In this comparison of countries’ Gross Domestic Product, we see that the recent rise of China’s and India’s economies puts them back to the position they had before the Industrial Revolution in the early 19th century. While the relative positions of the countries are changing, the numbers themselves are sky-rocketing in this period: a lot of the world got richer at a much, much faster rate than for the preceding thousands of years of civilisation.

With any such chart, there will be things missed out or inexact. Some countries ceased to exist, or came into existence: the above chart has Russia existing continuously as one entity, but for a lot of the 20th century, Russia was part of the Soviet Union rather than a country in its own right. The political entity now known as India didn’t come into existence until 1947: the country in the same location at the start of the 19th century was the Mughal Empire.

Another source of error is that for the distant past the numbers are estimates based on incomplete data. Countries will differ in how well records were kept, what kind of records, and hence how meaningful the estimates are. All these are reasons to interpret the numbers cautiously.

Another country comparison: internet users from 1990 onwards.

Again, look at the different magnitude of the numbers in 1990 (when tens of thousands of internet users in one country was a lot) versus more recently.

Instead of countries, let’s now look at cities’ population:

Again, we see European and North American cities tearing ahead early on, but being left in the dust by Asian and South American cities more recently. Comments in the discussion point out cities in South America and the Indian subcontinent that weren’t included in the historical data.

There is always a problem of defining the population of cities: to take the built-up area itself or the wider metropolitan area? For example, the population of London is eight million, ten million or fourteen million depending on which definition you take. So these charts shouldn’t be taken as giving an exact number of inhabitants for each city. Again, there are also cities not included because not enough historical data were available.

Back to countries, here’s the chart race for CO2 emissions: not a race anyone should want to win.

Bearing in mind that countries trade each other, a country’s own emissions are not purely the result of its own economic activity. For instance, there are emissions from Chinese factories that are producing goods for export to other countries. So the relation between economic and activity and emissions is complex.

This chart doesn’t take into account population: per capita emissions give a very different race:

Guest post from J. Brian O’Roark, University Professor of Economics at Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh and author of Why Superman Doesn’t Take Over the World.

“Why are they fighting?  Aren’t they supposed to be friends?” My wife and I were watching television when a commercial trumpeting the coming of the movie Batman vs. Superman appeared.  She was understandably confused.  My first instinct was to launch into an in depth dissertation on the comic origins of the battle between DC Comics’ oldest and most renowned heroes.  But her question, innocent though it was, resonated at a deeper level.

As an economist, I am supposed to be able to explain things like unemployment, inflation and the future of Bitcoin, but more fundamentally I should be able to offer some insight into the behaviors of people – even if those people are wearing capes and spandex. I think my wife was happy that her question left me speechless, having no desire to hear about the intricacies of what prompts two men in tights to want to mash each other, but her query needed an answer. As it turns out, the question was perfectly situated for an economist who always wanted to be a superhero.

The world of superheroes is clearly and unambiguously fantasy. We aren’t going to look out the window and see a caped marvel flying alongside our plane at 30,000 feet, or discover an island populated by women imbued with powers from Greek gods, or be surprised by a teenager crawling up the side of Big Ben.

Nevertheless, there has to be a fiber of reality in the story, something for readers (and viewers) to connect to.  Something that keeps the imagination tethered just enough to think that the hero can relate to you, and that you could be the next hero. It just so happens that the thread which connects superhero tales to something we actually can believe is a set of economic forces beyond even the most over-powered hero’s control. 

Economics and superheroes may seem like strange bedfellows.  Economics is complex, mathematical, and truth be told, a little grisly.  Superhero stories are escapism.

The juxtaposition of applying comparative advantage to The Avengers or making Superman the poster child for the role of institutions in facilitating economic growth may stretch people’s thinking, but no more so than the tales of superhero derring-do themselves, or for that matter, the belief that economic forecasts will actually come true. Freakonomics used economics to explain oddities like why drug dealers live with their mothers and why sumo wrestlers cheat. Those same tools can provide insight into why most heroes need day jobs, why Batman hires Robin, why criminals keep trying, why Superman doesn’t take over the world, and yes, why the Caped Crusader is battling the Last Son of Krypton.

In fact, applying economic logic to the behavior of superheroes is probably a far better use of economics than trying to read the tea-leaves. If economists can explain the behavior of fictional heroes, maybe we can start to better understand what motivates people in the real world. And that would really be amazing.

Professor O’Roark is the author of Why Superman Doesn’t Take Over the World: What Superheroes can tell us about Economics. Oxford University Press, 2019.