Oct 29, JDN 2458056
The most commonly-used measure of a nation’s wealth is its per-capita GDP, which is simply a total of all spending in a country divided by its population. More recently we adjust for purchasing power, giving us GDP per capita at purchasing power parity (PPP).
By this measure, the United States always does well. At most a dozen countries are above us, most of them by a small amount, and all of them are quite small countries. (For fundamental statistical reasons, we should expect both the highest and lowest average incomes to be in the smallest countries.)
But this is only half the story: It tells us how much income a country has, but not how that income is distributed. We should adjust for inequality.
How can we do this? I have devised a method that uses the marginal utility of wealth plus a measure of inequality called the Gini coefficient to work out an estimate of the average utility, instead of the average income.
I then convert back into a dollar figure. This figure is the income everyone would need to have under perfect equality, in order to give the same real welfare as the current system. That is, if we could redistribute wealth in such a way to raise everyone above this value up to it, and lower everyone above this value down to it, the total welfare of the country would not change. This provides a well-founded ranking of which country’s people are actually better off overall, accounting for both overall income and the distribution of that income.
The estimate is sensitive to the precise form I use for marginal utility, so I’ll show you comparisons for three different cases.
The “conservative” estimate uses a risk aversion parameter of 1, which means that utility is logarithmic in income. The real value of a dollar is inversely proportional to the number of dollars you already have.
The medium estimate uses a risk aversion parameter of 2, which means that the real value of a dollar is inversely proportional to the square of the number of dollars you already have.
And then the “liberal” estimate uses a risk aversion parameter of 3, which means that the real value of a dollar is inversely proportional to the cube of the number of dollars you already have.
I’ll compare ten countries, which I think are broadly representative of classes of countries in the world today.
The United States, the world hegemon which needs no introduction.
China, rising world superpower and world’s most populous country.
India, world’s largest democracy and developing economy with a long way to go.
Norway, as representative of the Scandinavian social democracies.
Germany, as representative of continental Europe.
Russia, as representative of the Soviet Union and the Second World bloc.
Saudi Arabia, as representative of the Middle East petrostates.
Botswana, as representative of African developing economies.
Zimbabwe, as representative of failed Sub-Saharan African states.
Brazil, as representative of Latin American developing economies.
The ordering of these countries by GDP per-capita PPP is probably not too surprising:
- Norway 69,249
- United States 57,436
- Saudi Arabia 55,158
- Germany 48,111
- Russia 26,490
- Botswana 17,042
- China 15,399
- Brazil 15,242
- India 6,616
- Zimbabwe 1,970
Norway is clearly the richest, the US, Saudi Arabia, and Germany are quite close, Russia is toward the upper end, Botswana, China, and Brazil are close together in the middle, and then India and especially Zimbabwe are extremely poor.
But now let’s take a look at the inequality in each country, as measured by the Gini coefficient (which ranges from 0, perfect equality, to 1, total inequality).
- Botswana 0.605
- Zimbabwe 0.501
- Brazil 0.484
- United States 0.461
- Saudi Arabia 0.459
- China 0.422
- Russia 0.416
- India 0.351
- Germany 0.301
- Norway 0.259
The US remains (alarmingly) close to Saudi Arabia by this measure. Most of the countries are between 40 and 50. But Botswana is astonishingly unequal, while Germany and Norway are much more equal.
With that in mind, let’s take a look at the inequality-adjusted per-capita GDP. First, the conservative estimate, with a parameter of 1:
- Norway 58700
- United States 42246
- Saudi Arabia 40632
- Germany 39653
- Russia 20488
- China 11660
- Botswana 11138
- Brazil 11015
- India 5269
- Zimbabwe 1405
So far, ordering of nations is almost the same compared to what we got with just per-capita GDP. But notice how Germany has moved up closer to the US and Botswana actually fallen behind China.
Now let’s try a parameter of 2, which I think is the closest to the truth:
- Norway 49758
- Germany 32683
- United States 31073
- Saudi Arabia 29931
- Russia 15581
- China 8829
- Brazil 7961
- Botswana 7280
- India 4197
- Zimbabwe 1002
Now we have seen some movement. Norway remains solidly on top, but Germany has overtaken the United States and Botswana has fallen behind not only China, but also Brazil. Russia remains in the middle, and India and Zimbawbe remain on the bottom.
Finally, let’s try a parameter of 3.
- Norway 42179
- Germany 26937
- United States 22855
- Saudi Arabia 22049
- Russia 11849
- China 6685
- Brazil 5753
- Botswana 4758
- India 3343
- Zimbabwe 715
Norway has now pulled far and away ahead of everyone else. Germany is substantially above the United States. China has pulled away from Brazil, and Botswana has fallen almost all the way to the level of India. Zimbabwe, as always, is at the very bottom.
Let’s compare this to another measure of national well-being, the Inequality-Adjusted Human Development Index (which goes from 0, the worst, to 1 the best). This index combines education, public health, and income, and adjusts for inequality. It seems to be a fairly good measure of well-being, but it’s very difficult to compile data for, so a lot of countries are missing (including Saudi Arabia); plus the precise weightings on everything are very ad hoc.
- Norway 0.898
- Germany 0.859
- United States 0.796
- Russia 0.725
- China 0.543
- Brazil 0.531
- India 0.435
- Botswana 0.433
- Zimbabwe 0.371
Other than putting India above Botswana, this ordering is the same as what we get from my (much easier to calculate and theoretically more well-founded) index with either a parameter of 2 or 3.
What’s more, my index can be directly interpreted: The average standard of living in the US is as if everyone were making $31,073 per year. What exactly is an IHDI index of 0.796 supposed to mean? We’re… 79.6% of the way to the best possible country?
In any case, there’s a straightforward (if not terribly surprising) policy implication here: Inequality is a big problem.
In particular, inequality in the US is clearly too high. Despite an overall income that is very high, almost 18 log points higher than Germany, our overall standard of living is actually about 5 log points lower due to our higher level of inequality. While our average income is only 19 log points lower than Norway, our actual standard of living is 47 log points lower.
Inequality in Botswana also means that their recent astonishing economic growth is not quite as impressive as it at first appeared. Many people are being left behind. While in raw income they appear to be 10 log points ahead of China and only 121 log points behind the US, once you adjust for their very high inequality they are 19 log points behind China, and 145 log points behind the US.
Of course, some things don’t change. Norway is still on top, and Zimbabwe is still on the bottom.