Trying to Understand the PPPs in ICP 2011: Why Are the Results So Different?

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 243-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angus Deaton ◽  
Bettina Aten
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Development ◽  
Purchasing Power Parity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Living Standards ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Accounts ◽  
Western Asia ◽  
The World ◽  
Penn World Table

Purchasing power parity exchange rates, or PPPs, are price indexes that summarize prices in each country relative to a numeraire country, typically the United States. These numbers are used to compare living standards across countries, by academics in studies of economic growth, particularly through the Penn World Table, by the World Bank to construct measures of global poverty, by the European Union to redistribute resources, and by the international development community to draw attention to discrepancies between rich and poor countries. The International Comparison Program (ICP) collects the detailed prices on which these indexes are based on an irregular basis. In 2014, the ICP published PPPs from the 2011 round that are sharply different from those that were expected from extrapolation of the previous round, ICP 2005. These discrepancies will eventually have important implications for the Penn World Table, and for international comparisons of living standards given that the PPPs are used to convert countries’ national accounts—GDP and consumption, for example—from local currency to common currency units (international dollars.) The world according to ICP 2011 looks markedly more equal than the world according to ICP 2005. This paper investigates why this happened. We identify a likely source of the problem in the way that the regions of the ICP were linked in 2005. We use two different methods for measuring the size of the effect. Both suggest that the 2005 PPPs for consumption for countries in Asia (excluding Japan), Western Asia, and Africa were overstated relative to the United States by between 18 to 26 percent. Per capita consumption in international dollars of these countries was therefore too low in 2005 and more likely to be accurately estimated in 2011. (JEL E31, F31, I31, I32, O11, O19)

The World Economy

1996 ◽  
Vol 155 ◽  
pp. 26-55
Author(s):  
Julian Morgan ◽  
Nigel Pain
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World Economy ◽  
Raw Materials ◽  
The United States ◽  
Japanese Economy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Accounts ◽  
Real Gdp ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World

There are now widespread signs that activity in the world economy has slowed sharply. This slowdown has been particularly marked within Europe, where our estimates suggest that the European Union economies may have expanded by only some 0.6 per cent in the second half of last year. Elsewhere, the Japanese economy has still to emerge from recession and growth has possibly declined in the United States to a little below trend levels (Chart 1). The perception of recent growth in the US has also changed significantly as a result of the recent rebasing of their national accounts, with the growth of real GDP in 1995 now projected to be between 2–2 1/4 per cent rather than 3 1/4 per cent as shown in our previous forecast. We discuss this issue in more detail below. Overall growth in the OECD region is now projected at 2 per cent in 1995, after 2.6 per cent in 1994. This slowdown has been reflected elsewhere within the world economy, with total world trade growth estimated to have declined to around 6 3/4 per cent last year, and the prices of many industrial raw materials having begun to weaken. For 1996, we presently expect growth of 2 1/4 per cent in the OECD region and growth of 2 per cent in both Europe and the United States.

Germany's relations with the United States and China from a strategic triangle perspective

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Biba
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Great Power ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
Puzzle Piece ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
Angela Merkel

Abstract As the Sino-American Great Power competition continues to intensify, newly-elected US President Joe Biden's administration now seeks to enlist the support of its allies and partners around the world. As Europe's largest economy and a, if not the, leading voice within the European Union, Germany represents an important puzzle-piece for Biden. But Germany, at least under outgoing chancellor Angela Merkel, has been reluctant to take sides. It is against this backdrop that this article looks into Germany's past and present trilateral relationships with the US and China through the theoretical lens of the so-called strategic triangle approach. Applying this approach, the article seeks to trace and explain German behaviour, as well as to elucidate the opportunities and pitfalls that have come with it. The article demonstrates that Germany's recently gained position as a ‘pivot’ (two positive bilateral relationships) between the US and Chinese ‘wings’ (positive bilateral relations with Germany and negative bilateral relations with each other) is desirable from the perspective of the strategic triangle. At the same time, being pivot is also challenging and hard to maintain. Alternative options, such as entering a US–German ‘marriage’ directed against China, are also problematic. The article therefore concludes that Germany has tough decisions to take going forward.

scholarly journals Cooperation and Coopetition as a Tools Which Could Improve Leading Startups all over the World

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 228
Author(s):  
Aneta Ejsmont
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Good News ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The World ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Leading Position ◽  
Foreign Sale ◽  
The Moment

Building own business is a long-term and laborious process. A person who leads a startup tries to start with building own business by taking first steps toward financial independence. Analyzing conditions in Poland, on average every second startup sells its services abroad, admittedly it is good news, although half of them do not export at all. Half of the startups which export their services and goods generates more than 50% of their revenues outside Poland. Very interesting is the fact that 60% of exporters have conducted their foreign sale since the moment of establishing their business. On which markets do they sell their services? It turns out that the most popular are markets in the European Union (54%), including the United Kingdom 14% and Germany 9%. Only about 25% of Polish startups exports their products and services to the United States. Taking the United States into consideration, in 2008 the USA lost their leading position in the number of startups which are newly created and achieving success in business. Currently in terms of the number of new startups the USA is on a quite distant place after Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Hungary, New Zealand, Israel or Italy. In short, more companies were closed than created, so it was, as a matter of fact, like in Poland. Therefore, the condition to improve the development of startups both from Poland and other countries all the world is to increase cooperation and coopetition.

Sustainable Agriculture The United States versus the European Union

2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 26-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carson H. Varner ◽  
Katrin C. Varner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Genetically Modified Crops ◽  
The United States ◽  
World Population ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Sustainability Issue ◽  
The World ◽  
Two Sides

This paper examines developing issues and attitudes that unite and divide the United States and the European Union as the discussion and regulation of agriculture evolves. While some terms, such as “organic,” are defined in law in both the United States and European Union, the increasingly used “sustainability” is an evolving concept. The main sustainability issue is how to provide food and fiber for a rapidly growing world population. In this context, the role of biotechnology is questioned. Americans tend to favor what are sometimes called genetically modified crops, while Europeans remain cautious. Europeans lean more toward organic farming, while Americans assert that much of the world will starve if organic methods are required. This paper reviews the directions that the discussion of these issues is taking and will show areas of agreement and where the two sides diverge.

National Courts, Global Cartels: F. Hoffman-LaRoche Ltd. v. Empagran, S.A. (U.S. Supreme Court 2004)

2004 ◽  
Vol 5 (9) ◽  
pp. 1095-1106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah L. Buxbaum
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Antitrust Enforcement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Antitrust Laws ◽  
The World ◽  
Fixed Prices

In its most recent term, the United States Supreme Court heard a case arising out of the activities of a price-fixing cartel in the vitamins market. The defendants were a number of major international pharmaceuticals companies, including F. Hoffman-LaRoche, Rhone-Poulenc, Daiichi Pharmaceutical, and BASF, that had fixed prices for bulk vitamins and vitamin pre-mixes in markets around the world. The cartel, which has been described as “probably the most economically damaging cartel ever prosecuted under U.S. antitrust law,” is estimated to have affected over $5 billion of commerce worldwide. Previous proceedings against the participants in the cartel, initiated in Australia, Canada and the European Union as well as in the United States, included administrative investigations and criminal prosecutions of individual executives. In these various proceedings, the cartel participants were found to have violated antitrust laws in the United States and elsewhere, and were subjected to heavy – indeed, record – fines in many countries. By all accounts, the countries engaged in investigating and then prosecuting the cartel participants did so in full cooperation with each other. In particular, they made use of the mutual assistance and information sharing agreements that have become an important component of coordinated international antitrust enforcement.

scholarly journals Assessment of Biotechnology Policies and International Trade in Key Markets for U.S. Agriculture

2005 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 379-391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary A. Marchant ◽  
Baohui Song
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Markets ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Department Of Agriculture ◽  
Agricultural Exports ◽  
Biotechnology Research ◽  
Long Run ◽  
The World ◽  
The Eu

The United States leads the world in agricultural biotechnology research, adoption, commercialization, and exports. Our biotech commodities are highly dependent on international markets. Thus, any biotech policy changes by key importing countries may affect U.S. agricultural biotech product exports. This article identifies key markets for U.S. agricultural exports including biotech commodities and discusses current and proposed biotech policies in key markets for U.S. agricultural exports focusing on Canada, Mexico, Japan, the European Union (EU), and China. Among these markets, labeling of biotech products is voluntary in Canada and Mexico but is mandatory in Japan, the EU, and, most recently, in China. For the EU, U.S. corn exports were almost completely shut out, while U.S. soybean exports also declined because of the EU's biotech policies. The World Trade Organization dispute filed by the United States has yet to be finalized. China's biotech regulations raised concern by U.S. agricultural exporters. However, through U.S. Department of Agriculture education programs, U.S.–China negotiations, and China's domestic soybean shortage, China's biotech regulations do not appear to have had long-run impacts on U.S. soybean exports to China.

Optimizing Military Assistance Training

1962 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Windle ◽  
T. R. Vallance
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Development ◽  
The United States ◽  
Development Aid ◽  
Fiscal Year ◽  
Military Assistance ◽  
Current Period ◽  
The World ◽  
International Development Aid ◽  
Aid Programs

There are many means employed by the United States to maintain and advance its position throughout the world during the current period of bipolar conflict. The most conspicuous of these are subsumed under what is known as the Mutual Security Program. Nearly half of the approximately $4 billion budgeted during fiscal year 1962 for mutual security went into military assistance. Of this, about $125 million was devoted to the training of foreign military personnel. This Military Assistance Training Program, including the training of foreigners in the United States and that administered overseas by Military Assistance Advisory Groups (MAAG's), missions, overseas commands, and third countries, constitutes by far the largest effort the world has known on the part of one country to educate and train citizens of others. The number of foreigners given military assistance training in the United States each year—about 16,500 in 1960—exceeds the number trained here under the Fulbright, Smith-Mundt, and Agency for International Development (AID) programs combined.

scholarly journals The US Role in the World Manufacturing and Trade as a Global Issue

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 100-112
Author(s):  
V. G. VARNAVSKIY
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Purchasing Power Parity ◽  
World Economy ◽  
The United States ◽  
High Tech ◽  
Power Parity ◽  
Instrument Making ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
The World ◽  
The Usa

The article considers the USA role and place in the global  manufacturing and trade. Key aspects of the world economy  transformation in the context of globalization, internationalization  and liberalization are studied. As shows, USA and China are the two  largest economies in the world. United States is the world’s largest  economy by nominal GDP and second largest by purchasing power  parity (PPP). It holds a 15.4 percent share of global GDP in PPP  (2016). China is the world’s largest economy by PPP, accounting for  17.8 percent of global GDP. The USA share of world GDP declined by  a total of 3.8 percentage points between 2006 and 2016. At the  same time, the United States possesses great economic strength. It  is also the world leader in innovation. China’s success has mostly  been in lowerend innovation. This country has been less successful in  higher-end innovation, where USA currently maintain a lead. The  United States holds a leading position in aerospace, instrument  making, cloud computing, ICT, robotics-related technologies, nanomaterials, biopharmaceutical and other high-tech  industries and China significantly lags behind. Special attention is paid to the U.S. foreign trade. It is shown that the USA is one of  the world’s largest importer and exporter of goods and services. It  accounts for 10.5 percent of global goods and services exports in  2016 (second place after China) and 13.3 percent of global imports  (first place). Despite the world’s second place after China in some economic indexes such as gross domestic product (at PPP),   size of manufacturingand merchandise trade, USA ranks first in the  world in terms of quality indicators of economic development. It  remains the most powerful economy in the world. The author’s  conclusion is that, the loss of US world leadership in terms of output  indicators has not yet become a global problem for other countries  and world economy in the whole.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document