I happened to come across a Chinese report that compiled 2010 growth rates and GDP figures for individual Chinese provinces. (This exercise may also be a partial and limited answer to my fellow guest blogger Edward Goldstick's dispatch on China's 12th five-year plan, a topic on which I've written extensively in my day job.) So using World Bank GDP numbers for various countries, which were only up to 2009 unfortunately, I did a quick comparison (confession: I did not tally up the GDPs to see if they totaled $5.8 trillion).
In order from largest GDP to smallest:
1. Guangdong: 12.2% growth, $689 billion
2. Jiangsu: 13.5% growth, $620 billion = Turkey: $614 billion
3. Shandong: 12.5% growth, $597 billion = Indonesia: $540 billion
4. Zhejiang: 11.8% growth, $411 billion = Sweden: $406 billion
5. Henan: 12% growth, $333 billion = Greece: $329 billion
6. Hebei: 12.2% growth, $306 billion = Denmark: $309 billion
7. Liaoning: 13% growth, $265 billion = Thailand: $263 billion
8. Sichuan: 15.1% growth, $256 billion
9. Shanghai: 9.9% growth, $255.6 billion
10. Hunan: 14.5% growth, $241 billion = Finland: $238 billion
11. Hubei: 14.8% growth, $239 billion = Colombia: $234 billion
12. Fujian: 13.8% growth, $209 billion = Ireland: $227 billion
13. Beijing: 10.2% growth, $208.7 billion
14. Anhui: 14.5% growth, $185.8 billion = Egypt: $188 billion
15. Inner Mongolia: 15% growth, $176 billion = Chile: $163 billion
16. Shaanxi: 14.5% growth, $151.8 billion
17. Heilongjiang: 12.5% growth, $150 billion
18. Guangxi: 14.2% growth, $144 billion
19. Jiangxi: 14% growth, $143 billion
20. Tianjin: 17.4% growth, $138 billion = Algeria: $140 billion
21. Shanxi: 13.9% growth, $137.7 billion
22. Jilin: 13.7% growth, $130 billion = Hungary: $129 billion
23. Chongqing: 17.1% growth, $119.5 billion = Kazakhstan: $115 billion
24. Yunnan: 12.3% growth, $109.4 billion
25. Xinjiang: 10.6% growth, $82.1 billion
26. Guizhou: 12.8% growth, $69.6 billion
27. Gansu: 11.5% growth, $62 billion = Libya: $62 billion
28. Hainan: 15.8% growth, $31.1 billion = Uruguay: $31.5 billion
29. Ningxia: 13.4% growth, $24.9 billion = Kenya: $29 billion
30. Qinghai: 15.3% growth, $20.5 billion = Turkmenistan: $20 billion
31. Tibet: 12.3% growth, $7.7 billion = Papua New Guinea: $7.9 billion
These are of course rough equivalents. And for some provinces, I didn't see a close enough proximate GDP. I know, I know, the figures are also far from a comprehensive look at economic performance, as measurement of per capita welfare, quality of growth, social welfare and so on are not reflected.
But the intention in juxtaposing provinces with countries is to help visualize how China is composed of--based on total output anyway--literally developed, middle income, and poor developing countries, from Sweden to Turkmenistan. It also highlights the regional disparity that you often hear Chinese officials talk about--for example, the wealthiest province (Guangdong) is roughly 10 times richer than the poorest (Tibet).The second point is to note how growth is shifting into interior China, as Qinghai and Ningxia, two of the poorest provinces in China, are growing incredibly at 13-15%. Meanwhile, Shanghai, for all its glitz and glam, was the only one that had a "paltry" single-digit growth rate. (Amy Chua would've given Shanghai a D- for economic performance.)
The last point is also related to the 12th five-year plan, billed as China's "economic rebalancing act". But it is not just a rebalancing from a production and export-intensive model to a more consumption-based economy. It is also meant to be a rebalancing of political and economic power beyond the coast to the "continent" if you will. Some of these dynamics have begun naturally, but the financial crisis brought a sense of urgency in further developing the interior. Judging by some of the growth targets individual provinces have set, the interior provinces are clearly more ambitious in their growth prospects as they play catch-up to the coastal behemoths. If nothing else, I think this means more doughnut shops in Inner Mongolia.
As to Edward's points on national plans, I hope to address it more fully later.
This post originally appeared in James Fallows's blog.
This article available online at: