Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

GDP per square kilometer

Stefanwaal
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 8:34:59 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
You've probably heard of GDP (Gross Domestic Product). The GDP of different countries is often compared by dividing GDP by the population to get GDP per capita. But who said GDP had to get divided by the population? It's also possible to divide it by other things, like the land area.

After getting the GDP of all the countries (1) and the land area (2) it was possible to calculate this. The results are all put into this Google sheet: https://docs.google.com...

The GDP is in millions of dollars and the land area (ignoring the sea area) is in square kilometers. Some countries were in one of the Wikipedia lists, but not in the other. Those were removed.

Here's the top 10:
Nr | Country | GDP/area
1 | Singapore | $448.14
2 | Bahrain | $44.26
3 | Malta | $33.27
4 | San Marino | $29.28
5 | Netherlands | $25.99
6 | Luxembourg | $25.40
7 | Qatar | $18.13
8 | Belgium | $17.64
9 | Switzerland | $17.60
10 | Israel | $15.04

The top 10 is completely filled with small countries many people can't find on the map. The biggest country is Switzerland with almost 40,000 km2.

What's surprising is that the average GDP per km2 of the number 1, Singapore, is more than 10 times as much as the GDP per km2 of the number 2. That"s a lot of economic activity in such a small area.

Meanwhile the USA is in the 38th spot with $1,890,000 GDP per km2, only two spots above Greece with $1,820,000 GDP per km2.

As far as I see there are two things that determine the GDP/area ratio. The first one is the quality of the land. It's hard to get a lot of economic activity from mountains, deserts and swamps. The second, and more interesting one is that countries at the top of the list utilize their land wonderfully while the countries at the bottom of the list don"t know very well what they should do with their land. So if you have business idea that needs a lot of land, go to the countries at the bottom.

This post is part of the Economic Forum Revival Program We encourage response on any uses on this list or any other thoughts.

Sources
1) https://en.wikipedia.org...
2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 8:33:46 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 8:34:59 PM, Stefanwaal wrote:
You've probably heard of GDP (Gross Domestic Product). The GDP of different countries is often compared by dividing GDP by the population to get GDP per capita. But who said GDP had to get divided by the population? It's also possible to divide it by other things, like the land area.

After getting the GDP of all the countries (1) and the land area (2) it was possible to calculate this. The results are all put into this Google sheet: https://docs.google.com...

The GDP is in millions of dollars and the land area (ignoring the sea area) is in square kilometers. Some countries were in one of the Wikipedia lists, but not in the other. Those were removed.

Here's the top 10:
Nr | Country | GDP/area
1 | Singapore | $448.14
2 | Bahrain | $44.26
3 | Malta | $33.27
4 | San Marino | $29.28
5 | Netherlands | $25.99
6 | Luxembourg | $25.40
7 | Qatar | $18.13
8 | Belgium | $17.64
9 | Switzerland | $17.60
10 | Israel | $15.04

The top 10 is completely filled with small countries many people can't find on the map. The biggest country is Switzerland with almost 40,000 km2.

What's surprising is that the average GDP per km2 of the number 1, Singapore, is more than 10 times as much as the GDP per km2 of the number 2. That"s a lot of economic activity in such a small area.

Meanwhile the USA is in the 38th spot with $1,890,000 GDP per km2, only two spots above Greece with $1,820,000 GDP per km2.

As far as I see there are two things that determine the GDP/area ratio. The first one is the quality of the land. It's hard to get a lot of economic activity from mountains, deserts and swamps. The second, and more interesting one is that countries at the top of the list utilize their land wonderfully while the countries at the bottom of the list don"t know very well what they should do with their land. So if you have business idea that needs a lot of land, go to the countries at the bottom.

I think this is accurate... but how would that reflect the economic sustenance and stability of the country. Population, insofar as I have seen, appears more plausible as population normally is a determinant of wealth. Could you perhaps explain why a GDP based on land area (and the quality thereof) is a more feasible representation?

This post is part of the Economic Forum Revival Program We encourage response on any uses on this list or any other thoughts.

Sources
1) https://en.wikipedia.org...
2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Stefanwaal
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 9:25:18 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/8/2015 8:33:46 PM, ColeTrain wrote:

I think this is accurate... but how would that reflect the economic sustenance and stability of the country. Population, insofar as I have seen, appears more plausible as population normally is a determinant of wealth. Could you perhaps explain why a GDP based on land area (and the quality thereof) is a more feasible representation?

Well, I myself also wasn't very sure how this list could be useful. :P It was just a random idea I got and since the EFRP was just as dead as the forum I decided to just throw something out to see what would happen.

Not much happened though. :/
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 2:12:33 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/8/2015 9:25:18 PM, Stefanwaal wrote:
At 12/8/2015 8:33:46 PM, ColeTrain wrote:

I think this is accurate... but how would that reflect the economic sustenance and stability of the country. Population, insofar as I have seen, appears more plausible as population normally is a determinant of wealth. Could you perhaps explain why a GDP based on land area (and the quality thereof) is a more feasible representation?

Well, I myself also wasn't very sure how this list could be useful. :P It was just a random idea I got and since the EFRP was just as dead as the forum I decided to just throw something out to see what would happen.

Lol. Perhaps you could derive a hypothesis? Here's one: If the land is more acceptable for businesses to settle, the GDP rates would likely be higher, and the land would be more valuable.

Not much happened though. :/

Haha. :P
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ClaesTheilgaard
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 10:03:56 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Thanks for posting this. Interesting to see the matter of GDP from a different perspective.

Perhaps one can say that the reason for Singapore's high GDP per square kilometer is the fact, that it is basically just one big city?

And since cities, and especially the bigger of them, are well known to be drivers of economic growth, this may be a possible explanation as to why Singapore is number one on the list.

This may also explain why a country such as the US is so relatively low on the list, as there is many areas without any bigger cities. Maybe the number of bigger cities in a country, or the percentage of the land area that is urbanized should be taken into perspective?

Just some thoughts :)