Table 9: Food PPP of Vietnam with respect to India (India=1) using alternative proceduresa CPD QAIDS Index based Divisia Paasche’s Laspeyre’s Fisher’s (Rao, Year Sector estimates Index Index Index Index 2005) 387.67 333.36 361.153 274.779 608.632 408.949 (152.53) (20.33) 360.94 405.367 335.625 629.104 459.503 418.86 (19.13) (338.80) All 414.43 346.74 382.56 278.633 640.348 422.4 (124.09) (15.26) 322.58 343.723 192.32 558.731 327.803 385.65 Rural (26.77) (167.37) Urban 379.13 407.05 400.957 280.289 584.229 404.664 (402.44) (27.68) All 344.23 388.89 318.353 191.794 521.634 316.3 (122.35) (22.55) Rural 838.35 1025.47 587.390 539.688 680.643 606.081 (232.90) (53.32) Urban 889.92 1079.17 614.310 559.601 746.356 646.268 (395.24) (57.20) 2008 All 811.37 1054.62 587.457 544.917 680.812 609.086 (193.42) (42.18) a Figures in parentheses are the asymptotic standard errors. Table 10: Pair wise comparison of QAIDS based Food PPPs evaluated at different reference utility levels: Vietnam and India for 2004-05
Table 9: Food PPP of Vietnam with respect to India (India=1) using alternative proceduresa QAIDS based estimates CPD Index (Rao, 2005) Year Sector Divisia Index Paasche’s Index Laspeyre’s Index Fisher’s Index 361.153 274.779 608.632 408.949 387.67 (152.53) 333.36 (20.33) 418.86 (338.80) 360.94 (19.13) 405.367 335.625 629.104 459.503 414.43 382.56 278.633 640.348 422.4 All 346.74 (124.09) (15.26) 385.65 (167.37) Rural 322.58 (26.77) 343.723 192.32 558.731 327.803 Urban 379.13 407.05 400.957 280.289 584.229 404.664 (402.44) (27.68) All 344.23 388.89 318.353 191.794 521.634 316.3 (122.35) (22.55) 2008 Rural 838.35 1025.47 587.390 539.688 680.643 606.081 (232.90) (53.32) Urban 889.92 1079.17 614.310 559.601 746.356 646.268 (395.24) (57.20) All 811.37 (193.42) 1054.62 (42.18) 587.457 544.917 680.812 609.086 a Figures in parentheses are the asymptotic standard errors. Table 10: Pair wise comparison of QAIDS based Food PPPs evaluated at different reference utility levels: Vietnam and India for 2004-05
RanjanRay.docx