Download (28Mb) - LSE Theses Online

produced by them rises significantly, peaking at 15% of the GNP of the whole
island in 1963, a figure that has never been surpassed (in 1990, the GNP of the
"TRNC" was only 9% of the Republic's).
For the period 1964-72, the contribution of the Turkish-Cypriot community has
been assumed to be7%, 4.8%, 4.9%, 5.0%, 5.2%, 5.3%, 5.4% and 5.5% of total
Cypriot GNP respectively. There are a number of problems with these figures:
particularly the inexplicably high contribution in 1964 (when things should have
been at their worse) and the (perhaps) too graduai growth after the relaxation of
restrictions on the free movement of Turkish-Cypriots after 1968. More generally,
the spurious accuracy of the figures, e.g. unless there are sound reasons why growth
may have occurred, as specified, why not leave the estimâtes at 5%? But as Bicak
states, "it is almost impossible to compute the GNP of the Turkish-Cypriot
community for the years of
1964-1972" 86 . For these years the figures above
represent the combined Turkish-Cypriot contributions to the GNP of the Republic of
Cyprus, income generated both in the enclaves but not counted as national income,
and in the small integrated economy. Much like the Cambridge economist Pigou,
marrying his housekeeper (who subsequently carries on, unpaid, with the same daily
functions), another weakness of the 1964-72 data is inherent to national income
accounting generally. Like a large black-economy, much of the economic activity
that continued in the Turkish-Cypriot enclaves did not find its way into national
income accounts. Düring the period Turkish-Cypriot income may well have been
approximately 5 % of the GNP of the Republic, but the GNP of the Republic did not
include any officiai record of economic activity within the enclaves.
For some reason the "State" Planning Office calculated the estimated GNP for the
Turkish-Cypriot community for 1973 in 1977, when it calculated estimated income
S6 Bicak 1993. op. cit., p.4.
154