Customer Reviews

The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective/ Historical Statistics (Development Centre Studies)

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Maddison presents a systematic quantification of the economic performance of the world's nations over the very long term. This amazing collection of statistics, published under the auspices of the OECD, is a great reference work, but there is not much analysis.

Since 1000, world population has risen 22-fold, world GDP 300-fold, and GDP per head 13-fold. World GDP multiplied by six between 1950 and 1988, the biggest growth being in the years 1950-73.

Western Europe's income in 1000 was below those in Asia and North Africa. In the 14th century, it caught up with the world leader China. By 1820, its income was double that of the rest of the world, by 1913, six times.

Between 1913 and 1950, the Soviet Union's GDP per head grew by 1.76% a year, more than the USA's 1.61, the UK's 0.92 and Western Europe's 0.76. He observes that the Soviet Union had no unemployment and writes, "Under the old system, basic necessities (bread, housing, education, health, crèches and social services) had been highly subsidised by the government or provided free by state enterprises to their workers."

But the 1990-91 counter-revolutions ended all that. Wages and pensions were slashed and savings destroyed. In Belarus, Moldova, Russia and the Ukraine, just 2% of the population was in poverty in 1987-88, but 52% by 1993-95. In the four Central Asian states, poverty rose from 15% to 66%, in the three Baltic states, from 1% to 29%. Russia's GDP was 42% lower in 1998 than in 1990. Its fixed investment was just 17.5% of its 1990 level.

Maddison claims to assess the rich countries' exploitation of the poor. But when he looks at Britain's relationship with India, he gives statistics for only 12 years of the 72 from 1868 to the 1930s, claiming that this `covers' the whole period. So his case that Britain's rulers looted only from 0.9 to 1.3% of India's national income a year would seem to be not proven.