The Sunday Times daily of Britain announces a Rich List every year since 1989.  The list gives the ranking of the richest 1000 people living in Britain. Rich List 2010 was announced last weekend. According to this, collective wealth of the richest 1000 increased by 29.9 percent from 2009 to 2010.  This is the biggest annual rise in the list since the first year of its publication. Those monitoring the indicators to figure out the momentum of the recovery process; please note that things go well in the rich's side. This is always the case, is not it?

In 2008 total wealth of the richest was nearly £413 billion. Then, along with the global crisis, the wealth of the richest fell by almost 37 percent to £258 billion. However as of January 2010, collective wealth of the richest rose to £335 billion accounting a 30 percent improvement. This almost corresponds to annual GDP of Turkey.

Now, let us mention some conclusions. First, though the wealth did not yet achieve the pre-crisis level, the demonstrated recovery is quite rapid. Why? The 42 percent recovery in the stock exchange market of Britain definitely plays a role in this. Moreover, the persistent belief that the worst part is overcome also played an effect in the rapid recovery and improvement in firms' value. With the lens of those who seek for a positive indicator, the rapid turnaround in the Rich List is a favorable development. In fact, "luxury consumption did not drop" stories implied this. The rapid turnaround in the stock exchange markets and the spreading 'I feel good' mood in this parallel is something good considering the recovery process. So, this is the first point to state.

The second point to note is the rapid rise in the collective wealth of the 1000 multimillionaires in the rich list over the last eleven years. As the elections will be held soon in Britain, the comparison is made within the ruling Labour Party's period. According to this, in 1997 when Tony Blair administration came into power, the wealth of the richest 1000 stood at £99 billion. In 2009, it reached £335 billion.  This corresponds almost to a 239 percent increase. What is more, this was maintained despite the tax raises against the rich. During the period of the Labour Party in power, the wealth of the richest 1000 seems to have increased by 52 percent each year in average. This is a significant increase. It should also be noted that this emerged in the Labour Party administration in power. It was such a period which was terminated with the crisis. Each period of excessiveness crisis is followed by a wealth transfer. This is what we learned from Professor Merih Celasun. Professors in countries which encountered more crises can make better observations and make more logical conclusions about crises. This is the second point to state.

There are 53 billionaires in Britain's rich list, 24 of which are not born in Britain. In fact, the leader in the list, Mittal, is the owner of Indian steel giant. We had better consider the rapid surge in raw material prices in association with the rapid revival in the stock exchange. It also appears that the rapid recovery in Britain's richest list is closely related with the fact that Britain stands at the heath of the global operations. Standing at the heart of global wealth implies that the global value chains pass through Britain more than through any country else. So, this is the third point to keep in mind.

Then, is the revival in the Rich List good news for all of us? Both yes and no. Yes, because rapid recovery for those who have the means to invest is a good sign for the future of the economy. No, because the fact that the people in this list recover and overcome the impacts of the crisis rapidly does not imply that things are turning around for everyone. There is an asymmetrical recovery process in the world and in Turkey. It appears that we have to focus our attention on this asymmetry.

This is for two reasons. First, this was and still is an unaccustomed crisis. The 2008 crisis affected the most vulnerable sections of the society. If you are interested, you can compare the 2008 crisis with the 2001 crisis. 2001 crisis is a more equitable and lighter crisis considering the distribution of negative impacts among people. 2008 crisis is more severe in this sense. 'The crisis did not hit Turkey' discussions are just empty talks; what figures imply is evident.

Second, recovery from the 2008 crisis demonstrates an asymmetrical pattern even within the industrial sector. Some sectors recover more rapidly than others while some do not seem to have entered the recovery phase yet.

Average figures are always misleading. Designing public policy without analysing the figures thoroughly should be avoided.

This commentary was published in Referans daily on 27.04.2010