Table 7 Quantifying the ethnic groups’ contributions to interprovincial trade (%)
From: China’s spatial (dis)integration as a multiethnic paradox: what do the interprovincial data say?
Ethnic group | 2000 | 2010 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Minimum value | Maximum value | Mean value | Minimum value | Maximum value | Mean value | |
1. Bai | ||||||
2. Blang | 0.000 | −99.734 | −2.643 | |||
3. Buyi | −2.057 | −98.996 | −12.583 | |||
4. Dai | −3.191 | −83.380 | −18.414 | |||
5. Daur | 0.085 | 350.646 | 1.170 | 0.154 | 1417.056 | 2.123 |
6. Dong | ||||||
7. Dongxiang | 0.047 | 3668.286 | 2.256 | 0.056 | 7127.996 | 2.666 |
8. Gelao | 6.748 | 882,465.122 | 51.102 | |||
9. Han | −10.450 | −73.957 | −63.703 | −10.968 | −75.736 | −65.587 |
10. Hani | −6.241 | −96.533 | −22.619 | |||
11. Hui | 0.207 | 364.588 | 3.762 | 0.268 | 626.423 | 4.876 |
12. Jingpo | 0.000 | 6032.297 | 53.249 | 0.000 | 174.133 | 11.025 |
13. Kazak | −4.219 | −99.922 | −22.057 | |||
14. Kirgiz | 0.035 | 19,224.296 | 1.813 | |||
15. Korean | ||||||
16. Lahu | 2.019 | 737.508 | 28.358 | |||
17. Li | −19.574 | −10.000 | −57.647 | |||
18. Lisu | ||||||
19. Manchu | 0.584 | 425.169 | 5.992 | 0.535 | 356.895 | 5.475 |
20. Maonan | 0.027 | 412.995 | 0.697 | 0.054 | 2598.034 | 1.410 |
21. Miao | ||||||
22. Mongol | 0.626 | 941.393 | 7.657 | |||
23. Mulao | ||||||
24. Naxi | ||||||
25. Qiang | 3.181 | 425.512 | 28.270 | |||
26. Salar | ||||||
27. She | 0.096 | 298.641 | 1.680 | |||
28. Shui | ||||||
29. Tibetan | 0.015 | 904.629 | 0.759 | |||
30. Tu | 0.919 | 6409.243 | 10.314 | |||
30. Tujia | ||||||
31. Uygur | ||||||
32. Va | −6.882 | −91.864 | −37.559 | |||
33. Xibe | ||||||
34. Yao | ||||||
35. Yi | ||||||
36. Zhuang | 0.531 | 1238.236 | 3.037 | |||