90630
International Comparison Program
[11.02]
2009 PPP UPDATE IN THE
ASIA-PACIFIC REGION:
RESULTS AND COMPARISON WITH 2005
Y. Dikhanov
C. Palanyandy
E. Capilit
5th Technical Advisory Group Meeting
April 18-19, 2011
Washington DC
Table of Content
I. Background ............................................................................................................. 3
II. Main Features of the 2009 Update .......................................................................... 4
III. Linking the 2005 and 2009 PPPs in One Time-Space Comparison ....................... 4
IV. Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 11
V. References ............................................................................................................. 12
Annex ............................................................................................................................... 13
2
2009 PPP UPDATE IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION:
RESULTS AND COMPARISON WITH 2005
I. Background
In the 2005 round of the International Comparison Program (ICP), benchmark PPPs were
estimated for 146 countries around the world. The ADB coordinated the 2005 ICP
activities for 23 economies in the Asia and Pacific region. The most common method
currently being adopted is the extrapolation of annual PPPs using time series national
accounts data particularly the movement and/or changes in GDP deflators versus that of
the US dollar – the numeraire country for the benchmark ICP. This extrapolation method
is simple, straightforward and practical but usually results in sizable amount of under or
overestimation when compared with actual benchmark estimates. The magnitude of
inconsistency becomes bigger when more than a couple of years are extrapolated. The
main reasons for this inconsistency are that (i) national GDP deflators are estimated using
expenditure structures which do not reflect comparable baskets of goods and services as
the other countries; (ii) inconsistencies in index numbers used, and (iii) some quite
restrictive assumptions underlie the extrapolation process.
Given the constraints and limitations of the current extrapolation methodology, the ADB
updated the benchmark 2005 ICP results for Asia and the Pacific region to 2009 using a
smaller set of items [core items] than was the case in the 2005 round and pricing only in
the capital city. An update is envisioned to provide a compromise between the statistical
problems associated with extrapolating PPPs from a benchmark and the costs of
conducting a full benchmark collection.
The project is intended to capitalize on the synergy created in the 2005 ICP and provide
concrete steps that shall sustain the collaborative work between ADB and national
implementing agencies on ICP related work. It also aims to: i) provide regional price
and volume comparisons of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and its component
expenditures for 2009; ii) address some of the issues raised during ICP-CPI 2005
harmonization workshop which include the mainstreaming of ICP with national statistical
work by integrating it as far as possible with the countries' national accounts and price
collection programs; iii) continuously develop the expertise of both price and national
accounts staff of countries; and iv) advocate the PPP concepts and methodologies and use
of CPI information for countries to develop their sub-national/intra-regional PPP.
Compared to the 2005 ICP Asia Pacific, the 2009 PPP Update can be considered as a
relatively small-scale exercise in terms of data and geographic coverage. Core list of
items were developed from the full list; the price collection surveys for household for are
to be carried out once every quarter only in the capital city. Nonetheless, the result of
the project is crucial not only because it will provide PPP Updates that will allow cross
country comparison of growth and poverty for Asia and the Pacific in 2009, but it can
also input in the improvement/development of methodologies that will be adopted for the
2011 ICP round.
3
Finally, this is the first comparison when it was possible to link it to the previous one,
and, thereby to create a consistent time-space comparison for the Asia-Pacific region for
the 2005-2009 period.
II. Main Features of the 2009 Update
The overall methodology of the 2009 Update is described elsewhere: see "Updating 2005
Purchasing Power Parities to 2009 in the Asia and Pacific Region: Methodology and
Empirical Results" (published as ADB Working Paper No. 246), available at
http://www.adb.org/documents/working-papers/2011/Economics-WP246.pdf. We just
mention a few main features of the Update. Compared with the magnitude of a full ICP
round, the Update is a relatively small-scale exercise. It covers around 270 products, or
approximately 40% of the original list for household final consumption expenditure in the
2005 ICP Asia-Pacific. However, unlike in the full ICP rounds, individual economies
would need to collect prices for only a subset of the products and only in the capital cities
in most cases, with some extra major cities being included in some large economies. The
aim is for the Update to be much less resource intensive than a regular ICP benchmark
exercise. Given the complexities involved in undertaking this exercise for all
components of GDP, the main focus was on collecting price data for the household
consumption and government consumption aggregates and the construction component of
gross fixed capital formation. PPPs for investment on machinery and equipment was
estimated using simpler extrapolation methods. As was the case in the 2005 ICP Asia-
Pacific, the PPPs for inventories, acquisition of valuables, and for exports and imports of
goods and services was based on reference PPPs.
Thus, (i) a core list of products from the 2005 ICP Asia-Pacific product list whose prices
will be collected in 2009 in the capital cities was identified; (ii) scaling factors to adjust
PPPs generated from the Update core product list to the full 2005 product list were
established, (iii) scaling factors for adjusting capital city prices to national average prices
using the price data collected in 2005 were estimated.
III. LINKING THE 2005 AND 2009 PPPS IN ONE TIME-SPACE COMPARISON
A unique feature of the Update is its linkages to the 2005 Benchmark comparison. The
whole methodology of the Update is built around extending the base 2005 results, on
utilizing commonalities of the product lists, on using synergy between the two
comparisons. Thus, it is possible to link the two comparisons and to present the results at
a common basis.
Linking principles
[1] BH Level: The BH PPPs were estimated from a joint CPD regression with the core
items priced in the capital city in 2009 run together with the core items priced in the
capital city in 2005. In this way, it is assumed that the relative position of the capital city
4
within a nation would be constant over the 2005-2009 period1, the same assumption is
made for the relative position of the core items within the whole list2. Thus, the 2009
Update can be considered as a true extension of the 2005 comparison. After that, the BH
level changes [inflation] were estimated for each country from the joint 2005-09
regression3, and then applied to the base 2005 BH PPPs, estimated on the basis of
nationally collected prices for the full list of items. For convenience, the combined 2005-
2009 PPPs were expressed in 2005 Hong Kong Dollars. The stages of computation are
presented below in Tables 1-3.
Stages of computation:
a. BH PPPs are computed for 2005 on the basis of all items priced nationally. Table 1
shows one Basic Heading with 26 items priced in 2005 and the corresponding BH PPP
estimated from CPD regression (#1.PPP 2005 total).
b. Table 2 shows only core item prices collected in the capital cities in 2005. Two BH
PPPs are shown: PPP based on the core items [10 items] priced in capital cities, using
only 2005 data (#2.PPP 2005 core capital), and the PPP based on the core items [10
items] priced in capital cities, only this time using both 2005 and 2009 data, estimated
from the joint 2005-2009 CPD regression (#3.PPP 2005 core capital (2005-09 joint
CPD)).
c. Table 3 shows core item prices collected in the capital cities in 2009. The first line
under the table shows the PPP based on core items [10 items] priced in capital cities,
using both 2005 and 2009 data, estimated from the joint 2005-2009 CPD regression
(#4.PPP 2009 core capital(2005-09 joint CPD)), with Hong Kong in 2005 as the
reference.. The second line shows the implicit country inflation for that BH that occurred
between 2005 and 2009 (#5.2005-09 inflation), and is obtained by dividing item #4 over
item #3, which are both referenced to Hong Kong 2005. Finally, the last line shows the
resulting overall BH PPP for 2009 (#6.PPP 2009 total), computed as item #1 multiplied
by item #5.
1
Analysis of CPIs for several countries in the region, made in connection with estimating sub-national
PPPs supports that assumption: the changes found over time were found to be insignificant [see "Towards
Integration of International Comparison Program and Consumer Price Index: The Case of the
Philippines", ADB Working Paper to be published later in 2011].
2
Not making that assumption, i.e., considering only the core items in 2009 vs. the full list in 2005 would
alter the overall results only slightly, given a high degree of correlation between the two [see " Updating
2005 Purchasing Power Parities to 2009 in the Asia and Pacific Region: Methodology and Empirical
Results" (ADB Working Paper No. 246) , 2011.
3
The regression was run jointly on 46 country-years [23 countries in two years], treating each country in
each year independently.
5
Table 1. Average prices and BH PPP, 2005, full list, national
BAN BHU BRU PRC FIJ HKG INO IND IRN CAM LAO SRI MAC MLD MON MAL NEP PAK PHI SIN THA TAP VIE
item1 109.3 69.6 42.80
item2 316.6 253.6 8.34 59953 172.7 11200 24465 251.8 18.94 243.4 139.2 48265
item3 228.6 129.0 48968 388.9
item4 257.5 38608 79806 293.4 293.6 64856
item5 239.9 35989 271.4 57.83
item6 253.7 57.4 350.3
item7 193.3 65.9 83.77 19.64 165.8
item8 239.2 11.06 64.9 336.8
item9 246.6 10.98 70.9 169.4 373.7
item10 410.7 215.9 44.44 75.5 31953 14625 76.34 6128 23.67 150.0
item11 470.2 110.0 387.6 147262 13114 35.56 480.3 360.2 226.4 16.13 249.6 356.6
item12 384.6 12734 433.3 64451
item13 221.0 5.89 10.55 55.2 38598 180.3 67678 60.00 15.89 145.8 133.9 7.85 111.1
item14 35584 151.2 10.19
item15 94.5 13.30 60.6 153.5 106.6
item16 90.5 68.8 166.8
item17 99.5 128.5 138.2 11.14 183.5
item18 376.3 36.44 13704 325.4 5695 252.4 179.1 272.3 43899
item19 213.6 153.7 12362 29488 272.6 194.2 220.3
item20 22.6 15.8 1.69 4.62 0.97 9.5 4372 15.2 4584 2406 5270 34.6 8.52 10.55 548 1.69 21.2 71.8 1.40 29.7 31.9 6952
item21 21.3 12.3 3.34 3899 12.0 2086 28.2 7.16 4.48 451 1.38 20.3 14.5 29.5 22.3 29.0 6043
item22 18.9 12.6 0.92 11.8 68.3 390 18.8 15.4
item23 23.0 1.67 13.2 61.3 652 22.4 18.1
item24 1.36 3.03 2.82 6.1 4942 4560 97.7 6.18 12.29 3.92 31.8 42.4 27.2 1.27 27.8 7094
item25 0.73 5.68 1.12 4.0 3521 11.0 1547 2472 38.2 3.04 1.31 35.0 29.0 0.96 19.5 37.5 6096
item26 75.1 3.14 9.78 3.56 18.9 10397 6200 5557 7629 19.62 1933 5.97 56.4 53.9 3.33 54.8 61.8 20006
#1.PPP 2005 total 4.03 2.79 0.15 0.59 0.20 1.00 651 2.48 719 219 547 5.85 0.98 1.19 88 0.30 3.73 3.46 3.86 0.18 2.87 4.90 920
6
Table 2. Average prices and BH PPP, 2005, core items, capital cities
BAN BHU BRU PRC FIJ HKG INO IND IRN CAM LAO SRI MAC MLD MON MAL NEP PAK PHI SIN THA TAP VIE
item1
item2
item3
item4
item5
item6
item7
item8
item9
item10 420.5 220.9 46.07 75.5 33690 14718 76.34 6272 23.45 167.6
item11
item12 431.2 13090 444.8 68462
item13 227.6 5.72 12.24 55.2 41374 201.2 81001 59.43 17.03 145.4 142.4 7.85 123.6
item14
item15
item16
item17 113.1 132.3 139.5 11.14 214.0
item18 361.8 38.94 15136 326.8 5948 272.6 188.3 325.0 45391
item19 233.0 153.1 13185 34672 284.2 204.0 212.8
item20 24.6 16.8 1.92 4.82 0.97 9.5 5329 15.4 4976 2376 5846 34.0 8.52 10.58 604 1.67 20.6 69.8 1.40 31.5 30.8 6787
item21
item22 20.9 13.4 1.05 12.1 72.1 412 19.8 15.7
item23
item24 1.33 3.03 3.32 6.1 6232 5591 101.3 6.18 12.72 3.80 35.2 45.9 28.1 1.27 33.0 7169
item25
item26 81.8 3.29 10.67 3.51 18.9 11444 7290 6520 8726 20.51 1889 6.29 57.0 53.8 3.33 52.6 73.4 21479
#2.PPP 2005 core capital 4.42 2.80 0.17 0.55 0.21 1.00 649 2.66 711 249 626 6.41 0.93 1.26 88 0.32 3.64 3.39 3.75 0.19 3.01 4.92 885
#3.PPP 2005 core capital
(2005-09 joint CPD, HK$05=1.0) 4.30 2.73 0.17 0.55 0.22 1.00 649 2.58 723 240 615 6.31 0.91 1.28 88 0.32 3.57 3.50 3.72 0.19 3.01 4.83 879
7
Table 3. Average prices and BH PPP, 2009, core items, capital cities
BAN BHU BRU PRC FIJ HKG INO IND IRN CAM LAO SRI MAC MLD MON MAL NEP PAK PHI SIN THA TAP VIE
item1
item2
item3
item4
item5
item6
item7
item8
item9
item10 800.9 213.9 49.83 154.5 63958 32751 129.78 18938 44.10 166.1
item11
item12 642.6 31304 473.6 122235
item13 552.4 5.95 10.30 96.3 37813 206.5 115053 21.20 591.3 192.8 11.33 166.8
item14
item15
item16
item17 148.7 248.3 299.3 15.00 190.0
item18 693.9 39.10 25001 711.7 15098 326.5 247.9 326.7 70967
item19 337.9 247.3 20704 65144 611.3 462.9 323.1
item20 32.5 22.5 2.32 9.09 1.14 15.2 9066 26.1 7793 3396 11609 84.6 14.49 7.60 932 2.44 29.9 95.8 2.62 44.9 40.0 13925
item21
item22 23.3 20.8 15.4 161.3 641 25.4 32.5
item23
item24 1.67 3.48 7.1 10595 7752 159.9 10.50 17.41 5.79 29.3 70.0 1.97 33.2 12130
item25
item26 97.3 2.34 11.30 5.38 22.2 14243 10540 7653 10946 34.95 3302 8.14 100.0 41.5 3.82 76.2 67.9 19446
#4.PPP 2009 core capital
(2005-09 joint CPD, HK$05=1.0) 6.56 3.80 0.17 0.66 0.21 1.51 937 3.55 1050 404 1029 13.31 1.55 1.60 176 0.47 4.76 7.63 4.73 0.27 3.69 4.96 1357
#5.2005-09 inflation (#4 / #3) 1.52 1.39 1.03 1.20 0.97 1.51 1.44 1.37 1.45 1.69 1.67 2.11 1.70 1.24 2.00 1.47 1.33 2.18 1.27 1.45 1.23 1.03 1.54
#6.PPP 2009 total (#1 * #5) 6.14 3.88 0.16 0.71 0.19 1.51 938 3.40 1044 369 914 12.35 1.66 1.48 176 0.44 4.97 7.54 4.90 0.26 3.53 5.03 1421
8
[2] Aggregate Level: In order to link the two comparisons at the aggregate level, a
multilateral transitive index [GEKS-Fisher] was applied to the 23 countries in both years,
treating a country in one year as a separate entity. Thus, effectively, the aggregation was
run on the 46 country-years. This way the effect of the base country or year on the linking
was minimized. Again, for convenience, the joint 2005-2009 PPPs described in the Table
3 above were expressed in 2005 Hong Kong Dollars.
Stages of computation:
a. The BH PPPs estimated using the joint 2005-09 CPD regression (item #6 from the
previous section) were used to compile the BH PPP matrix expressed in the same
terms. The reference point of computation for BH PPPs was Hong Kong in 2005.
The matrix consists of 46 country-years and 155 BHs.
Table 4. Combined 2005-2009 BH PPP Matrix
2005 2009
HKG Country B Country C HKG Country B Country C
BH1 1 3 10 1.5 4 15
BH2 1 2 12 1.7 3 15
BH3 1 4 10 1.2 4 18
…
BH155 1 2 15 1.5 4 20
b. The above BH PPP matrix, along with the nominal expenditure matrix, was used in
aggregation above the BH level. For convenience purposes, the aggregation results
were expressed in 2005 Hong Kong Dollars. Thus, linking between 2005 and 2009 is
done using all available binary comparisons, and not only the base country [Hong
Kong].
Thus obtained 2005-09 results would differ somewhat from the aggregations carried out
individually for 2005 and 2009, if we look at the two individual years separately. The
differences are rather small [usually, within a fraction of one percent at the GDP level].
However, it would be possible to retain fixity, if required, in linking years by using
principles similar to those used in the ICP in linking the regions.
These results are consistent in time and space simultaneously. Dividing 2009 PPPs over
2005 PPPs produces a measure for “internationally-comparable inflation”, which is
computed with the same index number for all countries, and with influence from national
expenditure baskets removed [as it is done in a regular ICP within the space dimension,
by using a multilateral transitive index number such as GEKS]. In other words, for any
two countries A and B, changes in their relative position between 2005 and 2009 will be
fully explained by changes in nominal GDP, and thus computed relative inflation. I.e.,
the nominal changes between the two years for any country can be decomposed into the
real growth and inflation.
9
Main results
Results of the 2009 update show that the changes that occurred between 2005 and 2009
were significant, sometimes greatly affecting relative positions of Asian countries among
themselves4. In real GDP terms [2005 Hong Kong International Dollars converted with
PPPs] one can observe that China increased its share in Asia from 43.6% to 48.4% (see
Figures 1 and 1a), effectively becoming one half of the region. At the same time, some
countries experienced significant drops in shares, for example, Taiwan (from 5.3% to
3.7%), Thailand (from 4.0% to 3.3%) and other countries. Note that these changes do not
reflect absolute drops, but only relative ones against the background of the ascent of
China and Asia as a whole.
Most changes, however, have been driven by national accounts in nominal terms
[Current Hong Kong Dollars converted with Exchange Rates], rather than prices. Again,
in nominal terms we see that China increased its share from 46.0% to 55.9% (see Figures
2 and 2a), contributing to over one half of the region in nominal GDP terms. Again,
significant drops in shares experienced countries such as Taiwan (from 7.4% to 4.2%),
Thailand (from 3.6% to 3.0%) and some other countries. Again, these changes do not
reflect absolute drops, but only relative ones, as whole Asia increased significantly in
nominal terms as well.
Similar changes occurred in country shares of major aggregates: see Figures 3-8.
Especially drastic changes happened in Gross Fixed Capital Formation category, where
China increased its share in real terms from 56.3% to 62.5%, and in nominal terms –
from 57.2% to 69.0%.
The discrepancies between the real and nominal shares constitute Price Levels Indices
[PLIs, see ANNEX for a discussion on the PLI and regional average prices 5] and they
changed significantly as well. In particular, PLI of China increased from 1.057 to 1.154
[vs. regional average], or by 9.2%, and Hong Kong PLI decreased from 1.751 to 1.612, or
by 7.9%, Indian PLI decreased even more drastically – from 0.812 to 0.721, or by 11.2%
[see Table A below]:
Table A. Change in Relative Price Level, 2005 to 2009 vs. Regional Average
HKG MAC SIN TAP BRU BAN BHU IND IRN MLD NEP PAK
0.921 0.786 0.980 0.822 0.951 0.917 0.817 0.888 1.026 0.762 0.962 0.836
SRI MON CAM FIJ INO LAO MAL PHI PRC THA VIE ASIA
1.028 0.915 0.996 0.857 0.912 1.113 0.972 1.054 1.092 0.992 0.932 1.000
4
The results are still preliminary are subject to later updates and revisions by the ADB.
5
The concept of the regional average used in this paper is very similar to the approaches employed in
other ICP regional comparisons. For example, the OECD presents results at international prices, LAC and
Africa use regional currency units [MAS and Afric, respectively], etc. The main principle of all these
presentations is that the sum of the country GDPs in real terms expressed at the regional average prices [or,
the regional currency] is made to be equal to the sum of the country GDPs in nominal terms expressed in
reference currency [Hong Kong Dollar in Asia]. Then for any country the ratio of nominal to real GDP
would signify its relative price level vis-à-vis the region.
10
Figure 9 plots changes in PLI vs. 2005 Asian Regional Average at the GDP level. For
each individual country it shows its position versus the average in 2005 in two years as
well as inflation during the 2005-09 period. The most significant changes occurred in
Laos and China.
Figure 10 shows changes in relative real per capita GDP during the period. While some
countries experienced decline [notably Brunei that experienced a significant drop even in
absolute real terms], China, Macao, Maldives, Indonesia, Mongolia and Vietnam
improved their positions.
Figure 11 shows similar changes but this time in relative nominal per capita GDP during
the same period. While some countries experienced decline [again, Brunei’s GDP
experienced a significant drop in nominal terms when converted by the exchange rate],
China, Maldives, Indonesia, Mongolia and Vietnam improved their positions.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Asian 2009 PPP Update shows significant changes since the benchmark 2005 results.
By exploiting synergy between the two, the Update was merged with the benchmark in
one joint time-space Asian comparison to show the GDP and its components in
comparable terms [2005 Hong Kong International Dollars]. Thus obtained results are
consistent in time and space in both periods, and the changes in real terms between the
two years can be interpreted as real changes net of internationally [Asian-wide]
comparable inflation, as the effect on national baskets on national inflation has been
removed by using a multilateral transitive index number [GEKS-Fisher]. Similar
technique can be used in the future to interpret changes between the 2005 and the
upcoming 2011 ICP benchmarks.
11
V. REFERENCES
1. "Updating 2005 Purchasing Power Parities to 2009 in the Asia and Pacific
Region: Methodology and Empirical Results" (ADB Working Paper No. 246) ,
2011
2. "Towards Integration of International Comparison Program and Consumer Price
Index: The Case of the Philippines", ADB Working Paper to be published later in
2011
3. “2005 International Comparison Program in Asia and the Pacific”, Asian
Development Bank, 2007
12
ANNEX6
6
Adapted from “2005 International Comparison Program in Asia and the Pacific ”, Asian Development Bank,
2007.
14
15
ANNEX I. AGGREGATE 2005 AND 2009 ASIAN RESULTS IN CHARTS
16
Figure 1. 2005 Real GDP Shares, by Country (Asia = Figure 2. 2005 Nominal GDP Shares, by Country (Asia
100) = 100)
VIE HKG MACSIN BRU THA VIE HKG
THA MAC
1.4% 2.1%0.2% 0.2% 1.1% 3.6% SIN
4.0% 1.6% TAP 3.6% 0.2%
2.6%
5.3% BAN
1.5% TAP
BRU
BHU 7.4%
0.2%
0.0%
BAN
1.2%
BHU
0.0%
IND
20.4%
IND
16.6%
PRC
43.6% PRC
46.0%
IRN IRN
4.6% 3.3%
NEP
MLD
NEP
MLD 0.0%
0.2%
PAK
0.0%
0.2%
PAK 2.4%
SRI
CAM
MON
3.1% FIJ
SRI 0.5%
0.0%
0.1%
CAM
MON
FIJ 0.1%
0.6%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0% INO
INO 5.8%
LAO
6.1% MAL
PHI MAL LAO PHI 0.1%
2.8%
2.2% 2.6% 0.1% 2.0%
Figure 1a. 2009 Real GDP Shares, by Country (Asia = Figure 2a. 2009 Nominal GDP Shares, by Country
100) (Asia = 100)
VIE HKGMAC SIN THA VIE HKGMAC
THA SIN
1.6% 1.5%
0.2%
1.4% TAP 3.0% 1.1% 2.3%0.2% 2.1%
3.3% TAP
3.7% BRU
BAN
0.1% BHU 4.2% BRU
1.3% BAN
0.0% BHU
0.1%
1.0%
0.0%
IND
IND 13.0%
18.0%
IRN
4.2%
MLD
0.0%
PRC IRN NEP
48.4% 5.8% 0.2%
PAK
MLD
NEP 1.9%
PRC
0.2%
0.0% SRI
55.9% INO
PAK 0.5%
6.0%
2.9%
SRI MON
CAM
MON
FIJ LAO
0.5% 0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0% 0.1%
CAM
MAL 0.1%
INO 2.2%
6.9% FIJ
PHI 0.0%
LAO 1.8%
MAL
PHI 0.1%
2.1%
1.9%
17
Figure 3. 2005 Real AFC Shares, by Country (Asia = Figure 4. 2005 Nominal AFC Shares, by Country (Asia
100) = 100)
VIE HKGMAC SIN BRU VIE HKG
THA THA MAC
1.7% 2.0%0.1%
1.0% TAP 0.1% 1.3% 4.1% SIN
4.4% 4.2% 0.1%
5.7% BAN 2.1%
2.1%
TAP
BHU
8.9%
0.0% BRU
0.1%
BAN
1.8%
BHU
0.0%
PRC IND
34.8% 24.8%
PRC
37.7%
IND
19.1%
IRN
IRN
MLD
NEP 3.0%
4.5%
MLD
0.3%
PAK 0.0%
PHI PAK 3.6%
0.0% MON
CAMSRI
2.8% MAL 4.8% PHI FIJ
LAO MON
CAM
FIJSRI NEP 0.7%
0.1%
0.2%
2.2% INO 2.7% MAL LAO INO 0.1%
0.1% 0.8%
0.1%
0.3%
0.0% 0.3%
7.6% 2.7% 0.1% 7.3%
Figure 3a. 2009 Real AFC Shares, by Country (Asia = Figure 4a. 2009 Nominal AFC Shares, by Country
100) (Asia = 100)
VIE HKGMACSIN VIE HKG MAC
THA THA
1.9% 1.7%
0.1%
1.0% TAP
3.5%
1.5% 3.1% 0.1%SIN BRU
3.9% 4.7% 1.8%
BRU TAP 0.1%
BAN
0.1% BHU 5.6%
2.1% BAN
0.0% 1.6%
BHU
0.0%
IND
IND 16.0%
22.8%
PRC
36.8%
PRC
45.4%
IRN
3.6%
NEP
MLD
0.0%
0.3%
PAK
IRN 3.3%
5.0% SRI
CAM
MON
FIJ
0.7%
MLD 0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
PAK NEP INO
5.0% 0.3% 7.6%
MON
CAM
FIJSRI
PHI LAO
0.7%
0.2%
0.1% MAL
2.8% MALLAO INO 0.0% PHI 0.1%
2.5%
2.1%0.1% 8.4% 2.8%
18
Figure 5. 2005 Real General Government Expenditure Figure 6. 2005 Nominal General Government
Shares, by Country (Asia = 100) Expenditure Shares, by Country (Asia = 100)
BRU
THA VIE HKG MAC SIN THA VIE HKG MAC
0.4% SIN
2.8% 0.9%1.3%
0.1%
1.7% TAP 2.9% 0.5% 2.5% 0.2%
2.4%
BAN
6.1% BRU
0.6% TAP
7.9% 0.3%
BHU
0.1% BAN
0.6%
BHU
0.0%
IND
15.4%
IND
14.3%
IRN
5.9% IRN
3.1%
PRC PRC NEP
MLD
54.6% NEP
MLD 55.2% PAK
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
PAK
SRI
1.6%
CAM
MON
1.9% FIJ
SRI 0.4%
0.0%
CAM
FIJ
MON
0.6% 0.1%
0.0%
0.1% INO
INO
2.8% 3.8%
LAO LAO
0.2%
MAL MAL0.1%
2.6% 2.2%
PHI PHI
1.6% 1.6%
Figure 5a. 2009 Real General Government Expenditure Figure 6a. 2009 Nominal General Government
Shares, by Country (Asia = 100) Expenditure Shares, by Country (Asia = 100)
VIE HKG
MACSIN THA VIE HKGMACSIN
THA TAP
1.9% 0.8%
0.1%
1.3% BRU 3.2% 0.9% 1.6%
0.1%2.1%
2.9% 3.3% BAN
BHU TAP
0.2%
0.5%
0.0% 4.5% BRU
BAN
BHU
0.2%
0.5%
0.0%
IND
17.3% IND
14.1%
IRN
3.9%
MLD
IRN 0.0%
8.4%
NEP
0.1%
INO PAK
4.4% 0.6%
PRC NEP
MLD
53.9% PAK LAO SRI
0.0%
0.1%
0.8%
SRI 0.1% 0.6%
MON
CAM
FIJ PRC
1.0%
0.1%
0.0% 59.5% MAL MON
INO 1.9% 0.0%
3.7% PHI CAM
LAO 1.6% 0.1%
MAL0.2%
FIJ
PHI 1.9% 0.0%
1.4%
19
Figure 7. 2005 Real GFCF Shares, by Country (Asia = Figure 8. 2005 Nominal GFCF Shares, by Country
100) (Asia = 100)
VIE HKGMAC SIN THA VIE HKGMAC
THA SIN
1.4% 1.7%
0.1%
1.4% TAP 3.2% 1.1% 2.3%0.2%
3.9% 1.7% TAP
4.2% BRU
BAN
BHU 5.2%
0.1%
1.0% BRU
0.0% BAN
BHU
0.1%
0.9%
0.0%
IND
17.0%
IND
16.2%
IRN
3.3% IRN
MLD 2.8%
NEP
MLD
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
PAK
NEP 1.3%
SRI
CAM
FIJ
MON
0.1% 0.4%
0.1%
0.0%
INO PAK PRC
PRC 4.7% 1.2% INO
57.2%
56.3% 4.3%
LAO SRI
0.1% 0.3% LAO
0.1%
MAL MON
2.1% 0.0% MAL
1.8%
PHI CAM
1.0% 0.1% PHI
0.9%
FIJ
0.0%
Figure 7a. 2009 Real GFCF Shares, by Country (Asia = Figure 8a. 2009 Nominal GFCF Shares, by Country
100) (Asia = 100)
THA VIE HKG MACSIN TAP THA VIE HKG MAC SIN TAP
BRU
2.2% 1.5% 1.0%1.2% 1.9% BAN
0.1% BHU 1.9% 1.0%1.3%
0.1%
1.6% 2.1%BRU
BAN
0.0%
0.9% BHU
0.0% 0.1%
0.7%
0.0%
IND
IND
11.5%
14.7%
IRN
MLD 2.6%
0.0% NEP
MLD
PAK
0.0%
0.1%
NEP SRI
0.9%
CAM
FIJ
MON
IRN
0.1% 0.3%
0.0%
3.8%
PAK
1.1% INO
SRI 5.1%
0.3%
LAO
MON
0.1%
0.0%
INO CAM MAL
6.5% 0.0% 1.2%
PHI
FIJ
0.4%
0.0%
LAO
0.1%
MAL
PRC 1.4%
62.5% PHI
0.4%
PRC
69.0%
20
Figure 9. Price Level Index, 2005 and 2009, Asia 2005 = 1.00
2.00
1.80
2005
2009
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
MLD
CAM
MAL
MAC
TAP
MON
THA
SRI
FIJ
INO
LAO
PHI
HKG
SIN
BAN
PAK
VIE
ASIA
BRU
BHU
IND
IRN
NEP
PRC
Figure 10. Real per Capita GDP, 2005 and 2009, Asia = 100
1400
1200
2005
2009
1000
800
600
400
200
0
MAC
MLD
MON
CAM
MAL
HKG
SIN
BRU
BAN
BHU
IND
IRN
NEP
PAK
SRI
FIJ
INO
LAO
PHI
PRC
VIE
ASIA
TAP
THA
21
Figure 11. Nominal per Capita GDP, 2005 and 2009, Asia = 100
2000
1800
1600
2005
2009
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
MAC
MLD
MON
CAM
MAL
HKG
SIN
BRU
BAN
BHU
IND
IRN
NEP
PAK
SRI
FIJ
INO
LAO
PHI
PRC
VIE
ASIA
TAP
THA
22