Talk:List of Chinese administrative divisions by Human Development Index
| WikiProject China | (Rated C-class, High-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Question
strange... According to the wikipedia article on Shanghai, Shanghai's per capita GDP is 42,800 CNY in 2004.. which roughly converts to $ 5,500 USD
where did they get such a high per capita GDP?
same for Beijing and all other chinese cities/provinces
- HDI is calculated by GDP per capita by purchasing power parity, not nominal. -- ran (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Data Accuracy Issues
Every single Human Development Report from mainland China uses incorrect PPP conversions (although the latest one acknowledges that the effect of the new PPP conversion factor is being researched), resulting in GDP per capita that is higher than the true values. Most of the numbers in the GDP per capita column are therefore incorrect. The latest 2007/2008 mainland China report and the UN 2008 statistical update conflicting life expectancy, literacy, and enrollment numbers (UN update also uses the new PPP conversions). This makes it likely that the numbers given for each individual province are inaccurate (in fact, the 2007/2008 mainland China report uses life expectancy numbers that were apparently from the 2005 China Statistical Yearbook). The numbers that are shown in the table are not all from the same year. For example, Japan's HDI is from 2004 or 2005, South Korea's HDI is from 2006, and mainland China's HDI is from 2005 (with the incorrect GDP per capita (PPP) again). Some of the provinces appear to have HDIs from the 2007/2008 report, some from the 2005 report. As well, many of the given HDI values are inconsistent with the given life expectancy, literacy, enrollment, and GDP per capita values.
[edit] Data Consistency Issues
The HDIs for China's Administrative areas do not correspond to the HDI for China at the Global HDI entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.134.72 (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Henjeng55155 (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Article Class
The article is currently listed as a C-class. Shouldn't this be list-class?--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
