5:40 PM
secure your world
In economics, BRICS is a grouping acronym that refers to the founding member countries Brazil, Russia, India,China. In 2011, South Africa joined as a full member, after having been invited as a guest to the 2010 summit. The founding members in particular, and South Africa's latest addition, are all deemed to be at a similar stage ofemerging market status due to its economic development. It is typically rendered as "the BRICS" or "the BRICScountries" or alternatively as the "Big Five." On April 13, 2011 the 'S' was formally added to BRIC to form BRICS with the admission of South Africa into the union.[1][2][3] The acronym "originally BRIC" was coined by Jim O'Neill in a 2001 paper entitled "Building Better Global Economic BRICs".[4][5][6] The acronym has come into widespread use as a symbol of the shift in global economic power away from the developed G7 economies towards the developing world. According to a paper published in 2005, Mexico and South Korea were the only other countries comparable to the BRICs, but their economies were excluded initially because they were considered already more developed, as they were already members of the OECD.[7] Goldman Sachs argues that the economic potential of Brazil, Russia, India and China is such that they could become among the four most dominant economies by the year 2050. The thesis was proposed by Jim O'Neill, global economist at Goldman Sachs.[8] These countries encompass over 25% of the world's land coverage and 40% of the world's population and hold a combined GDP (PPP) of 18.486 trillion dollars. On almost every scale, they would be the largest entity on the global stage. These four countries are among the biggest and fastest growingemerging markets.[citation needed] However, it is not the intent of Goldman Sachs to argue that these four countries are a political alliance (such as the European Union) or any formal trading association, like ASEAN. Nevertheless, they have taken steps to increase their political cooperation, mainly as a way of influencing the United States position on major trade accords, or, through the implicit threat of political cooperation, as a way of extracting political concessions from the United States, such as the proposed nuclear cooperation with India.[citation needed] According to a paper published in 2005, Mexico and South Korea were the only other countries comparable to the BRICs, but their economies were excluded initially because they were considered already more developed, as they were already members of the OECD.[7] Several of the more developed of the N-11 countries, in particular Turkey, Mexico, Nigeria and Indonesia, are seen as the likely contenders to join the BRICs. Some other developing countries that have not yet reached the N-11 economic level, such as South Africa, aspire to BRIC status. Economists at the Reuters 2011 Investment Outlook Summit, held on 6–7 December 2010, dismissed the notion of South Africa joining BRIC.[9] Jim O'Neill told the summit that he was constantly being lobbied about BRIC status by various countries. He said that South Africa, at a population of under 50 million people, was just too small an economy to join the BRIC ranks.[10] Goldman Sachs has argued that, since the four BRIC countries are developing rapidly, by 2050 their combined economies could eclipse the combined economies of the current richest countries of the world. These four countries, combined, currently account for more than a quarter of the world's land area and more than 40% of the world's population.[11][12] Goldman Sachs did not argue that the BRICs would organize themselves into an economic bloc, or a formal trading association, as theEuropean Union has done.[13] However, there are some indications that the "four BRIC countries have been seeking to form a 'political club' or 'alliance'", and thereby converting "their growing economic power into greater geopolitical clout".[14][15] On June 16, 2009, the leaders of the BRIC countries held their first summit in Yekaterinburg, and issued a declaration calling for the establishment of an equitable, democratic andmultipolar world order. Since then they have met in BrasÃlia in 2010 and will meet in China in 2011.[16] The BRIC thesis recognizes that Brazil, Russia, India and China[17] have changed their political systems to embrace global capitalism. Goldman Sachs predicts that China and India, respectively, will become the dominant global suppliers of manufactured goods and services, while Brazil and Russia will become similarly dominant as suppliers of raw materials. It should be noted that of the four countries, Brazil remains the only nation that has the capacity to continue all elements, meaning manufacturing, services, and resource supplying simultaneously. Cooperation is thus hypothesized to be a logical next step among the BRICs because Brazil and Russia together form the logical commodity suppliers to India and China. Thus, the BRICs have the potential to form a powerful economic bloc to the exclusion of the modern-day states currently of "Group of Eight" status. Brazil is dominant in soy and iron ore while Russia has enormous supplies of oil andnatural gas. Goldman Sachs' thesis thus documents how commodities, work, technology, and companies have diffused outward from theUnited States across the world. Following the end of the Cold War or even before, the governments comprising BRIC all initiated economic or political reforms to allow their countries to enter the world economy. In order to compete, these countries have simultaneously stressed education, foreign investment, domestic consumption, and domestic entrepreneurship. The Goldman Sachs global economics team released a follow-up report to its initial BRIC study in 2004.[18] The report states that in BRIC nations, the number of people with an annual income over a threshold of $3,000, will double in number within three years and reach 800 million people within a decade. This predicts a massive rise in the size of the middle class in these nations. In 2025, it is calculated that the number of people in BRIC nations earning over $15,000 may reach over 200 million. This indicates that a huge pickup in demand will not be restricted to basic goods but impact higher-priced goods as well. According to the report, first China and then a decade later India will begin to dominate the world economy. Yet despite the balance of growth, swinging so decisively towards the BRIC economies, the average wealth level of individuals in the moreadvanced economies will continue to far outstrip the BRIC economic average. Goldman Sachs estimates that by 2025 the income per capita in the six most populous EU countries will exceed $35,000, whereas only about 500 million people in the BRIC economies will have similar income levels. The report also highlights India's great inefficiency in energy use and mentions the dramatic under-representation of these economies in the global capital markets. The report also emphasizes the enormous populations that exist within the BRIC nations, which makes it relatively easy for their aggregate wealth to eclipse the G6, while per-capita income levels remain far below the norm of today's industrialized countries. This phenomenon, too, will affect world markets as multinational corporations will attempt to take advantage of the enormous potential markets in the BRICs by producing, for example, far cheaper automobiles and other manufactured goods affordable to the consumers within the BRICs in lieu of the luxury models that currently bring the most income to automobile manufacturers. India and China have already started making their presence felt in the service and manufacturing sector respectively in the global arena. Developed economies of the world have already taken serious note of this fact. This report compiled by lead authors Tushar Poddar and Eva Yi gives insight into "India's Rising Growth Potential". It reveals updated projection figures attributed to the rising growth trends in India over the last four years. Goldman Sachs assert that "India's influence on the world economy will be bigger and quicker than implied in our previously published BRICs research". They noted significant areas of research and development, and expansion that is happening in the country, which will lead to the prosperity of the growing middle-class.[19] In the revised 2007 figures, based on increased and sustaining growth, more inflows into foreign direct investment, Goldman Sachs predicts that "from 2007 to 2020, India's GDP per capita in US$ terms will quadruple", and that the Indian economy will surpass the United States (in US$) by 2043.[19] It states that the four nations as a group will overtake the G7 in 2032.[19] According to a new report from Goldman Sachs, China might surpass the US in equity market capitalization terms by 2030 and become the single largest equity market in the world. By 2020, US GDP might be only slightly larger than China's GDP. Together, the four BRICs may account for 41% of the world's market capitalization by 2030, the report said.[20] Due to contraction of Japan's GDP in Q4 2010 by 1.1 percent from the previous quarter, so China's GDP surpassed Japan's GDP by $5.88 trillion and $5.47 trillion respectively and make China as Number 2 in Economy.[21] Based on Forbes report released on March 2011, BRICs countries for the first time has surpassed Europe in count of billionaires by 301 billionaires or one billionaire ahead over Europe. It was the significant increase by 108 more billionaires than the previous years.[22] The Economist publishes an annual table of social and economic national statistics in its Pocket World in Figures.[citation needed] Extrapolating the global rankings from their 2008 Edition for the BRIC countries and economies in relation to various categories provides an interesting touchstone in relation to the economic underpinnings of the BRIC thesis. It also illustrates how, despite their divergent economic bases, the economic indicators are remarkably similar in global rankings between the different economies. It also suggests that, while economic arguments can be made for linking Mexico into the BRIC thesis, the case for including South Korea looks considerably weaker. A Goldman Sachs paper published later in December 2005 explained why Mexico was not included in the original BRICs.[7] The list of 22 selected countries by nominal GDP from year 2006 to 2050: BRICs, G7 and Next Eleven. The bottom chart list the same 22 countries by nominal GDP per capita. BRIC countries are highlighted and labeled in bold. Rank 2006: Number 1 to 15 are G20 countries. Five other countries of G20 not in the list are: Argentina, Australia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and European Union. Number 1 to 8 are G7 (top 7) countries, except China. Since 2027 China will surpass USA. Rank 2050: Top5 countries are: 1.China, 2.USA, 3.India, 4.Brazil, 5.Mexico (All 3 BRIC countries plus USA and Mexico). G7 countries at 2006 which not include in Top5 2050 countries are: Japan (8), Germany (10), United Kingdom (9), France (12), Italy (18) and Canada (16). So only USA from G7 2006 will be one of the Top 5 countries in 2050. Figures reflect data published in 2007. At World Economic Forum 2011, there are 365 corporate executives from BRIC and other emerging nations out of 1000 participants. It is a record number of executives from emerging markets. Nomura Holdings Inc's co-head of global investment banking said that "It's a reflection of where economic power and influence is starting to move." The IMF estimates emerging markets may expand 6.5 percent in 2011, more than double the 2.5 percent rate for developed countries. BRIC's takeover made record by 22 percent of global deals or increase by 74 percent in one year and more than quadruple in the last five years.[24] The BRIC countries met for their first official summit on 16 June 2009, in Yekaterinburg, Russia,[25] with Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Dmitry Medvedev,Manmohan Singh, and Hu Jintao, the respective leaders of Brazil, Russia, India and China, all attending.[26] The core focus of the summit was related to improving the current global economic situation and discussing how the four countries can better work together in the future, as well as a more general push to reform financial institutions.[25][26] There was also discussion surrounding how developing nations, such as those members of BRIC, could be better involved in global affairs in the future.[26] In the aftermath of the summit the BRIC nations suggested that there was a need for a newglobal reserve currency that is 'diversified, stable and predictable'.[27] The statement that was released stopped short of making a direct attack on the perceived 'dominance' of the US dollar, something which the Russians have been critical of; however, it still led to a fall in the value of the dollar against other major currencies.[28] The foreign ministers of the BRIC countries had met previously on May 16, 2008 also in Yekaterinburg.[15] One week prior to the summit, Brazil offered $10 billion to the International Monetary Fund.[29] It was the first time that the country had ever made such a loan.[29] Brazil had previously received loans from the IMF and this announcement was treated as a significant demonstration of how Brazil's economic position had changed.[29] China also announced plans to invest a total of $50.1 billion and Russia planned to invest $10 billion.[29] South Africa will attend the summit for the first time in 2011 in Sanya, Hainan province which may be renamed as BRICS, after receiving a formal invitation from China in 2010.[15][30][31] Various sources refer to a purported "original" BRIC agreement that predates the Goldman Sachs thesis. Some of these sources claim that PresidentVladimir Putin of Russia was the driving force behind this original cooperative coalition of developing BRIC countries. However, thus far, no text has been made public of any formal agreement to which all four BRIC states are signatories. This does not mean, however, that they have not reached a multitude of bilateral or even quadrilateral agreements. Evidence of agreements of this type are abundant and are available on the foreign ministry websites of each of the four countries. Trilateral agreements and frameworks made among the BRICs include the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (member states include Russia and China, observers include India) and the IBSA Trilateral Forum, which unites Brazil, India, and South Africa in annual dialogues. Also important to note is the G-20 coalition of developing states which includes all the BRICs. Also, because of the popularity of the Goldman Sachs thesis "BRIC", this term has sometimes been extended whereby "BRICK"[32][33] (K for South Korea), "BRIMC"[34][35] (M for Mexico), "BRICA" (GCC Arab countries – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates)[36] and "BRICET" (including Eastern Europe and Turkey)[37] have become more generic marketing terms to refer to these emerging markets. In an August 2010 op-ed, Jim O'Neill of Goldman Sachs argued that Africa could be considered the next BRIC.[38] Analysts from rival banks have sought to move beyond the BRIC concept, by introducing their own groupings of emerging markets. Proposals include CIVETs (Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey and South Africa), the EAGLES (Emerging and Growth-Leading Economies) and the 7 per cent Club (which includes those countries which have averaged economic growth of at least 7 per cent a year).[39] Pretoria sought BRIC membership over 2010 and the process for formal admission began as early as August 2010.[40] South Africa was officially admitted as a BRIC nation on December 24, 2010 after being invited by China and the other BRIC countries to join the group.[41] The capital “S” in BRICS stands for South Africa. President Jacob Zuma is expected to attend the BRICS summit in Beijing in April 2011 as a full member. South Africa stands at a unique position to influence African economic growth and investment. According to Jim O'neill of Goldman Sachs who originally coined the term, Africa's combined current gross domestic product is reasonably similar to that of Brazil and Russia, and slightly above that of India.[42] South Africa is a "gateway" to Southern Africa and Africa in general as the most developed African country.[42]China is South Africa’s largest trading partner, and India wants to increase commercial ties to Africa.[40] South Africa is also Africa’s largest economy, but as number 31 in global GDP economies it is far behind its new partners.[40] Jim O'Neill expressed surprise when South Africa joined BRIC since South Africa's economy is a quarter of the size of Russia's (the least economically powerful BRIC nation).[43] He believed that the potential was there but did not anticipate inclusion of South Africa at this stage.[42]Martyn Davies, a South African emerging markets expert, argued that the decision to invite South Africa made little commercial sense but was politically astute given China's attempts to establish a foothold in Africa. Further, South Africa's inclusion in BRICS may translate to greater South African support for China in global fora.[43] African credentials are important geopolitically, giving BRICS a four-continent breadth, influence and trade opportunities.[40] South Africa's addition is a deft political move that further enhances BRICS’ power and status.[40] In the original essay that coined the term, Goldman Sachs did not argue that the BRICs would organize themselves into an economic bloc, or a formal trading association which this move signifies.[44] The BRIC term is also used by companies who refer to the four named countries as key to their emerging markets strategies. By comparison the reduced acronym IC would not be attractive, although the term "Chindia" is often used. The BRIC's study specifically focuses on large countries, not necessarily the wealthiest or the most productive and was never intended to be an investment thesis. If investors read the Goldman's research carefully, and agreed with the conclusions, then they would gain exposure to Asian debt and equity markets rather than toLatin America. According to estimates provided by the USDA, the wealthiest regions outside of the G6 in 2015 will be Hong Kong, South Korea and Singapore. Combined with China and India, these five economies are likely to be the world's five most influential economies outside of the G6. On the other hand, when the "R" in BRIC is extended beyond Russia and is used as a loose term to include all of Eastern Europe as well, then the BRIC story becomes more compelling. At issue are the multiple serious problems which confront Russia (potentially unstable government, environmental degradation, critical lack of modern infrastructure, etc.[citation needed]), and the comparatively much lower growth rate seen in Brazil. However, Brazil's lower growth rate obscures the fact that the country is wealthier than China or India on a per-capita basis, has a more developed and global integrated financial system and has an economy potentially more diverse than the other BRICs due to its raw material and manufacturing potential. Many other Eastern European countries, such as Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and several others were able to continually sustain high economic growth rates and do not experience some of the problems that Russia experiences or experience them to a lesser extent. In terms of GDP per capita in 2008, Brazil ranked 64th, Russia 42nd, India 113th and China 89th. By comparison South Korea ranked 24th and Singapore 3rd. Brazil's stock market, the Bovespa, has gone from approximately 9,000 in September 2002 to over 70,000 in May 2008. Government policies have favored investment (lowering interest rates), retiring foreign debt and expanding growth, and a reformulation of the tax system is being voted in the congress. The British author and researcher Mark Kobayashi-Hillary wrote a book in 2007 titled 'Building a Future with BRICs' for European publisher Springer Verlag that examines the growth of the BRICs region and its effect on global sourcing. Contributors to the book include Nandan Nilekani, and Shiv Nadar. Brazilian lawyer and author Adler Martins has published the article "Contratos Internacionais entre os paÃses do BRIC"[46] (International agreements among BRIC countries) which highlights that the international conventions ratified by the BRIC countries would allow them to maintain trade and investment activities safely within the group. Mr. Martin's study is being further developed by the Federal University of Minas Gerais State (UFMG[47]), in Brazil. It has been argued that geographic diversification would eventually generate superior risk-adjusted returns for long-term global investors by reducing overall portfolio risk while capturing some of the higher rates of return offered by the emerging markets of Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America.[48] By doing so, these institutional investors have contributed to the financial and economic development of key emerging nations such as Brazil, India, China, and Russia. For global investors, India and China constitute both large-scale production platforms and reservoirs of new consumers, whereas Russia is viewed essentially as an exporter of oil and commodities- Brazil and Latin America being somehow "in the middle". A criticism is that the BRIC projections are based on the assumptions that resources are limitless and endlessly available when needed. In reality, many important resources currently necessary to sustain economic growth, such as oil, natural gas, coal, other fossil fuels, and uranium might soon experience a peak in production before enough renewable energy can be developed and commercialized, which might result in slower economic growth than anticipated, thus throwing off the projections and their dates. The economic emergence of the BRICs will have unpredictable consequences for the global environment. Indeed, proponents of a set carrying capacity for the Earth may argue that, given current technology, there is a finite limit to how much the BRICs can develop before exceeding the ability of the global economy to supply.[49] Academics and experts have suggested that China is in a league of its own compared to the other BRIC countries.[50] As David Rothkopf wrote in Foreign Policy, "Without China, the BRICs are just the BRI, a bland, soft cheese that is primarily known for the whine that goes with it. China is the muscle of the group and the Chinese know it. They have effective veto power over any BRIC initiatives because without them, who cares really? They are the one with the big reserves. They are the biggest potential market. They are the U.S. partner in theG2 (imagine the coverage a G2 meeting gets vs. a G8 meeting) and the E2 (no climate deal without them) and so on."[51] Deutsche Bank Research said in a report that "economically, financially and politically, China overshadows and will continue to overshadow the other BRICs." It added that China's economy is larger than that of the three other BRIC economies (Brazil, Russia and India) combined. Moreover, China's exports and its official forex reserve holdings are more than twice as large as those of the other BRICs combined.[52] In that perspective, some pension investment experts have argued that “China alone accounts for more than 70% of the combined GDP growth generated by the BRIC countries [from 1999 to 2010]: if there is a BRIC miracle it’s first and foremost a Chinese one”.[53] There are many uncertainties and assumptions in the BRIC thesis that could mean that any or all of these four countries will not live up to their promise.[citation needed] The preeminence of China and India as major manufacturing countries with unrealised potential has been widely recognised, but some commentators state that China's and Russia's large-scale disregard for human rights and democracy could be a problem in the future. Human rights issues do not inform the foreign policies of these two countries to the same extent as they do the policies of other large states such as Japan, India, the EU states and the USA. There is also the possibility of conflict over Taiwan in the case of China and smaller democracies that lie in the vicinity of these two authoritarian giants will no doubt be affected by human rights issues being relegated to a lower global priority. There is also the issue of population growth. The population of Russia is beginning to shrink fast. Brazil's and China's populations will begin to decline in several decades[citation needed], with their demographic windows closing in several decades as well. This may have implications for those countries' future, for there might be a decrease in the overall labor force and a negative change in the proportion of workers to retirees. Brazil's economic potential has been anticipated for decades, but it had until recently consistently failed to achieve investor expectations.[citation needed] Only in recent years has the country established a framework of political, economic, and social policies that allowed it to resume consistent growth. The result has been solid and paced economic development that rival its early 70's "miracle years", as reflected in its expanding capital markets, lowest unemployment rates in decades, and consistent international trade surpluses - that led to the accumulation of reserves and liquidation of foreign debt (earning the country a coveted investment grade by the S&P and Fitch Ratings in 2008). Finally, India's relations with its neighbor Pakistan have always been tense. In 1998, there was a nuclear standoff between Pakistan and India.[citation needed] Border conflicts with Pakistan, mostly over the longheld dispute over Kashmir, has further aggravated any economic ties.This impedes progress by limiting government finances, increasing social unrest, and limiting potential domestic economic demand. Factors such as international conflict, civil unrest, unwise political policy, outbreaks of disease and terrorism are all factors that are difficult to predict and that could have an effect on the destiny of any country. Other critics suggest that BRIC is nothing more than a neat acronym for the four largest emerging market economies,[citation needed] but in economic and political terms nothing else (apart from the fact that they are all big emerging markets) links the four. Two are manufacturing based economies and big importers (China and India), but two are huge exporters of natural resources (Brazil and Russia). The Economist, in its special report on Brazil, expressed the following view: "In some ways Brazil is the steadiest of the BRICs. Unlike China and Russia it is a full-blooded democracy; unlike India it has no serious disputes with its neighbors. It is the only BRIC without a nuclear bomb." The Heritage Foundation's "Economic Freedom Index", which measures factors such as protection of property rights and free trade ranks Brazil ("moderately free") above the other BRICs ("mostly unfree").[54] Henry Kissingerhas stated that the BRIC nations have no hope of acting together as a coherent bloc in world affairs, and that any cooperation will be the result of forces acting on the individual nations.[citation needed] It is also noticed that BRIC countries have undermined qualitative factors that is reflected in deterioration in Doing Business ranking 2010 and other several human indexes.[55] In a not-so-subtle dig critical of the term as nothing more than a shorthand for emerging markets generally, critics have suggested a correlating term, CEMENT (Countries in EmergingMarkets Excluded by New Terminology). Whilst they accept there has been spectacular growth of the BRIC economies, these gains have largely been the result of the strength of emerging markets generally, and that strength comes through having BRICs and CEMENT.[56] Mexico and South Korea are currently the world's 13th and 15th largest by nominal GDP,[57] just behind the BRIC and G7 economies, while both are experiencing rapid GDP growth of 5% every year, a figure comparable to Brazil from the original BRICs. Jim O'Neill, expert from the same bank and creator of the economic thesis, stated that in 2001 when the paper was created, it did not consider Mexico, but today it has been included because the country is experiencing the same factors that the other countries first included present.[34][35] While South Korea was not originally included in the BRICs, recent solid economic growth led to Goldman Sachs proposing to add Mexico and South Korea to the BRICs, changing the acronym to BRIMCK, with Jim O'Neill pointing out that Korea "is better placed than most others to realize its potential due to its growth-supportive fundamentals.[58] A Goldman Sachs paper published later in December 2005 explained why Mexico and South Korea weren't included in the original BRICs. According to the paper,[7] among the other countries they looked at, only Mexico and South Korea have the potential to rival the BRICs, but they are economies that they decided to exclude initially because they looked to them as already more developed. However, due to the popularity of the Goldman Sachs thesis, "BRIMC" and "BRICK" are becoming more generic marketing terms to refer to these six countries. In their paper "BRICs and Beyond", Goldman Sachs stated that "Mexico, the four BRIC countries and South Korea should not be really thought of as emerging markets in the classical sense", adding that they are a "critical part of the modern globalised economy" and "just as central to its functioning as the current G7".[59] The term is primarily used in the economic and financial spheres as well as in academia. Its usage has grown specially in the investment sector, where it is used to refer to the bonds emitted by these emerging markets governments.[60][61][62] Primarily, along with the BRICs,[63] Goldman Sachs argues that the economic potential of Brazil, Russia, India, Mexico and China is such that they may become (with the USA) the six most dominant economies by the year 2050. Due to Mexico's rapidly advancing infrastructure, increasing middle class and rapidly declining poverty rates it is expected to have a higher GDP per capita than all but three European countries by 2050, this new found local wealth also contributes to the nation's economy by creating a large domestic consumer market which in turn creates more jobs. South Korea is by far the most highly developed country when compared to the BRICs and N-11s, with a GDP per capita higher than Italy andSpain and HDI higher than Switzerland, France and the United Kingdom. Yet, it has been achieving growth rates of 4-6%, a figure more than double that of other advanced economies. More importantly, it has a significantly higher Growth Environment Score (Goldman Sachs' way of measuring the long-term sustainability of growth) than all of the BRICs or N-11s.[59] Commentators such as William Pesek Jr. from Bloombergargue that Korea is "Another 'BRIC' in Global Wall", suggesting that it stands out from the Next Eleven economies. By GDP (PPP), South Korea already overtook a G7 and G8 economy, Canada, in 2009. It then surpassed Spain in 2010 and at current speed, will take over Italy before 2018.[65] Economists from other investment firms argue that Korea will have a GDP per capita of over $96,000 by 2050, surpassing the United States and by far the wealthiest among the G7, BRIC and N-11 economies, suggesting that wealth is more important than size for bond investors, stating that Korea's credit rating will be rated AAA sooner than 2050.[66] In September 2009, Goldman Sachs published its 188th Global Economics Paper titled "A United Korea?" which highlighted in detail the potential economic power of a United Korea, which will surpass all current G7 countries except the United States, such as Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany and France within 30–40 years of reunification, estimating GDP to surpass $6 trillion by 2050.[68] The young, skilled labor-force and the extensive natural resources of the North combined with advanced technology, infrastructure and the large amount of capital in the South, as well as Korea's strategic location connecting three economic powers, could fuel an economy larger than the bulk of the G7. According to some opinions, a reunited Korea could occur before 2050,[68] or even between 2010 and 2020.[69] If it occurred, Korean reunification would immediately create a single country of over 70 million.[70]Contents
[hide][edit]Thesis
[edit](2003) Dreaming with BRICs: The Path to 2050
[edit](2004) Follow-up report
[edit](2007) Second Follow-up report
[edit](2010) EM Equity in Two Decades: A Changing Landscape
[edit]Statistics
Category 
Brazil
Russia
India
China
South AfricaArea 5th 1st 7th 3rd 25th Population 5th 9th 2nd 1st 25th Population growth rate 107th 221st 90th 156th 158th Labour force 5th 7th 2nd 1st 34th GDP (nominal) 8th 10th 11th 2nd 28th GDP (PPP) 7th 6th 4th 2nd 25th GDP (nominal) per capita 55th 54th 137th 95th 71th GDP (PPP) per capita 71st 51st 127th 93rd 77th GDP (real) growth rate 15th 88th 7th 5th 117th Human Development Index 73rd 65th 119th 89th 110th Exports 18th 11th 16th 1st 36th Imports 20th 17th 11th 2nd 34th Current account balance 47th 5th 169th 1st 179th Received FDI 11th 12th 29th 5th 31st Foreign exchange reserves 7th 3rd 6th 1st 33rd External debt 28th 24th 26th 23rd 45th Public debt 47th 122nd 29th 98th 88th Electricity consumption 9th 4th 5th 1st 14th Number of mobile phones 5th 4th 2nd 1st 25th Number of internet users 5th 7th 4th 1st 44th Motor vehicle production 6th 19th 7th 1st 24th Military expenditures 12th 5th 10th 2nd 43th Active troops 14th 5th 3rd 1st 59th Rail network 10th 2nd 4th 3rd 12th Road network 4th 8th 3rd 2nd 18th [edit]Predictions
Rank @ 2050 Country 2050 2045 2040 2035 2030 2025 2020 2015 2010 2006 1 China70,710 57,310 45,022 34,348 25,610 18,437 12,630 8,133 5,745 2,682 2 
United States38,514 33,904 29,823 26,097 22,817 20,087 17,978 16,194 14,620 13,245 3 India37,668 25,278 16,510 10,514 6,683 4,316 2,848 1,900 1,430 909 4 Brazil11,366 8,740 6,631 4,963 3,720 2,831 2,194 1,720 2,024 1,064 5 
Mexico9,340 7,204 5,471 4,102 3,068 2,303 1,742 1,327 1,004 851 6 Russia8,580 7,420 6,320 5,265 4,265 3,341 2,554 1,900 1,477 982 7 
Indonesia7,010 4,846 3,286 2,192 1,479 1,033 752 562 695 350 8 
Japan6,677 6,300 6,042 5,886 5,814 5,570 5,224 4,861 5,391 4,336 9 
Iran5,945 4,283 3,085 2,222 1,673 1,285 994 716 337 245 10 
United Kingdom5,133 4,744 4,344 3,937 3,595 3,333 3,101 2,835 2,259 2,310 11 
Germany5,024 4,714 4,388 4,048 3,761 3,631 3,519 3,326 3,306 2,851 12 
Nigeria4,640 2,870 1,765 1,083 680 445 306 218 206 121 13 
France4,592 4,227 3,892 3,567 3,306 3,055 2,815 2,577 2,555 2,194 14 
South Korea4,083 3,562 3,089 2,644 2,241 1,861 1,508 1,305 986 887 15 
Turkey3,943 3,033 2,300 1,916 1,479 1,279 965 865 729 390 16 
Vietnam3,607 2,569 1,768 1,169 745 458 273 157 102 55 17 
Canada3,149 2,849 2,569 2,302 2,061 1,856 1,700 1,549 1,564 1,260 18 
Philippines3,010 2,040 1,353 882 582 400 289 215 189 117 19 
Italy2,950 2,737 2,559 2,444 2,391 2,326 2,444 2,072 2,037 1,809 20 
Egypt2,602 1,728 1,124 718 467 318 229 171 216 101 21 
Pakistan2,085 1,472 1,026 709 497 359 268 206 174 129 22 
Bangladesh1,466 1,001 676 451 304 210 150 110 105 63 Groups Flags 2050 2045 2040 2035 2030 2025 2020 2015 2010 2006 BRIC 128,324 98,757 74,483 55,090 40,278 28,925 20,226 13,653 8,640 5,637 G7 66,039 59,475 53,617 48,281 43,745 39,858 36,781 33,414 30,437 28,005 Rank @ 2050 Country 2050 2045 2040 2035 2030 2025 2020 2015 2010 2006 Percent growth from 2006 to 2050 1 United States91,683 83,489 76,044 69,019 62,717 57,446 53,502 50,200 47,014 44,379 206% 2 South Korea90,294 75,979 63,924 53,449 44,602 36,813 29,868 26,012 21,602 18,161 497% 3 United Kingdom79,234 73,807 67,391 61,049 55,904 52,220 49,173 45,591 41,543 38,108 207% 4 Russia78,435 65,708 54,221 43,800 34,368 26,061 19,311 13,971 9,833 6,909 1,137% 5 Canada76,002 69,531 63,464 57,728 52,663 48,621 45,961 43,449 40,541 38,071 199% 6 France75,253 68,252 62,136 56,562 52,327 48,429 44,811 41,332 38,380 36,045 208% 7 Germany68,253 62,658 57,118 51,710 47,263 45,033 43,223 40,589 37,474 34,588 197% 8 Japan66,846 60,492 55,756 52,345 49,975 46,419 42,385 38,650 36,194 34,021 196% 9 Mexico63,149 49,393 38,255 29,417 22,694 17,685 13,979 11,176 8,972 7,918 797% 10 Italy58,545 52,760 48,070 44,948 43,195 41,358 38,990 35,908 32,948 31,123 188% 11 Brazil49,759 38,149 29,026 21,924 16,694 12,996 10,375 8,427 6,882 5,657 879% 12 China49,650 39,719 30,951 23,511 17,522 12,688 8,829 5,837 3,463 2,041 2,432% 13 Turkey45,595 34,971 26,602 20,046 15,188 11,743 9,291 7,460 6,005 5,545 822% 14 Vietnam33,472 23,932 16,623 11,148 7,245 4,583 2,834 1,707 1,001 655 5,110% 15 Iran32,676 26,231 20,746 15,979 12,139 9,328 7,345 5,888 4,652 3,768 867% 16 Indonesia22,395 15,642 10,784 7,365 5,123 3,711 2,813 2,197 1,724 1,508 1,485% 17 India20,836 14,446 9,802 6,524 4,360 2,979 2,091 1,492 1,061 817 2,550% 18 Egypt20,500 14,025 9,443 6,287 4,287 3,080 2,352 1,880 1,531 1,281 1,600% 19 Philippines20,388 14,260 9,815 6,678 4,635 3,372 2,591 2,075 1,688 1,312 1,553% 20 Nigeria13,014 8,934 6,117 4,191 2,944 2,161 1,665 1,332 1,087 919 1,416% 21 Pakistan7,066 5,183 3,775 2,744 2,035 1,568 1,260 1,050 897 778 908% 22 Bangladesh5,235 3,767 2,698 1,917 1,384 1,027 790 627 510 427 1,225% [edit]Summits
Summit Participant Date Host country Host leader Location 1st BRIC June 16, 2009 RussiaDmitry Medvedev Yekaterinburg 2nd BRIC April 16, 2010 BrazilLuiz Inácio Lula da Silva BrasÃlia 3rd BRICS April 14, 2011 ChinaHu Jintao Sanya 4rd BRICS 2012 IndiaMr.Manmohan singh -New Delhi [edit]BRIC summits
[edit]BRICS summits
[edit]History
[edit]Enlargement
[edit]Marketing
[edit]International Law
[edit]Financial diversification
[edit]Criticism
This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (April 2011) [edit]Proposed inclusions
[edit]Mexico
MexicoGDP in USD $9.340 trillion GDP per capita $63,149 GDP growth (2015–2050) 4.0% Total population 142 million [edit]South Korea
United Korea South Korea
North KoreaGDP in USD $6.056 trillion $4.073 trillion $1.982 trillion GDP per capita $86,000 $96,000 $70,000 GDP growth (2015–2050) 4.8% 3.9% 11.4% Total population 71 million 42 million 28 million [edit]United Korea
Thursday, April 14, 2011
BRICS
India has 10 of the 30 fastest-growing urban areas in the world and, based on current trends, we estimate a massive 700 million people will move to cities by 2050. This will have significant implications for demand for urban infrastructure, real estate, and services.
—[19]
0 komentar:
Post a Comment