "european union" have been indicated with their GDP figures, but haven't been ranked.
Eliko 20:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Done it; followed the list of “non-countries” as stated by the topic starter. --Van helsing 07:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you know the differences between country and sovereign state? Porkie Chopie 22:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

country can also be a dependent territory. 77.124.14.177 11:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map is Incorrectly Labeled

The map indicates that the data is "US $". In fact, the IMF's PPP data is given in International $s. --Pandyora

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita_49a2.html"