My Geography textbook defines the size of an economy as:
Size of economy is measured in terms of value of goods and services and grows over time. This is caused by increase in population, improvement in income levels, advancement of technology and other associated factors.
I found these statements to be a little iffy. I don't understand how things like
advancement of technology could possibly make the economy larger in size. I do get that they could give the secondary or tertiary sector a larger chunk of the economy, but could it make the economy larger as a whole?
The Netherlands, for an example, has just as elaborate an economy as any other country; with possibly the same factors acting on it. However, even with all the advancements in technology and increased income levels, it is no where as gigantic and mammoth (we are talking size, remember?) an economy as India or China when it comes to sheer scale.
I thus concluded that this statement was erroneous. Am I right in propounding that the size of an economy has nothing (absolutely nothing) to do with the intricacies and coming-together of processes, and solely to do with the scale or largeness of it?