The Bangladesh Development Update: Economy Progressing, but Below Potential

[kalu_miah]

I have some advice for all of us, each day try to think of ways to expand markets for Bangladeshi products and actually do something concrete, instead of wasting time with fruitless argument with Indians. That will increase our GDP and help our poor folks.

 

[extra terrestrial]

I did. I am just trying to tell you that USD figures don't paint real picture, as they are affected by varying conversion rates. Look at the growth rate. The difference is barely 1.5%, that too, in one of the worst years of Indian economy.

Bangladesh per capita GDP went from $916.093 to $1,033.006 last year while India's per capita GDP decreased from $1,514.634 to 1,509.495, that's what cost you. Bangladesh also didn't have any rosy period, we passed through a huge political termoil that time.

I gave you data earlier. Even West Bengal has higher income/GDP than Bangladesh.

You failed to bring any recent data, I told you compare the recent figures, you'll find Bangladesh's per capita income higher than West Bengal, the reasons are already stated here.

Why would there be so much difference in there data than? Well, I am not sure how do those figures work, but this are option from IMF site:

You're making the same question repeatedly, the answer have been already given multiple times, World Bank's data is outdated which doesn't reflect the changes in base year for Bangladesh (from 1994-95 to 2005-06) while IMF has updated its database this October and includes the change in base year, that's the reason behind the difference.

 

[Kloitra]

Bangladesh per capita GDP went from $916.093 to $1,033.006 last year while India's per capita GDP decreased from $1,514.634 to 1,509.495, that's what cost you. Bangladesh also didn't have any rosy period, we passed through a huge political termoil that time.

I am not going to spend dollars in India, but rupee. That is why the conversion rates dont effect. In absolute numbers, Indian GPD/capita (nominal and PPP), income/capita(nominal/PPP) are far higher than BD, I posted the data earlier (2013).

You failed to bring any recent data, I told you compare the recent figures, you'll find Bangladesh's per capita income higher than West Bengal, the reasons are already stated here.

I don't have recent data, I posted the data from 2013 what I had. The change would be 5-6 %, assuming the growth. The difference is far higher to be changed in just 1 year. Besides, there is also the PPP difference. I will post IMF data for it:
Report for Selected Countries and Subjects
In 2014, 27 BD Taka is equivalent of 1 USD, while 17.7 INR equivalent of 1 USD.
Assuming 77BDT to USD conversion, the PPP factor is 2.85 for BD while 3.4 for India at 61 INR to USD.
Means $1000 in BD is equivalent of $2850, while it is $3400 in India.

So even if BD reaches parity with India in income and GDP in nominal terms, India would still be ahead in PPP terms.

You're making the same question repeatedly, the answer have been already given multiple times, World Bank's data is outdated which doesn't reflect the changes in base year for Bangladesh (from 1994-95 to 2005-06) while IMF has updated its database this October and includes the change in base year, that's the reason behind the difference.

I am telling you that IMF shows only current prices in USD - I posted the option list. The constant price option is not available in USD. If you can find, show me.

 

[extra terrestrial]

I am not going to spend dollars in India, but rupee. That is why the conversion rates dont effect. In absolute numbers, Indian GPD/capita (nominal and PPP), income/capita(nominal/PPP) are far higher than BD, I posted the data earlier (2013).

The nominal figures are more widely recognized so I used those figures, I already said I'm comparing Bangladesh's figures with neighboring Indian states, not all of India. You failed to post the data for West Bengal for 2013-14, earlier Bangladesh used an outdated base year so if you want a fair comparison you need to compare the recent most data where Bangladesh's figures would be higher. In 2013, India's per capita GDP declined while Bangladesh's per capita GDP increased, this will surely reflect on the figures of West Bengal.

I don't have recent data, I posted the data from 2013 what I had. The change would be 5-6 %, assuming the growth. The difference is far higher to be changed in just 1 year. Besides, there is also the PPP difference. I will post IMF data for it:
Report for Selected Countries and Subjects
In 2014, 27 BD Taka is equivalent of 1 USD, while 17.7 INR equivalent of 1 USD.
Assuming 77BDT to USD conversion, the PPP factor is 2.85 for BD while 3.4 for India at 61 INR to USD.
Means $1000 in BD is equivalent of $2850, while it is $3400 in India.
So even if BD reaches parity with India in income and GDP in nominal terms, India would still be ahead in PPP terms.

I have also asked you to post PPP figures for West Bengal which you declined, instead of these dull research post the actual the data, again we are not comparing all of India's figures with that of Bangladesh but only the figures of neighboring states.

I am telling you that IMF shows only current prices in USD - I posted the option list. The constant price option is not available in USD. If you can find, show me.

Well, both World Bank and IMF uses the current prices GDP figures only, couldn't find the data for constant prices.

 

[Bong]

This runs contradictory to your previous statements!
Not only per capita income is lower than that of India, it is also costly! Why would any Indian immigrate there? This only proves that BDians go to India, they have the incentives...

Im not talking about RS 5 plate rice. Im talking about some good shopping. Mobile, Laptop, cosmetics etc.
We only get garment products in cheap price in BD but Indian clothes are also very cheap.

 

[Kloitra]

The point of discussion was if it is better to immigrate to India from BD or vice-versa. In that regards, we are comparing the living conditions, indicated by income and GDP, per capita. PPP is better reflective of that than nominal.

The nominal figures are more widely recognized so I used those figures, I already said I'm comparing Bangladesh's figures with neighboring Indian states, not all of India. You failed to post the data for West Bengal for 2013-14, earlier Bangladesh used an outdated base year so if you want a fair comparison you need to compare the recent most data where Bangladesh's figures would be higher. In 2013, India's per capita GDP declined while Bangladesh's per capita GDP increased, this will surely reflect on the figures of West Bengal.

I posted the latest data I could find for the neighboring states, which was for 12-13 on GoI site. We will have to wait till they release latest figures than, or if you can find them. And no, Indian GDP didn't decline. It grew at slower pace, not declined. The growth rate was just 1.5% smaller than BD. Either we assume that income grew at same pace (4.5% India, 6% BD ), than WB still come on top of BD.

I have also asked you to post PPP figures for West Bengal which you declined, instead of these dull research post the actual the data, again we are not comparing all of India's figures with that of Bangladesh but only the figures of neighboring states.

They don't release PPP data for individual states. They don't even release it in $. I posted the link to the GoI site, which only showed the figures in INR, that too from 13'. I gave you the PPP multiplier from IMF site, but there are no 14' figures available yet.

Well, both World Bank and IMF uses the current prices GDP figures only, couldn't find the data for constant prices.

I may be wrong than. Lets wait for the latest figures to be released. But if we are talking about immigration, it happens over the years. India has been ahead all this years, while BD only showed so much progress recently. Obviously the flow doesn't changes suddenly...

 

[extra terrestrial]

The point of discussion was if it is better to immigrate to India from BD or vice-versa. In that regards, we are comparing the living conditions, indicated by income and GDP, per capita. PPP is better reflective of that than nominal.


I posted the latest data I could find for the neighboring states, which was for 12-13 on GoI site. We will have to wait till they release latest figures than, or if you can find them. And no, Indian GDP didn't decline. It grew at slower pace, not declined. The growth rate was just 1.5% smaller than BD. Either we assume that income grew at same pace (4.5% India, 6% BD ), than WB still come on top of BD.


They don't release PPP data for individual states. They don't even release it in $. I posted the link to the GoI site, which only showed the figures in INR, that too from 13'. I gave you the PPP multiplier from IMF site, but there are no 14' figures available yet.


I may be wrong than. Lets wait for the latest figures to be released. But if we are talking about immigration, it happens over the years. India has been ahead all this years, while BD only showed so much progress recently. Obviously the flow doesn't changes suddenly...

Report for Selected Countries and Subjects

^Check the ink. India's per capita GDP declined from $1,514 to $1,509 while Bangladesh's increased from $916 to $1,033, what I'm saying is, that the fall of national per capita GDP of India would surely affect its state per capita incomes as well, including West Bengal.

If we can't get data for PPP figures, then it's more convenient to use the nominal figures for a comparison.

 

[Kloitra]

Report for Selected Countries and Subjects

^Check the ink. India's per capita GDP declined from $1,514 to $1,509 while Bangladesh's increased from $916 to $1,033, what I'm saying is, that the fall of national per capita GDP of India would surely affect its state per capita incomes as well, including West Bengal.

This is why I mentioned the cost of USD. The apparent drop is because of value of INR, not decline in GDP. Indian economy grew by 4.5%. That obviously means that per capita gdp grew. Just that Rupee value fell so much that it is not reflected in USD data. Same for BD, the actual growth is not reflected in the data as both the Taka rose and base year changed. BD economy grew by 6%, that should be reflected by the data, not more. Actual figures are those of national currency.

If we can't get data for PPP figures, then it's more convenient to use the nominal figures for a comparison.

Just because we don't have access to figures and it is convenient to use the nominal ones doesn't makes it right for comparison. Our purpose is to compare better place for living based on economy. For that, the proper choice is PPP figures.

 

[extra terrestrial]

This is why I mentioned the cost of USD. The apparent drop is because of value of INR, not decline in GDP. Indian economy grew by 4.5%. That obviously means that per capita gdp grew. Just that Rupee value fell so much that it is not reflected in USD data. Same for BD, the actual growth is not reflected in the data as both the Taka rose and base year changed. BD economy grew by 6%, that should be reflected by the data, not more. Actual figures are those of national currency.

Well, the decline of India's per capita GDP was because the growth of GDP was lower than your population growth, we take the $USD as the parameter for economic comparisons between two countries, not national currencies. Yes, rupee fell, in other words the price of Indian products fell and you'd always show the value of the products in $USD, not national currencies, while comparing with other countries.

 

[Kloitra]

Well, the decline of India's per capita GDP was because the growth of GDP was lower than your population growth, we take the $USD as the parameter for economic comparisons between two countries, not national currencies. Yes, rupee fell, in other words the price of Indian products fell and you'd always show the value of the products in $USD, not national currencies, while comparing with other countries.

Indian population grew by more than 5% in one year? You don't say! While 10% fall in INR value was insignificant
We are not comparing GDPs, we are comparing per capita. Let me remind you again, we are comparing the economic conditions of two countries.

 

[extra terrestrial]

Indian population grew by more than 5% in one year? You don't say! While 10% fall in INR value was insignificant
We are not comparing GDPs, we are comparing per capita. Let me remind you again, we are comparing the economic conditions of two countries.

Yes, I quoted the per capita GDP figures where India showed a decline, India only added $18 billion to the GDP last year, that's about 1% GDP growth, population growth must be higher than 1%.

 

[Kloitra]

Yes, I quoted the per capita GDP figures where India showed a decline, India only added $18 billion to the GDP last year, that's about 1% GDP growth, population growth must be higher than 1%.

You are quoting USD values, which are dependent on USD/INR conversion rates. Indian recorded growth is 4.5%, which is higher than the population growth. As I said above, we are comparing economic conditions of the people of the respective countries, for which national currency is the proper way to measure.

 

[extra terrestrial]

You are quoting USD values, which are dependent on USD/INR conversion rates. Indian recorded growth is 4.5%, which is higher than the population growth. As I said above, we are comparing economic conditions of the people of the respective countries, for which national currency is the proper way to measure.

How?

 

[Kloitra]

How?

I earn 100 Rs. My meal cost 50 Rs. It is independent of short term fluctuations of the currency valuations. When INR was 50 Rs a dollar, I earned 2 dollars and had enough money for 2 one dollar meals. But when INR became 60Rs a dollar, I am earning less than 2 dollars. Does it changes how many meals I can have? No, cause the value of the meal has gone down too. Similarly, changes in valuation of BDT vs USD and change of base year doesn't effectively reflect change of economy on personal level but just total nominal valuation of countries GDP.

To put it other way. Compare PPP instead of nominal. Though for just comparing changes, a nominal growth in national currency is better option.

 

[extra terrestrial]

I earn 100 Rs. My meal cost 50 Rs. It is independent of short term fluctuations of the currency valuations. When INR was 50 Rs a dollar, I earned 2 dollars and had enough money for 2 one dollar meals. But when INR became 60Rs a dollar, I am earning less than 2 dollars. Does it changes how many meals I can have? No, cause the value of the meal has gone down too.

You're wrong, the price of the meal would also increase because of the fall of rupee since you have to import petroleum or other sources of energy and also other commodities through $USD from the international market. You have to pay more for the imported raw materials and thus it will decrease the value addition of the GDP.

Similarly, changes in valuation of BDT vs USD and change of base year doesn't effectively reflect change of economy on personal level but just total nominal valuation of countries GDP.

You're fundamentally wrong, the change in base year was done to reflect more accurate picture of the economy, not to make it more impressive, previously the economic projections were underestimated, after the change in base year, they are now more accurate.