DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix D. Real Gross Domestic Product P P E the Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Data Used in the U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix D. Real Gross Domestic Product P P E the Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Data Used in the U.S A Appendix D. Real Gross Domestic Product P P E The real gross domestic product (GDP) data used in the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) State Energy Data System (SEDS) to N calculate total energy consumed per chained (2012) dollar of output are in D Tables D1 and D2. The data are the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), real GDP estimates by state, beginning in 1997. I BEA publishes both the national-level and state-level real GDP data in the X “Regional Economic Accounts” dataset. However, there is a difference in the coverage between the two series. The difference between the sum of D the states GDP and the U.S-level GDP reflects federal military and civilian activity located overseas. For details, see BEA’s Regional Economic Accounts: Methodologies, http://www.bea.gov/regional/methods.cfm. Additional note For 1997 forward, BEA reports real GDP using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Before 1997, BEA reports real GDP using the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC). Through the 2012 data cycle, SEDS published real GDP by state for 1977 forward. In 2014, BEA completed a comprehensive revision of the state GDP and only revised the data for 1997 forward. Because of the incompatibility between the two sets of data, SEDS removed state GDP data before 1997. Data sources GDPRXZZ — Real gross domestic product by state and the United States in million chained (2012) dollars. • 1997 forward: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts, https://apps.bea.gov/itable/ iTable.cfm?ReqID=70&step=1#reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1, select Annual Gross Domestic Product by State, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) summary (SAGDP1), All Areas, and Real GDP (millions of chained 2012 dollars). U.S. Energy Information Administration | State Energy Data 2019: Consumption 221 A Table D1. Real Gross Domestic Product by State, 1997-2007 P (Billion Chained (2012) Dollars) P State 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Alabama ................................. R 144.5 R 149.6 R 155.2 R 157.7 R 157.1 R 161.3 R 165.3 R 175.9 R 181.9 R 185.3 R 186.5 E Alaska ..................................... 42.3 41.2 R 40.8 R 39.6 41.0 42.9 R 42.1 R 43.8 45.1 48.5 51.1 Arizona ................................... R 168.4 R 183.0 R 198.0 207.8 R 212.6 R 219.4 233.3 243.2 R 263.0 R 277.2 R 284.8 N Arkansas ................................. 82.8 84.8 89.3 90.2 R 90.1 R 93.0 R 96.7 101.2 R 104.8 R 107.1 R 106.3 California ................................ R 1,379.7 R 1,470.5 R 1,583.2 R 1,709.5 R 1,707.1 R 1,747.2 R 1,829.3 R 1,902.6 R 1,988.7 R 2,072.3 R 2,103.0 D Colorado ................................. R 184.5 R 201.0 R 216.1 232.8 R 236.3 R 236.9 R 238.8 R 241.2 R 251.3 R 256.2 R 264.7 Connecticut ............................. R 190.7 196.2 R 202.3 R 216.3 R 219.9 220.0 R 222.1 R 236.7 R 242.4 251.6 R 261.0 Delaware ................................ R 45.8 R 50.1 53.9 R 56.3 R 59.0 R 56.9 R 57.9 R 60.5 R 59.8 R 61.4 61.2 I District of Columbia ................ R 79.7 R 81.1 R 84.5 R 85.2 R 88.4 91.2 R 93.1 R 97.9 100.0 R 100.3 103.0 Florida ..................................... R 560.8 R 588.9 R 614.4 R 641.2 R 658.3 R 685.0 R 715.0 R 757.6 R 806.8 R 834.4 R 835.6 X Georgia ................................... R 329.1 R 353.3 R 378.2 R 391.2 R 395.0 R 399.8 R 410.9 429.3 R 445.8 R 451.0 R 452.7 Hawaii ..................................... 55.7 54.4 55.2 56.4 R 56.1 57.9 60.8 64.9 68.6 70.4 71.2 R R R R R R R R Idaho ....................................... 37.1 38.9 42.6 47.5 46.2 47.3 48.6 51.4 55.4 57.6 58.7 Illinois ...................................... R 577.5 R 596.2 R 618.3 R 640.9 R 642.5 R 647.0 R 656.4 R 675.7 R 688.5 R 706.1 R 712.9 D Indiana .................................... 232.2 R 246.1 R 254.0 R 264.1 R 258.8 265.1 275.2 R 284.6 R 285.6 R 291.7 299.4 Iowa ........................................ R 113.6 R 114.4 R 116.8 R 122.4 R 120.9 R 124.3 R 129.2 R 140.0 143.9 R 146.1 R 152.5 Kansas .................................... 104.8 R 108.4 R 111.0 R 113.9 R 114.2 R 115.7 117.5 R 118.3 122.3 128.9 R 135.6 Kentucky ................................. R 146.9 R 151.2 R 155.9 R 151.8 R 151.8 155.7 R 159.4 163.4 168.8 R 173.5 171.9 Louisiana ................................ R 201.7 R 208.5 R 212.7 R 206.5 209.0 213.1 R 221.3 R 231.5 R 245.7 R 243.4 R 234.5 Maine ...................................... 43.0 44.2 46.4 48.5 49.4 50.6 51.7 53.5 53.6 54.3 54.0 Maryland ................................. 221.2 231.8 240.9 R 250.9 R 260.9 270.9 278.0 R 292.0 R 306.1 R 311.6 R 312.0 Massachusetts ........................ R 302.5 R 315.1 R 332.3 R 359.3 R 363.9 R 364.9 R 374.7 R 383.9 R 391.5 R 398.3 R 408.5 Michigan ................................. R 397.1 406.3 R 429.7 438.3 R 423.7 435.3 R 442.7 R 444.4 R 450.6 R 443.6 441.1 Minnesota ............................... R 212.5 R 223.8 R 231.5 R 247.3 R 247.0 R 252.7 R 263.7 R 274.8 R 282.5 R 282.6 R 283.9 Mississippi .............................. R 83.3 85.3 87.6 88.1 R 87.3 R 88.4 R 92.0 R 93.8 R 95.5 R 98.0 R 100.4 Missouri .................................. R 228.0 232.1 R 238.8 R 245.3 R 243.5 R 246.9 R 253.1 R 258.6 R 263.3 R 264.4 R 264.6 Montana .................................. 29.2 30.5 30.6 31.4 R 31.6 32.5 R 33.9 R 35.3 37.1 R 38.5 40.4 Nebraska ................................ R 70.8 R 72.4 73.9 R 76.7 R 78.4 79.7 84.1 86.1 R 89.1 R 91.5 R 93.6 Nevada ................................... R 89.9 R 94.7 R 101.2 R 105.5 106.7 R 110.2 R 115.1 R 127.8 R 138.8 R 144.6 R 144.3 New Hampshire ...................... 48.4 51.6 53.1 56.7 57.4 R 59.1 61.6 63.5 64.4 65.9 65.7 New Jersey ............................. R 425.9 R 433.4 R 448.5 R 472.8 R 476.3 R 486.9 R 499.4 R 507.2 R 513.1 R 523.8 R 526.7 New Mexico ............................ 67.4 67.1 70.7 72.0 R 72.0 R 74.2 77.1 82.8 83.8 85.9 86.5 New York ................................ R 977.6 R 996.0 R 1,046.5 R 1,084.8 R 1,107.9 R 1,098.8 R 1,101.6 R 1,129.0 R 1,167.6 R 1,196.7 R 1,203.5 North Carolina ........................ R 316.6 R 327.7 R 345.6 R 357.8 R 360.8 R 365.8 R 374.6 R 387.8 R 406.3 R 431.8 R 436.8 North Dakota .......................... R 22.5 23.7 R 23.8 R 24.7 R 25.1 26.4 28.0 28.3 R 29.2 R 30.4 R 31.8 Ohio ........................................ R 471.7 R 488.1 499.1 R 509.6 R 502.3 R 514.1 R 522.4 R 534.6 R 544.3 R 541.6 R 541.7 Oklahoma ............................... R 115.3 R 117.8 119.7 R 124.2 128.7 131.1 R 132.9 R 137.1 R 142.8 R 152.5 R 155.3 Oregon .................................... R 118.6 124.2 126.9 137.8 136.7 R 139.6 R 145.5 R 152.9 R 158.4 167.9 R 171.0 Pennsylvania .......................... R 496.6 R 509.8 R 524.7 R 538.0 R 544.6 R 549.7 R 561.8 R 577.0 R 587.3 R 591.3 R 610.3 Rhode Island .......................... R 40.1 R 41.9 43.2 R 45.3 45.9 47.6 R 49.3 51.6 52.3 53.5 R 52.0 South Carolina .......................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
    1 SECTION Gross Domestic Product ross domestic product (GDP) is a measure of a country’s economic output. GDP per capita and GDP Gper employed person are related indicators that provide a general picture of a country’s well-being. GDP per capita is an indicator of overall wealth in a country, and GDP per employed person is a general indicator of productivity. 8 CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS | SEPTEMBER 2012 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov Gross domestic product, selected countries, in U.S. dollars, 2010 United States China Japan CHART India 1.1 Germany Gross domestic United Kingdom France product (GDP) Brazil was more Italy than 14 trillion Mexico dollars in the Spain South Korea United States Canada and exceeded Australia 4 trillion Poland dollars in only Netherlands Argentina three other Belgium countries: Sweden China, Japan, Philippines and India. Switzerland Austria In addition to China Greece Singapore and India, other large Czech Republic emerging economies, Norway such as Brazil and Portugal Mexico, were among the Israel 10 largest countries in Denmark terms of GDP. Hungary Finland The GDP of the United Ireland States was roughly 5 New Zealand times larger than that of Slovakia Germany, 10 times larger Estonia than that of South Korea, 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Trillions of 2010 U.S. dollars and 40 times larger than that of the Philippines. NOTE: GDP is converted to U.S. dollars using purchasing power parities (PPP). See section notes. SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and The World Bank.
    [Show full text]
  • A Better Measure of Economic Growth: Gross Domestic Output (Gdo)
    COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS ISSUE BRIEF JULY 2015 A BETTER MEASURE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH: GROSS DOMESTIC OUTPUT (GDO) The growth of total economic output affects our assessment of current well-being as well as decisions about the future. Measuring the strength of the economy, however, can be difficult as it depends on surveys and administrative source data that are necessarily imperfect and incomplete. The total output of the economy can be measured in two distinct ways—Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which adds consumption, investment, government spending, and net exports; and Gross Domestic Income (GDI), which adds labor compensation, business profits, and other sources of income. In theory these two measures of output should be identical; however, they differ in practice because of measurement error. With today’s annual revision, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) began publishing a new measure of U.S. output—the “average of GDP and GDI”—which the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) will refer to as Gross Domestic Output (GDO).1 This issue brief describes GDO, reviews its recent trends, and explains why it can be a more accurate measure of current economic growth and a better predictor of future economic growth than either GDP or GDI alone. What is Gross Domestic Output (GDO)? The first estimate of quarterly GDP is released nearly a month after each quarter’s end. Owing to data lags, GDI What we are calling “GDO” is the average of two existing is generally first released nearly two months after series, the headline Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and quarter’s end, along with the second estimate of GDP.2 its lesser-known counterpart, Gross Domestic Income As a result, with today’s advance GDP release, GDI and (GDI).
    [Show full text]
  • Income, Expenditures, Poverty, and Wealth
    Section 13 Income, Expenditures, Poverty, and Wealth This section presents data on gross periodically conducts the Survey of domestic product (GDP), gross national Consumer Finances, which presents finan- product (GNP), national and personal cial information on family assets and net income, saving and investment, money worth. The most recent survey is available income, poverty, and national and at <http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs personal wealth. The data on income and /oss/oss2/scfindex.html>. Detailed infor- expenditures measure two aspects of the mation on personal wealth is published U.S. economy. One aspect relates to the periodically by the Internal Revenue National Income and Product Accounts Service (IRS) in SOI Bulletin. (NIPA), a summation reflecting the entire complex of the nation’s economic income National income and product— and output and the interaction of its GDP is the total output of goods and major components; the other relates to services produced by labor and prop- the distribution of money income to erty located in the United States, valued families and individuals or consumer at market prices. GDP can be viewed in income. terms of the expenditure categories that comprise its major components: The primary source for data on GDP, GNP, personal consumption expenditures, national and personal income, gross gross private domestic investment, net saving and investment, and fixed assets exports of goods and services, and gov- and consumer durables is the Survey of ernment consumption expenditures and Current Business, published monthly by gross investment. The goods and services the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). included are largely those bought for final A comprehensive revision to the NIPA use (excluding illegal transactions) in the was released beginning in July 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • 3. GDP Per Capita
    GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP) 3. GDP per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita is a core indicator needed in interpretation, for example Luxembourg and, to a of economic performance and commonly used as a broad lesser extent, Switzerland have a relatively large number of measure of average living standards or economic well- frontier workers. Such workers contribute to GDP but are being; despite some recognised shortcomings. excluded from the population figures, which is one of the For example average GDP per capita gives no indication of reasons why cross-country comparisons of income per how GDP is distributed between citizens. Average GDP per capita based on gross or net national income (GDI and NNI) capita may rise for example but more people may be worse are often preferred, see second chapter on Income. (See also off if income inequalities also increase. “Reader’s guide”, relating to PPP based comparisons.) Equally, in some countries (see Comparability), there may be a significant number of non-resident border or seasonal Source workers or indeed inflows and outflows of property income • OECD (2012), National Accounts of OECD Countries, OECD and both phenomena imply that the value of production Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/2221433x. differs from the income of residents, thereby over or under- stating their living standards. Online database A full discussion of these issues can be found in the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi report (see “Further reading”). • OECD (2012), “Aggregate National Accounts: Gross domestic product”, OECD National Accounts Statistics (database), http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/data-00001-en. Definition Further reading The definition for GDP is described in Section 1 and • Lequiller, F.
    [Show full text]
  • Hungary (24 June 2021)
    Coronavirus response in 2021: building back better Update on Hungary (24 June 2021) Covid-19 policy response EBRD assessment of transition qualities (ATQs), 20201 • The authorities implemented a major policy response in 2020, amounting to around 18 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), focused on income support for vulnerable individuals, liquidity Competitive Inclusive support for businesses and budgetary support for the health sector. Well-governed Resilient • Covid-19-related fiscal measures in 2021 are projected at 12 per cent of GDP, with continued spending on pandemic protection and support for the economic recovery, including a value-added Green Integrated tax cuts on new housing, more money for the pandemic control fund and a wage hike for doctors. • Substantial European Union (EU) funds will help boost the short-term recovery. Hungary is 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 expected to receive about €41 billion in total from the bloc’s regular multiannual financial Hungary EBRD Advanced comparators framework (MFF) and an extraordinary Covid-19 recovery fund. Building back better: key ongoing initiatives Macroeconomic indicators (%) The government is adding HUF 30 billion (around €86 million) to its existing Competitive competitiveness programme for companies that maintain employment at current levels. 2018 2019 2020 Short-term indicators The government is supporting investments in residential solar power systems and the Green electrification of residential heating systems. EBRD GDP growth forecast (June 2021) GDP growth 5.4 4.6 -5.0 Water management reform is set to boost Hungary's resilience to climate change and to 2021: 5.5%; 2022: 4.8% Resilient Annual inflation (end-year) -0.4 0.3 0.3 improve the conditions of drought-prone ecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • "The Macroeconomics of Happiness." (Pdf)
    The Macroeconomics of Happiness Author(s): Rafael Di Tella, Robert J. MacCulloch and Andrew J. Oswald Source: The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 85, No. 4 (Nov., 2003), pp. 809-827 Published by: The MIT Press Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3211807 Accessed: 25-11-2019 16:44 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Review of Economics and Statistics This content downloaded from 206.253.207.235 on Mon, 25 Nov 2019 16:44:09 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE MACROECONOMICS OF HAPPINESS Rafael Di Tella, Robert J. MacCulloch, and Andrew J. Oswald* Abstract-We show that macroeconomic movements have omitted strong from effects economists' standard calculations of the cost on the happiness of nations. First, we find that there are clear microeco- of cyclical downturns. nomic patterns in the psychological well-being levels of a quarter of a million randomly sampled Europeans and Americans from In thespite 1970s of a longto tradition studying aggregate economic the 1990s. Happiness equations are monotonically increasing fluctuations, in income, there is disagreement among economists about and have similar structure in different countries.
    [Show full text]
  • National Income Per Capita
    PRODUCTION AND INCOME • INCOME, SAVINGS AND INVESTMENTS NATIONALPRODUCTIONIncome, savings AND and INCOME investments INCOME PER CAPITA While per capita gross domestic product is the indicator Depreciation, which is deducted from GNI to obtain NNI, is most commonly used to compare living standards across the decline in the market value of fixed capital assets – countries, two other measures are preferred by many dwellings, buildings, machinery, transport equipment such analysts. These are per capita gross national income (GNI) as physical infrastructure, software, etc. – through wear and and net national income (NNI). tear and obsolescence. Definition Comparability GNI is defined as GDP plus net receipts from abroad of Both income measures are compiled according to the wages and salaries and property income. definitions of the 1993 System of National Accounts. There are, Wages and salaries from abroad are those that are earned by however, practical difficulties in measuring international residents, i.e. by persons who essentially live and consume flows of wages and salaries and property income and inside the economic territory of a country but work abroad depreciation. Because of these difficulties, GDP per capita is (this happens in border areas on a regular basis) or by the most widely used indicator of income despite being persons that live and work abroad for only short periods theoretically inferior to either GNI or NNI. (seasonal workers). Guest-workers and other migrant Note that data for Australian and New Zealand refer to fiscal workers who live abroad for one year or more are considered years. to be resident in the country where they are working.
    [Show full text]
  • Gross National Happiness-Based Economic Growth Recommendations for Private Sector Growth Consistent with Bhutanese Values
    Gross National Happiness-Based Economic Growth Recommendations for Private Sector Growth Consistent with Bhutanese Values Allen Koji Ukai 2016 Master in Public Policy Candidate Submitted March 29th, 2016 Updated May 30th, 2016 Submitted to: Ryan Sheely, Faculty Advisor/Seminar Leader Harvard Kennedy School Kesang Wangdi, Deputy Secretary General Bhutan Chamber of Commerce This Policy Analysis Exercise (PAE) reflects the views of the author and should not be viewed as representing the views of the PAE's external client (the Bhutan Chamber of Commerce & Industry), its interviewees, nor those of Harvard University or any of its faculty. It is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Public Policy Table of Contents List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Economic Development According to Gross National Happiness ................................................................ 4 Gross Domestic Product, Its Implications, and Its Shortcomings .............................................................. 4 Gross National Happiness and Its Impact within Bhutan .......................................................................... 5 Bhutan’s Underdeveloped Private Sector .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Gross National Happiness
    Gross National Happiness The Himalayan nation of Bhutan has been a leader in development decide to put something as ephemeral as devising and promoting an alternative development happiness fi rst? paradigm called gross national happiness. The king’s Th e king’s statement signaled that Bhutan’s develop- statement “Gross National Happiness is more impor- ment process would grow out of its own cultural context, tant than Gross National Product” arose from including its ancient Vajrayana Buddhist traditions, rather Buddhism, which recognizes the transitory nature of than being imposed by foreign experts. Development material satisfactions. This view, together with the fi nd- would need to support the Buddhist quest for enlighten- ings of positive psychology, is encouraging Western ment for the good of all sentient beings—a quest associ- nations to measure the full spectrum of human ated with the development of enduring equanimity, well-being. compassion, and spiritual inspiration at the individual and collective levels. n 1972, the fourth king of the Himalayan nation of I Bhutan, King Jigme Singye Wangchuk, proclaimed, Buddhist Roots “Gross National Happiness is more important than Gross National Product”—a statement that challenged In articulating gross national happiness (GNH), the king prevailing economic development theories around the drew on Bhutan’s deep well of compassion for and non- world. violence toward all sentient beings, based in its 1,200- Th e proclamation was especially bold because tiny, year history of Buddhism. His statement connected with mountainous Bhutan, wedged between India and China, previous policies, also grounded in Buddhism. A 1675 was—at that time—one of the world’s least-developed Buddhist equivalent of a social contract declared that and most-isolated nations.
    [Show full text]
  • OUTLOOK for the DANISH ECONOMY — DECEMBER 2020 Spread of Coronavirus Delays Recovery
    ANALYSIS DANMARKS NATIONALBANK 9 DECEMBER 2020 — NO. 26 OUTLOOK FOR THE DANISH ECONOMY — DECEMBER 2020 Spread of coronavirus delays recovery Two-speed Danish economy Increased infection rates and new restrictions in Denmark and abroad are again slowing down parts of the economy, delaying recovery. At the same time, activity is high in substantial parts of the economy, leading to a two-speed economy. Growth picking up in 2021 Economic growth is expected to be weak over the winter, picking up in 2021 as the population is vaccinated and restrictions are likely to be eased. Aggregate activity is expected to have largely recovered by 2022. No current need for further fiscal stimulus To ensure a smooth business cycle in industries that are not affected by restrictions, and in which activity is already high, fiscal policy should not be eased further currently. Industries affected by restrictions may still need access to temporary relief measures. ANALYSIS — DANMARKS NATIONALBANK 2 OUTLOOK FOR THE DANISH ECONOMY – DECEMBER 2020 Outlook and economic policy Resurgence of coronavirus delays During the autumn, several business confidence in- Denmark’s economic recovery dicators deteriorated and are now pointing towards The coronavirus pandemic has been resurging in declining economic activity, although the deteri- Denmark and Europe since September, leading to oration is considerably weaker than in the spring. the imposition of a series of restrictions that will The US growth slowdown is less pronounced than hamper economic activity over the winter. On the in Europe, but the recent strong resurgence of the other hand, the roll-out of an effective vaccine has coronavirus in the USA increases the risk that growth moved closer, and with it also the time when many will slow here as well.
    [Show full text]
  • GDP As a Measure of Economic Well-Being
    Hutchins Center Working Paper #43 August 2018 GDP as a Measure of Economic Well-being Karen Dynan Harvard University Peterson Institute for International Economics Louise Sheiner Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy, The Brookings Institution The authors thank Katharine Abraham, Ana Aizcorbe, Martin Baily, Barry Bosworth, David Byrne, Richard Cooper, Carol Corrado, Diane Coyle, Abe Dunn, Marty Feldstein, Martin Fleming, Ted Gayer, Greg Ip, Billy Jack, Ben Jones, Chad Jones, Dale Jorgenson, Greg Mankiw, Dylan Rassier, Marshall Reinsdorf, Matthew Shapiro, Dan Sichel, Jim Stock, Hal Varian, David Wessel, Cliff Winston, and participants at the Hutchins Center authors’ conference for helpful comments and discussion. They are grateful to Sage Belz, Michael Ng, and Finn Schuele for excellent research assistance. The authors did not receive financial support from any firm or person with a financial or political interest in this article. Neither is currently an officer, director, or board member of any organization with an interest in this article. ________________________________________________________________________ THIS PAPER IS ONLINE AT https://www.brookings.edu/research/gdp-as-a- measure-of-economic-well-being ABSTRACT The sense that recent technological advances have yielded considerable benefits for everyday life, as well as disappointment over measured productivity and output growth in recent years, have spurred widespread concerns about whether our statistical systems are capturing these improvements (see, for example, Feldstein, 2017). While concerns about measurement are not at all new to the statistical community, more people are now entering the discussion and more economists are looking to do research that can help support the statistical agencies. While this new attention is welcome, economists and others who engage in this conversation do not always start on the same page.
    [Show full text]
  • Studies : the Danish Economy
    COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES studies The Danish economy ECONOMICAND FINANCIAL SERIES - 1980 14 COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES The Danish economy by Anders Ølgaard Professor of the Institute of Economics at the University of Copenhagen COLLECTION STUDIES Economic and Financial Series No 14 Brussels, August 1979 Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication © Copyright ECSC - EEC - EAEC, Brussels and Luxembourg, 1980 Printed in Luxembourg Reproduction authorized, in whole or in part, provided the source is acknowledged. ISBN: 92-825-0494-8 Catalogue number: CB-NI-79-014-EN-C - 3 PREFACE Following the establishment of the European Economic Community, a Committee of Experts was set up under the Chairmanship of Pierre Uri to prepare studies of the economic conditions of the member countries. The 'Report on the econ• omic situation in the countries of the Community' was published in 1958. Following the accession in 1973 of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom, the Commission of the European Communities considered that it would be valu• able to supplement the Uri Report with a study on each of the new Member Sta• tes. On this occasion, however, the Commission followed a somewhat different procedure and commissioned separate studies from independent experts in each of the three countries. The studies 'The United Kingdom Economy' and 'The Irish Economy' appeared in 1975, as numbers 9 and 10 of 'Economic and Finan• cial Series', published by the Commission of the European Communities. The present study of the Danish economy was prepared by Professor Anders Ølgaard of the Institute of Economics at the University of Copenhagen.
    [Show full text]