You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I think it makes sense to use the first paper, since it has a more recent estimate, even if a bit out of date. It also has HDI estimates
OK the data seems very problematic. A bunch of subantional regions end up with 0 GDP, and there's also places that end up with GDP per capita PPP of 40 cents (Taoudénit, Mali) or unrealistically high values (2.4 million for Isla Congreso, Spain).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Both present and historic
This paper presents a dataset that goes up to 2015. https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata20184
This paper refines the technique from the previous one, but only provides 2005 data: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-022-01300-x#Sec17
I think it makes sense to use the first paper, since it has a more recent estimate, even if a bit out of date. It also has HDI estimates
OK the data seems very problematic. A bunch of subantional regions end up with 0 GDP, and there's also places that end up with GDP per capita PPP of 40 cents (Taoudénit, Mali) or unrealistically high values (2.4 million for Isla Congreso, Spain).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: