This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles WikiProject Countries to-do list: history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{ WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Economics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Finance & Investment Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I apologize for my English but not speak it very well that England aparese being richer than Britain when England is one of the four kingdom of that nation

If England can really be named a country subdivision? If it has regional parliament, government, budget? Their priority in the rating seems to be fictive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.120.44.140 ( talk) 20:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

If Scotland is included, as it is, England should be too.

England should definitely be included. It is a subnational entity, distinct from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scottish MSPs, Welsh AMs, and Northern Irish MLAs cannot vote on issues affecting England in their respective legislatures, and there is a clear border between English counties and Welsh and Scottish ones. Cjsk ( talk) 13:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

England is recognised as a sub-national entity within the United Kingdom, a Constituent nation of the United Kingdom and so yes, I believe it should be included here. England is split into regions, but is also a sub-national entity of the UK in its own right, with the English regions being sub-national entities of England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentynet ( talk • contribs) 10:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Picked up from Talk:England that the figure given for England here is wrong - it is actually the figure for United Kingdom. Would be grateful for any source information that shows reasonably current GDP data for England, Scotland and Wales. Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 10:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC) reply

There are up-to-date figures produced by the ONS, but accessing them isn't as easy as it might be. First you'd need to download the Navidata app here, 32-bit windows only. Then you can get the data sets starting from here. Alternatively there are ghastly text files which could be fed into a spreadsheet or database. Having said that, I'm quite sure that ONS figures don't match the ones from the Scottish Govt that I just added to the Scotland article. Since the authors were good enough to show their working here, it would in theory be possible to repeat the exercise using other years, and to apply comparable corrections to ONS figures for England, Wales and N. Ireland. But that would surely cross the line from simple arithmetic into original research territory, a very bad thing.

Rather than aiming for up-to-date numbers, it might be best to pick the year for which the most accurate data is available, which is 2006 as noted. A good-enough result would be to use the ONS 2006 calendar year figures for NI and Wales, the variant with per capita extra-regio apportionment, the SES geographical share number for Scotland, and to calculate the English value by subtracting the first three from the UK total. Simple arithmetic doesn't raise as many questions as more complex exercises. The largest distortion would be in the NI and Wales numbers, but they don't appear on this list, and the understatement in English GDP seems likely to be small in comparison with the possible margins of error in apportioning the extra-regio component. An idea anyway, but not necessarily a good one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC) reply

My quiery on this matter would be surely the top level subdivision is England and Wales not just England, which is a further subdivision of this. I'd suggest replacing England (and indeed Wales if it appears on the list) with this instead. --Lemonade100 13:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

England is no a political entity. There has not been a government of England since 1707 and even then it was England and Wales. There are Departments of UK government assigned to just England, but the same is true of the US National Parks. The charge is that this list is of first level Administrative divisions of countries, not Sovereign states. The good people over at the very well researched Good Articles of England and UK have settled on referring to England as a country within the sovereign state of the UK. You would be hard pressed to find any wp:reliable source that pits England on a list like this. Dkriegls ( talk to me!) 08:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Where are Seoul and Gyeonggi?

GDP of seoul or Gyeonggi exceeds 200 bil dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.145.190.9 ( talk) 05:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Seoul and Gyeongii is included to Seoul area ($772 billion) Nonenonenonez ( talk) 13:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC) reply

To Seoul Capital Area Nonenonenonez ( talk) 13:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Where are other important subdivisions of powers like India, Russia, South africa, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Poland, Pakistan, Indonesia... and of course South Korea. I can´t believe this regions and states´s GSP haven`t more hundred of billions $!

... is not appropriate per MOS:FLAG. Anyone interested in cleaning it up? Plus it looks really weird to have a country flag next to a subdivision name. Most of these entities have their own flags in fact, e.g.   England. So, either we add the country names or remove the flags altogether.-- 70.80.234.196 ( talk) 00:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Call me daft, but what does the grey background mean? — Felix the Cassowary 18:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Is this list real? Why is Scotland richer than Catalonia? This doesn't make sense. 90.171.122.196 ( talk) 21:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply

This page should be deleted by editors for the following reasons:

1. Lack of clear definition on what constitutes a country's 'sub-division'

Other editors have already pointed out the problem with classifying England as a sub-national division. That's only the tip of the iceberg. 'East China', the top region on the table, is not an administrative division of the People's Republic of China, and it is not even clear what 'East China' is supposed to include - is it actually the eastern half of China, divided right in the middle, or does it refer to the eastern seaboard regions? If it is the latter, on what grounds can those regions be bundled together? What are the criteria?

A complete lack of definition on the meaning of sub-national divisions should have made this article a no-go to begin with.

2. Lack of informativeness

There really is no information content in this page. In my opinion, Wikipedia already has too many sub-national region GDP figures for its own good, most of them not particularly relevant or up to standard. Comparison across sub-national divisions adds no value either, because of a lack of clarification on how those divisions are defined - as stated above.

This article is clearly being abused for nationalist chest-thumping by editors from various parts of the world, and is not useful to anyone. I recommend this article for deletion. ( 99.254.173.63 ( talk) 04:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)) reply

I don't agree this article should be deleted. Information here is very useful for regional microeconomics ( GSP/GRP). We have cities by GDP, why can't we have a list of 1st-level subnational units by GDP here at Wikipedia? Perhaps, it'd be more appropriate to move this page to " List of first-level administrative country subdivisions by GDP (over 100 billion US dollars)". What do you think? 90.169.39.158 ( talk) 02:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Articles:

• List of first-level administrative country subdivisions by GDP
• List of first-level administrative country subdivisions by GDP (over 100 billion US dollars)

90.169.39.158 ( talk) 02:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Guidance and suggestions to improve the article:

1. Delete data without sources.
2. Delete unofficial sub-national units. (East China, etc.)
3. Delete sub-national entities that are not a 1st-level subdivision. (Greater London, etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.169.39.158 ( talk) 02:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Is there a reason why there is Washington D.C., and District of Columbia? – Spesh531, My talk, and External links 20:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply

The "Subjects of the Federation" of Russia are second-level, not first-level. The Federal Districts are first-level.

Moreover, Russia and Belorussia consider themselves parts of the Union State. So, Russia and Belorussia are actually first-level. СЛУЖБА ( talk) 11:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC) reply

the destricts have governours too and capitals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_districts_of_Russia

i will add them as kind of a benchmark to mess but not numbered, i will use this list below of gdp per capita x times the population which will be the total gdp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_federal_subjects_by_GRP#Per_capita -- Shokioto22 ( talk) 22:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply

GDP OF CATALONIA THE ECONOMY OF CATALONIA IS POSTED EUROS NOT IN DOLLARS In 2008,the GDP of Catalonia was €216.9 billion ($314.4 billion)IN 2008SO IT'D BE IN THE 44 RANK INOT IN THE 63.SOURCE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia#Economy.REFERENCE 54 FROM "EL PAIS" NEWSPAPER. GREETINGS FROM SPAIN. PD:FOR ME AL JAZEERA IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE AT ALL. CONTACT ME:oscarceballos25@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.155.146.122 ( talk) 02:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Currently there are several sources listing the GDP in currencies other than USD. Be it Euros or Pesos or whatever, the exchange rates used in the article don't always seem to reflect the reference year. We should decide on how to determine the rate used for such conversions. IMO there are two possibilities: either we take the exchange rate as of 31 December of the reference year, or we use the annual average exchange rate for that year (e.g. here). At the moment though, several list entries seem to be based on the daily rate from the time of the edit or other undefined exchange values. De728631 ( talk) 13:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC) reply

There have been problems with referencing the GDP of England, namely the choice of source. On my user talk page, AfricaTanz stated that for political subdivisions the GDP equals the GDP, so we could use this table. But at least according to our own Wikipedia articles I'm having a hard time following this logic. The Gross regional domestic product is said to be the aggregate data of one region's GVA, but then Gross value added as such has to be corrected for taxes and subsidies to get the GDP proper. On the other hand, I'm not too happy with the source introduced by Der Statisker: [1]. This link to Eurostat leaves it open which of the several databases should be consulted for reference. The data there is provided for the NUTS 2 and NUTS 3 regions, which in case of England include an awful lot of subunits like Greater Manchest, East Cumbria, and so on (see Gross domestic product (GDP) at current market prices by NUTS 3 regions). So, even if we sum up all possible English NUTS X regions from these lists we're still left with the problem of conversion from Euro to USD (see thread above). De728631 ( talk) 16:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC) reply

There is currently an editing conflict where one user disagrees that England is a subdivision. I can see your point of view that there is no official "English government" but it seems daft that in this article the UK is separated into Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland... what is England to you then? The UK's first level country subdivisions are definitely England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland, regardless if there's an official English government. In the Administrative geography of the United Kingdom it clearly states "The United Kingdom, a sovereign state to the northwest of continental Europe, consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.". For local government in the United Kingdom, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales each have their own system of administrative and geographic demarcation. The article continues and clearly refers to the first level administration of the UK as the four countries. Just because an English parliament doesn't exist doesn't mean the subdivision of "England" doesn't. Bezuidenhout ( talk) 18:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm sure you think if "seems daft" from your perspective but fortunately, Wikipedia relies on citations and not what seems daft. I don't mean that as unkind retort, simply asking that you stick to sourcing instead of how things seem. There are many things wrong with this list, but I'm starting my clean up on the issue of making an economic comparison between a Country like England and those of states and provinces. While I asked for a citation in my deletion description, you chose to reference a Wikipedia article instead ( WP:CIRCULAR). Fine, but the actual reference used in the quote you grabbed was from a UN Standardization document that actually described the first division of the UK as being between Great Britain and North Ireland (but not as its first level administrative division). It subsequently refers to England as a "Country", which is not the title for a subdivision of a country; hence my complaint about comparing the economy of a country to a state or province (unless that is the point of the list). But most importantly, this UN Standards document specifically states about England: "Note that the process of devolution omits England entirely. There is consequently no common stratum of administrative unit encompassing United Kingdom at this very high level, and England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should not be considered first-order administrative divisions in the conventional sense" (pg.5 'Administrative Divisions Summary). I don't see how this can be interpreted in any other way than exclusion of England, Scotland, Wales, and North Ireland from this list. If you have a better citation, preferably from the UK government itself, I'd be happy to entertain it. Dkriegls ( talk to me!) 06:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I understand your comment and my general thought is either have all four "countries" of the UK or none of them. I don't quite understand the idea of Great Britain as an entity because Great Britain is a purely geographical term, not political. The UK government website (.gov.uk) splits the UK up as England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland. This is how the gov.uk website illustrates matters such as voting laws and student finance. Interestingly, it should be considered that "England and Wales" is a political entity in its own right, as laws, agencies, prison laws, commisions, registries and even holidays are usually separated as "Scotland, N. Ireland and England & Wales". This "3-subdivision" system is demonstrated in the justic administration which has 3 courts for the UK, Scotland, N. Ireland and England & Wales. Bezuidenhout ( talk) 13:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

For clarity, I'm convinced that England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland all don't belong on this list as the UN clearly does not consider any of them to be first-order administrative units of a country. Nor do I support adding Great Britain to this list. My point in bringing up Great Britain was to demonstrate that the first political division of a country/kingdom, is not necessarily it's first-order administrative division. I was highlighting the fact that England is not even the first natural division of the United Kingdom. Your pointing out that England/Walse share a political unity separate from the rest only emphasizes this point. Another example would be with the United States, where the first level political divide is not between states, but between states, territories, and protectorates (i.g. Puerto Rico). This division has all the administrative divisions you point out above, like differences in voting laws, prison laws, and commissions. Puerto Rico even has a different official languages of government (Spanish & English) and a semi-autonomous government like Scotland, with its own power to create certain domestic laws. But no one would suggest putting "Continental United States" and Puerto Rico as a single division on this chart because they are not treated as first-order administrative unites of a country. Dkriegls ( talk to me!) 19:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

So to summarize: simply demonstrating administrative divisions exist, is not the same as demonstrating a first-order administrative division of a country. That has a more specific definition. I've cited a UN definition for the UK that specifically states E/W/Sc/NI are not first-order administrative divisions of the UK. It also happens to be the citation used by the good people who wrote the Administrative geography of the United Kingdom page. The only citation I could see trumping that, would be a UK government deceleration that England is a first-order administrative entity. -- Dkriegls ( talk to me!) 19:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

In the above discussion I found a link to the UN's description of UK subdivision, but I just recently came across this page about the UK government's official interpretation of the EU NUTS classification system. It looks like Scotland, North Ireland, and Wales are treated as first order subdivisions, but England is not. On the first order, England is subdivided into the various regions. With this, I support adding Scotland back to the list, but not England. I am now adding the Regions of England to the list. It looks like nearly all of them meet the criterion. This link from the UK government on their official classification should settle the issue. -- Dkriegls ( talk to me!) 03:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I think we have to increase lower limit to 200/500 billion US dollars. Many developing nations are rapidly growing and this list grows like a virus. What is the point when human brain cannot fathom a list which contains hundreds of names ? 106.216.180.114 ( talk) 05:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply

I'd support a more restrictive inclusion criterion. -- Dkriegls ( talk to me!) 23:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I support it to increase the inclusion limit to over 500 billion$ --तेजा శ్రీనివాస్ 15:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teja srinivas ( talk • contribs)

The table in the article is not sortable though sortable attribute is there in source of this article. Please look into that and make it sortable as all tables should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.151.33 ( talk) 09:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Kanto region is a geographical area of Honshu, the largest island of Japan, Kanto region is not the first subdivision of Japan. It is similar to the Northeast Region of China and the West Coast Region of the United States. Here, it is more inappropriate to use it as a country subdivision. Cncs ( Talk) 02:35 April 28 2018 (UTC)

By the same token Kyushu and Chugoku Region are geographical classifications rather than first level national subdivisions. I think they should be removed from this list? Just posting this to express my concern and not prematurely edit something I could be wrong about. Frodo.mintoff ( talk) 08:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply

In the page "Kantō region" it mentions Kantō as the second-largest sub-national economy in the world, but I don't see that listed clearly here. Am I overlooking something? EddyViola36 ( talk) 04:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Andalusia has more than 200 million in PPP I think 31.131.181.153 ( talk) 00:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

according to Wikipedia Delhi's GDP is 210 billion dollars but it is not there in list Affan javed ( talk) 14:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Is there a way to move the images so that they don't reduce the table size? For me, the table becomes unreadable. If not, I'd just remove the images. 09:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC) Rxtreme ( talk) 09:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Very wide tables are hard to read, so I have tried to squish the table as much as possible with template tricks. I also removed the "Largest cities" column because it's not all that relevant.

Two more columns make the table larger without pulling their weight (my opinion): Population and Continent. Population isn't necessary to note GDP per capita and most countries in this list are famous enough, making the continent obvious.

I'll remove both of these soon if there are no objections. Wizmut ( talk) 19:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply