Economics
ChangeWaves last week noted that the landscape of the world economy has changed overnight.
With a recalculation by the World Bank, China’s and India’s economies are now much smaller, at least as measured by purchasing power.
This is how things used to look (click on the graphic to activate):
With the recalculation, the developing Asian economies are rather less imposing:
The upshot that the age of American (and Western) economic dominance may persist longer than people thought.
The Boston Consulting Group has released a report on 100 emerging-market companies with global competetive potential, according to the Daily Telegraph.
Firms from China (44 companies), India (21), Brazil, and Russia constitute most of the group, with Mexico also making a good showing.
Companies like these will be the shock troops for the redistribution of global economic power. In the process, they will transform their home countries’ global roles and interests.
An emerging market expert points out that the developed world may balk at the process:
“The whole pace of globalisation may have to slow or it could set off a wave of protectionism. So far the West has mostly been losing jobs at the low end, and the process has been mutually beneficial. There is now a big risk of losing jobs at the high end too now that China and India are moving move swiftly up the ladder, as we have already seen in software. This means that incomes in the West may have to adjust downwards, and the workforce is not going to tolerate this.”
[Via Social Technologies; image: Social Technologies]
The June 2006 Scientific American notes the 50th anniversary of the resignation of Trofim Lysenko from his position overseeing the Soviet Union’s agricultural science.
Lysenko famously set back Soviet science by rejecting Mendelian genetics — the science of genetics — in favor of the idea that organisms could acquire characteristics during their lifetimes, as the latter was seen as more compatible with Soviet Marxism and its pursuit of the new human.
Real damage was done; Soviet farms apparently did not even plant ideologically incorrect hybrid corn until Lysenko was out of the way.
Holden Thorpe points out in “Evolution’s Bottom Line” in the NYT that creationists could do similar harm in the United States.
Creationism, he notes, has no commercial applications, while evolution does. An understanding of evolutionary relationships enables us to use animal genomes to study human health problems, and the knowledge that evolution continues equips us to fight deadly antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Humans and bacteria share many genes, making antibacterial treatments trickier; Thorp suggests that most people would rather use antibiotics developed by someone who understood how this sharing came to be, rather than by a Biblical literalist ignorant of this relationship.
How will American students, and American competitiveness, fare when American kids are learning an ideologically distorted version of science, while Indians and Chinese students are learning the real thing, Thorp asks?
The Soviet Union suffered when ideologues suppressed science that disturbed their religious world view; the United States will suffer if the same thing occurs here.
The Economist Intelligence Unit released its 2006 e-readiness rankings yesterday. The index is a measure of a country’s readiness for e-business, judged by Internet access, broadband penetration, innovation, information security, and other factors. More telling than the ranking is the country’s distance from a score of 10.
The ratings are a good indicator of general abilities in IT, and thus an important component of present and future competitiveness.
The top countries
Rank. Country — score out of 10 (2005 rank)
1. Denmark — 9.00 (1)
2. US — 8.88 (2)
3. Switzerland — 8.81 (4)
4. Sweden — 8.74 (3)
5. UK — 8.64 (5)
6. Netherlands — 8.60 (8)
7. Finland — 8.55 (6)
8. Australia — 8.50 (10)
9. Canada — 8.37 (12)
10. Hong Kong — 8.36 (6)
11. Norway — 8.35 (9)
12. Germany — 8.34 (12)
13. Singapore — 8.24 (11)
14. New Zealand — 8.19 (16)
14. Austria — 8.19 (14)
16. Ireland — 8.09 (15)
17. Belgium — 7.99 (17)
18. South Korea — 7.90 (18)
19. France — 7.86 (19)
Other countries of interest
Rank. Country — score out of 10 (2005 rank)
21. Japan — 7.77 (21)
22. Israel — 7.59 (20)
23. Taiwan — 7.51 (22)
25. Italy — 7.14 (24)
30. United Arab Emirates — 6.32 (X)
31. Chile — 6.19 (31)
35. South Africa — 5.74 (32)
37. Malaysia — 5.60 (35)
39. Mexico — 5.30 (36)
41. Brazil — 5.29 (38)
42. Argentina — 5.27 (39)
45. Turkey — 4.77 (43)
46. Saudi Arabia — 4.67 (46)
48. Venezuela — 4.47 (45)
49. Romania — 4.44 (47)
51. Colombia — 4.41 (48)
52. Russia — 4.30 (52)
53. India — 4.25 (49)
55. Egypt — 4.14 (53)
56. Philippines — 4.04 (51)
57. China — 4.02 (54)
60. Nigeria — 3.69 (58)
61. Ukraine — 3.62 (57)
62. Indonesia — 3.39 (60)
64. Kazakhstan — 3.22 (62)
65. Iran — 3.15 (59)
67. Pakistan — 3.03 (64)
Regional standouts in the developing world are Chile, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates. The low scores of some countries, notably India, China, and Russia, disguise significant specialized capabilities in infotech.
The World Economic Forum has released its new report on Latin American competitiveness.
Twenty-one countries are evaluated on the basis of macroeconomy, institutions, infrastructure, health, education, market efficiency, tech readiness, “business sophistication, and innovation. The rankings say a lot about the prospects of these countries — and 20 of the 21 rank poorly.
Country (global rank out of 117 countries)
1. Chile (27)
2. Argentina (54)
3. Costa Rica (56)
4. Brazil (57)
5. Colombia (58)
6. Mexico (59)
7. El Salvador (60)
8. Jamaica (63)
9. Panama (65)
10. Trinidad and Tobago (66)
11. Uruguay (70)
12. Peru (77)
13. Venezuela (84)
14. Ecuador (87)
15. Dominican Rep. (91)
16. Guatemala (95)
17. Nicaragua (96)
18. Honduras (97)
19. Bolivia (101)
20. Paraguay (102)
21. Guyana (108)
Chile is highly competitive, surpassing 13 of the EU’s 25 members.
The rest of the region lags. Despite some improvements
Latin America still suffers from one of the most inequitable income distributions worldwide, social tensions and an increasing sense of reform fatigue. Moreover, the region seems to be losing ground as foreign direct investment and trade shares shift to other developing regions, notably Asia and Eastern Europe.
Still, Latin America had its highest growth since 1980 in 2005, and many structural factors are in better shape than in previous decades.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers has released a study of potential growth in the world’s 17 largest economies out to the year 2050.
The study forecasts the eclipse of the current developed economies. The E7, largest emerging market economies (China, India, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Turkey), were only 20% of the size of the G7 economies at market exchange rates in 2005, but would be 25% larger than the G7 by 2050. By purchasing power, the E7 economies were only 75% as large as the G7 in 2005, but would be 75% larger by 2050.
In purchasing power terms, the shifts in relative GDP would be stark:
COUNTRY — relative econ size 2005 / 2050
US — 100 / 100
Japan — 32 / 23
Germany — 20 / 15
China — 76 / 143
UK — 16 / 15
France — 15 / 13
Italy — 14 / 10
Spain — 9 / 8
Canada — 9 / 9
India — 30 / 100
South Korea — 9 / 8
Mexico — 9 / 17
Australia — 5 / 6
Brazil — 13 / 25
Russia — 12 / 14
Turkey — 5 / 10
Indonesia — 7 / 19
Note that the values are relative within their respective years, but not across them; all economies are projected to be larger in 2050 than at present.
Purchasing power suggests, among other things, the military power the economy can afford to buy, suggesting that the realignment of power toward Asia will have substantially occurred. It will no longer be possible for the US to massively outspend all potential rivals.
The study also offers some startling numbers for per capita income. The figures suggest that the developed countries could have universal prosperity, and the emerging markets could achieve levels of wealth like those of developed countries today, eliminating dire poverty.
COUNTRY — 2005 / 2050 purchasing power GDP per capita (constant 2004 dollars)
US — $40,339 / $88,443
Japan — $30,081 / $70,646
Germany — $28,770 / $68,261
China — $6,949 / $35,851
UK — $31,489 / $75,855
France — $29,674 / $74,685
Italy — $28,576 / $66,165
Spain — $25,283 / $66,552
Canada — $31,874 / $75,425
India — $3,224 / $21,872
South Korea — $21,434 / $66,489
Mexico — $9,939 / $42,879
Australia — $31,109 / $74,000
Brazil — $8,311 / $34,448
Russia — $10,358 / $43,586
Turkey — $7,920 / $35,861
Indonesia — $3,702 / $23,686
These numbers suggest massive value shifts: countries reaching these wealth levels have shifted toward democracy, social freedom, and humane governance.
There is an underlying problem in these hopeful figures: sustainability will be strained with far more of the planet living at developed levels of wealth.