« The new decline in US house prices - consequences for the economy and share prices | Main | Inflation and the international surge in commodity prices - with particularly attention to the impact on China »

09 December 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


These two part of this post don't seem to make sense.

"However, the OECD did look at some rural areas, and found they matched Shanghai’s quality"

"Citing further, as-yet unpublished OECD research, Mr Schleicher said: “We have actually done Pisa in 12 of the provinces in China. Even in some of the very poor areas you get performance close to the OECD average."

Shanghai score 60 to 100 points higher than the OEDC average, and Schleicher says that even in some of the poor areas the performace is close to the OECD average. No I don't know what he defines as close, but if they are below the OECD average they are at least 60-100 points behind Shanghai, which is a huge difference.

Not saying that isn't good for these poor areas of a developing country, but from what I get Shanghai (as with many urban areas) is far ahead of the rural areas.

Feel free to email me if I am incorrect in this understanding.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

John Ross

  • Is Senior Fellow at Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China

Follow on Twitter

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter


    Your email address:

    Powered by FeedBlitz

    Blog powered by Typepad