Download (28Mb) - LSE Theses Online

Table 6.8 Greek & Turkish-Cypriot GNP in 1990 (in mlns of 1980 CYP's)
estimated using average peer group growth rates 1964-90.
Source: Greek Cyp. data: Stat. Abstracls, TUrkish Cyp. data: Bicak, H. A. 1993, Peer Group data: UN Yearbooks of Nal. Y Accounts.
A B C
Ail Cypriot GNP Greek Cyp. GNP Turkish Cyp. GNP
Actual GNP in 1990 C£l,554 C£l,427 C£127
Benchmark using Micro Economies average growth rate C£l,057 C£903 C£153
Benchmark using the average MDM growth rate C£l,246 C£l,066 C£181
Benchmark using Régional Sub-group's average growth rate C£l,197 C£l,023 C£174
* on the basis that income in both communities grows at a similar rate after 1963
Assuming that Cypriot performance should have been close to the mean of a group
of économies with similar background, performance and policy instruments, the
first three columns of Figure 6.31 (below) and column A of Table 6.8 reveal that
the island as a whole seems to have suffered little over the longer-term period,
1964-90. Under the control of two mutually antagonistic economic managements the
island economy as a whole seems to have exceeded expectation. However, as
columns B & C in Table 6.9 reveal, most of the benefits of that performance seem
to have accrued to the Greek-Cypriot economy. Even by 1990 when the weight of
the costs of 1963 should have been counteracted by the relative benefits of 1974, the
Turkish-Cypriot economy seems to have significantly under-performed.
Figure 6.31 How Cyprusfared in 1990; how much better or worse off was it?
® Average Micro Economy
n Average Regional Sub-Group
D Average More Developed Med.
-30% -L
Total Çypriot Greek Cypriot Tutkish Cypriot
The benchmarks of all-island economic development in 1980 (Figures 6.2, 6.4 and
341