Global Purchasing Power Parities and Real Expenditures - Afristat

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Methodology: Calculating PPPs 159system. Major advantages of using a single price vector arethat the process is a straightforward multilateral one and nosecond stage of processing is required because the volumesare transitive; they are also additive, which is a useful attributefor some analyses.The disadvantage of the GK method is that the averageprices in the price vector are weighted using quantityweights from all countries in the region. The result is thatthe prices of larger countries and countries that have a relativelyhigh level of expenditure will have a greater weightthan those of the smaller countries. In other words, theprices observed in the smaller and lower-income countriestend to deviate more from the average prices of the region(that is, those in the price vector) than those of larger andof higher-income countries, which have a greater influenceon the average prices calculated. One consequence of thisweighting pattern is that the volumes estimated for lowerincomecountries tend to be higher than would have beenthe case if a weighting pattern were used that more closelymatched the actual price structure in the lower-incomecountries. This bias is referred to as the “Gerschenkroneffect.”To reduce the extent of the bias caused by the Gerschenkroneffect, the approach used in the Africa regionwas a variation of the GK approach known as the “Iklémethod.” The Iklé weights are based on country expenditureshares, rather than on country quantity weights. Asa result, the weights are more evenly distributed amongcountries and are not so heavily dependent on the higherincomeand larger countries as in the GK method. The Iklémethod minimizes the Gerschenkron effect, although itdoes not eliminate it completely. More important, it providesadditivity.Eurostat-OECD has used the EKS method since 1990.In the 2005 ICP, Africa used the Iklé method, while all theother regions used an EKS approach. Africa preferred anadditive method, which was considered important in theiranalysis.Combining Regional Results witha Global Comparison: The RingComparisonThe 2005 ICP was organized on a regional basis, partly foroperational reasons and partly because economies withina geographic region are more likely to be similar to eachother than to economies in other parts of the world. Thelatter point means that more robust results are likely withina region than would be the case if all economies in theworld were combined in a single, worldwide comparison.For example, within a regional comparison, the productlists can be focused on a smaller range of products, enablingeconomies to price a large proportion of them. At thesame time, the characteristics of the products can be moretightly specified, so quality differences are likely to be lesssignificant.To produce global estimates, regional results must bematched with each other. Two alternative methods wereconsidered for linking regions in the ICP. One was to nominate“core” or “bridge” countries, which would have toparticipate in two regional comparisons, providing a linkbetween that pair of regions. The other was to select a groupof countries, a few from each region, that would participatein a separate and parallel worldwide comparison organizedspecifically to provide a link between regions.With one exception, the second alternative was adoptedfor the 2005 ICP. This has become known as the “ring comparison”because of the way in which it worked to determinethe PPPs between different global regions. The ringcomparison was a much-reduced global ICP comparisonin which transitive PPP relationships, at the basic-headinglevel and above, were established between regions ratherthan between individual economies in each region. Intotal, 18 ring countries conducted special price collectionsusing a global product list to enable these relativities to becalculated.The ICP’s Technical Advisory Group (TAG) recommendedthe ring comparison approach because it felt thatit would provide the most robust links between regions.The ICP global office was responsible for leading the ringcomparison work. It was developed in such a way thatproducts could be matched between ring countries in anypair of regions, thereby maximizing the usefulness of thedata collected.Whichever linking technique was used (that is, bridgecountries or the ring comparison), it would have been possibleto use either a single country or several countries fromeach region to link the regions together. It was not necessaryto include the same number of countries in eachregion, although obviously at least one country must beinvolved from each region. The bridge country approachwould have been simpler to implement, and it is less
160 Global Purchasing Power Parities and Real ExpendituresTable 4Countries Included in the Ring ComparisonAfrica asia-Pacific Latin America Western Asia Eurostat-OECDCameroon Hong Kong, China Brazil Jordan EstoniaEgypt, Arab Rep. Malaysia Chile Oman JapanKenya Philippines SloveniaSenegal Sri Lanka United KingdomSouth AfricaZambiaSource: ICP 2003–2006 Handbook.data-intensive and less resource-demanding than the ringcomparison. However, experience in previous rounds ofthe ICP showed that the results from using a single countrywithin each region to link the regions were too dependenton the economic structure of the bridge country. This wasa particular concern with so many new techniques beingused for the first time in the 2005 ICP. Any problems thatarose with a bridge country’s results would be reflected inthe relationship between all countries in that region andhence those in all other regions. The ring comparison wasdeveloped as a means of providing more robust links possiblebetween regions.The single exception was the Commonwealth of IndependentStates (CIS), whose regional results were linked tothe Eurostat-OECD region using Russia as a bridge country.Russia priced both the CIS and the Eurostat-OECDproduct lists to provide the link. The ring comparison wasused to combine the results for the other five regions. TheCIS countries’ results were then linked to those for theother regions using the relationship between Russia andthe Eurostat-OECD region. In effect, the CIS results werelinked into the rest of the world in a two-stage process. Thefirst was using Russia as a bridge country. The second was alink to the other four regions using the relationships establishedby the Eurostat-OECD countries that participatedin the ring comparison. The main reason for using Russia asa bridge country was that this process was consistent withwhat had been used in recent rounds conducted by Eurostat-OECD,and the conceptual expertise and the practicalexperience required to enable this method to work wereavailable in the region.The following criteria were used to select ringcountries:m Having developed markets and an open economym Having a wide range of goods and services that werelikely to be found in ring countries in other regionsm Able to participate in the full GDP comparisonm Having acceptable price data and expenditureweightsm Able to derive annual, national average pricesm Willingness to act as a ring countryDeveloping the product list for ring countries was complicatedbecause it involved several different phases. Themost time-consuming part was preparing the product listfor consumer products. The starting point was to examinethe combined product lists across the regions and checkoff the products that each ring country had priced in theregional comparisons. Any products not priced by a ringcountry were discarded, while the remaining products wereretained as potential products to be included in the ringlist. The next stage was to check the structured productdescriptions (SPDs) for each of these products. The usefulnessof the worldwide SPD approach was evident in this
Page 2:
Global Purchasing PowerParities and
Page 5 and 6:
© 2008 by the International Bank f
Page 7 and 8:
viContentsPart II: Technical Notes
Page 10 and 11:
Acronyms and AbbreviationsADBAfDBBO
Page 12 and 13:
PrefaceThis publication presents th
Page 14 and 15:
AcknowledgmentsThe ICP shares a com
Page 16:
Part IPurchasing Power Paritiesand
Page 19 and 20:
Global Purchasing Power Parities an
Page 21 and 22:
Global Purchasing Power Parities an
Page 24 and 25:
2005 ICP:Results and Major Findings
Page 26 and 27:
2005 ICP: Results and Major Finding
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36:
Tables of Results21
Page 39 and 40:
24 Global Purchasing Power Parities
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
100 Global Purchasing Power Paritie
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124: 108 Global Purchasing Power Paritie
Page 154: Part IITechnical Notes of the 2005
Page 162 and 163: Comparison-Resistant AreasSome comp
Page 164 and 165: Comparison-Resistant Areas 149mmmHo
Page 166 and 167: Data ValidationData validation was
Page 168: Data Validation 153determines the l
Page 173: 158 Global Purchasing Power Paritie
Page 182 and 183: Appendix AHistory of The ICPEconomi
Page 184: Appendix A 169which selected econom
Page 216 and 217: GlossaryActual individual consumpti
Page 218 and 219: Glossary 203tice, general administr
Page 220 and 221: Glossary 205in nonmarket production
Page 222 and 223: Glossary 207Multilateral comparison
Page 224:
Glossary 209able as a result of the
Page 227 and 228:
show all

Global Purchasing Power Parities and Real Expenditures - Afristat

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?