The fallacy of global comparisons based on per capita measures.

ABSTRACT

Media, social scientists and public health researchers often present comparisons across countries, and policy makers use such comparisons to take evidence-based action. For a meaningful comparison among countries, one often needs to normalize the measure for differences in population size. To address this issue, the first choice is usually to calculate per capita ratios. Such ratios, however, normalize the measure for differences in population size directly only under the highly restrictive assumption of a proportional increase of the measure with population size. Violation of this assumption frequently leads to misleading conclusions. We compare per capita ratios with an approach based on regression, a widely used statistical procedure that eliminates many of the problems with ratios and allows for straightforward data interpretation. It turns out that the per capita measures in three global datasets (gross domestic product, COVID-19-related mortality and CO2 production) systematically overestimate values in countries with small populations, while countries with large populations tend to have misleadingly low per capita ratios owing to the large denominators. Unfortunately, despite their biases, comparisons based on per capita ratios are still ubiquitous, and they are used for influential recommendations by various global institutions. Their continued use can cause significant damage when employed as evidence for policy actions and should therefore be replaced by a more scientifically substantiated and informative method, such as a regression-based approach.