UPDATE:  2003-02-04 18:00 UT:  This entire table has been updated and republished here.
 

To bring Impearls' earlier article on California's place in the world's economies up to date, following is an updated table, based on the CIA's recently released 2002 World Factbook, of all the world's economies (including U.S. states amongst the nations) having GDPs, during 2001, in excess of $200 billion U.S. dollars. 
 

Rank		State	Area (km2)	Pop. 2002-07 (106) CIA 2002 Factbook			2001 GDP (1012 US$) CIA 2002 Factbook			2001 GDP (LAEDC)
1		United States	9,629,091	280.562,489				10.082			10.082
2		China	9,596,960	1,284.303,705				5.56			1.159
3		Japan	377,835	126.974,628				3.45			4.141
4		India	3,287,590	1,045.845,226				2.5			0.481
5		Germany	356,973	83.251,851				2.174			1.846
6		France	547,030	59.765,983				1.51			1.310
7		United Kingdom	244,820	59.778,002				1.47			1.424
8		Italy	301,230	57.715,625				1.402			1.089
9		California	411,049	34.501,130		†		1.344,623	‡		1.309
10		Brazil	8,511,965	176.029,560				1.34			0.504
11		Russia	17,075,200	144.978,573				1.2			0.310
12		Mexico	1,972,550	103.400,165				0.920			0.618
13		Canada	9,976,140	31.902,268				0.875			0.694
14		South Korea	98,480	48.324				0.865			0.422
15		New York	127,190	19.011,378		†		0.799,202	‡
16		Spain	504,782	40.077,100				0.757			0.582
17		Texas	691,030	21.325,018		†		0.742,274	‡
18		Indonesia	1,919,440	231.328,092				0.687
19		Florida	151,939	16.396,515		†		0.472,105	‡
20		Illinois	145,934	12.482,301		†		0.467,284	‡
21		Australia	7,686,850	19.546,792				0.465,9			0.357
22		Argentina	2,766,890	37.812,817				0.453			0.269
23		Turkey	780,580	67.308,928				0.443
24		Iran	1,648,000	66.622,704				0.426
25		Netherlands	41,532	16.067,754				0.413			0.380
26		South Africa	1,219,912	43.647,658				0.412
27		Thailand	514,000	62.354,402				0.410
28		Pennsylvania	117,348	12.287,150		†		0.403,985	‡
29		Taiwan	36,000	22.548,009				0.386			0.282
30		Ohio	107,044	11.373,541		†		0.372,640	‡
31		New Jersey	20,168	8.484,431		†		0.363,089	‡
32		Poland	312,685	38.625,478				0.339,6
33		Philippines	300,000	84.525,639				0.335
34		Michigan	151,586	9.990,817		†		0.325,384	‡
35		Pakistan	803,940	147.663,429				0.299
36		Georgia	152,576	8.383,915		†		0.296,142	‡
37		Massachusetts	21,456	6.379,304		†		0.284,934	‡
38		North Carolina	136,412	8.186,268		†		0.281,741	‡
39		Belgium	30,528	10.274,595				0.267,7			0.230
40		Virginia	105,586	7.187,734		†		0.261,355	‡
41		Egypt	1,001,450	70.712,345				0.258
42		Colombia	1,138,910	41.008,227				0.255
43		Saudi Arabia	1,960,582	23.513,330				0.241
44		Bangladesh	143,998	133.376,684				0.230
45		Switzerland	41,290	7.301,994				0.226			0.247
46		Austria	83,858	8.169,929				0.220
47		Washington	176,479	5.987,973		†		0.219,937	‡
48		Sweden	449,964	8.876,744				0.219			0.210
49		Ukraine	603,700	48.396,470				0.205
50		Malaysia	329,750	22.662,365				0.200

 

Key to the table.  Population figures for the nations were obtained from CIA 2002 World Factbook national population estimates with regard to July 2002 (2002-07).  The first “2001 GDP” column's data was obtained from 2002 World Factbook national GDP estimates for the year 2001.  The next “2001 GDP” column data was obtained (for nations and the state of California) from the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC), who derived it from OECD and IMF figures.  See this link for LAEDC economist George Huang's letter describing LAEDC's procedure, and this for their table laying out the results.  According to LAEDC's Huang, these figures are what economists generally accept.

Neither the U.S. Census Bureau nor Bureau of Economic Analysis have yet released year 2001 population or Gross State Product figures for the individual states, so the previous year's data will continue to be used until more recent information becomes available.  For U.S. states, population figures were obtained from current U.S. Census Bureau estimates with regard to July 1, 2001 (2001-07-01) (see items noted † in the table).  GDP data (other than the LAEDC column) for U.S. states was derived from currently available Bureau of Economic Analysis “Gross State Product” figures with regard to the year 2000 (see items flagged ‡ in the table).

Changes since 2001 Factbook.  The most notable change since last year's Factbook is the continuing ascent, in the CIA's estimation, of China's economy.  Since the CIA's estimate of $4.5 trillion for China's economy in the year 2000, the CIA now purports to believe that the size of the Chinese economy, as of the year 2001, was 5.56 trillion US$ — an increase of over $1 trillion in just that one year, in sum over half the size of the U.S. economy.  Of course, China's sizable GDP, as well as that of India (whatever their actual size), are spread out over a much larger per capita than that of the U.S.

I also note that both LAEDC's table and the 2002 World Factbook both report a U.S. GDP of 10.082 trillion US$ for the year 2001.  That is indeed what they both report, and I have no explanation for the convergence, save coincidence.

Why are the CIA's estimates sometimes so different from economists?  I've seen no mention of this in the general press, but the CIA World Factbook's figures for the economies of several of the world's major economies — most notably India and China — are very much different (a factor of five-fold in the cases named) from those which (according to LAEDC economist George Huang, for example) are generally accepted by economists.

In the table above, notice how India is shown, in the LAEDC figures, with a GDP of $481 billion US$ for the year 2001; China, a GDP of $1.159 trillion over the same time period.  Contrariwise, according to the CIA's estimation in the 2002 World Factbook, India's GDP was actually $2.5 trillion US$ for the year 2001, while China's was an astounding $5.56 trillion!  Note that China's economy, according to the CIA, grew to that lofty figure by more than $1 trillion in annual GDP since just the previous year (it was $4.5 trillion during year 2000, according to the 2001 CIA Factbook).

If the CIA's estimations are correct, then both India and China substantially outrank California in GDP, which (together with jostling with countries such as France, the U.K., and Italy) places California in ninth place in the world during the year 2001.  Plugging in LAEDC's year 2001 GDP for California ($1.309 trillion), rather than using the BEA's year 2000 GDP for the state ($1.344,623 trillion), causes California to actually drop into tenth position, behind the U.S., China, Japan, India, Germany, France, the U.K., Italy, and Brazil.  Of course, ninth or tenth place in the international economic jamboree is not at all bad, when viewed in proper context as the performance of a population of a mere 34 million!

Probably the real story here, however, is why the CIA's assessment of several nations' economies, most notably India and China, is so much at variance with what economists generally accept.  I don't have the answer to that question.
 

UPDATE:  2003-01-24 18:15 UT:  Mystery solved!