Turn on thread page Beta
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    So according to the Think Tank Stratfor China is slowing down and so they have identified 16 nations that they believe will take China's place as fast growing up and coming economic powers. Below is a map showing the nations.

    Spoiler:
    Show


    So what do people think of these nations, will they become large economic powers? Will we see similar growth in these nations as we have in China?

    I stole the map from this article: The PC16: Identifying China's Successors You can read it for free but they want an email address :rolleyes: Only briefly read it so I can't comment too much on their speculation or rationale
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It's very easy to grow quickly when you're starting from such a weak position.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Why can't you copy the article here?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    It's very easy to grow quickly when you're starting from such a weak position.
    Probably Rwanda, Mozambique, Somalia then.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    China's successors? I'm certainly not of the 'China is going to rule the world and its economy' school, but it has only gone from 7.7% to 7.5% growth. Hardly time to be talking of successors just yet.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by locrian37)
    Why can't you copy the article here?
    Just for you

    Spoiler:
    Show
    By George Friedman

    Editor's Note: For more information on purchasing the full PC16 report, which assesses each member of the grouping, and for details on custom briefings and analysis for your organization, please click here.

    China has become a metaphor. It represents a certain phase of economic development, which is driven by low wages, foreign appetite for investment and a chaotic and disorderly development, magnificent in scale but deeply flawed in many ways. Its magnificence spawned the flaws, and the flaws helped create the magnificence.

    The arcs along which nations rise and fall vary in length and slope. China's has been long, as far as these things go, lasting for more than 30 years. The country will continue to exist and perhaps prosper, but this era of Chinese development -- pyramiding on low wages to conquer global markets -- is ending simply because there are now other nations with even lower wages and other advantages. China will have to behave differently from the way it does now, and thus other countries are poised to take its place.

    Reshaping International Order

    Since the Industrial Revolution, there have always been countries where comparative advantage in international trade has been rooted in low wages and a large work force. If these countries can capitalize on their advantages, they can transform themselves dramatically. These transformations, in turn, reorganize global power structures. Karl Kautsky, a German socialist in the early 1900s, wrote: "Half a century ago, Germany was a miserable, insignificant country, if her strength is compared with that of the Britain of that time; Japan compared with Russia in the same way. Is it conceivable that in 10 or 20 years' time the relative strength will have remained unchanged?" Lenin also saw these changes, viewing them as both progressive and eventually revolutionary. When Kautsky and Lenin described the world, they did so to change it. But the world proved difficult to change. (It is ironic that two of the four BRIC countries had been or still are Communist countries.)

    When it is not in the throes of war, trade reshapes the international order. After World War II, Germany and Japan climbed out of their wreckage by using their skilled, low-wage labor to not only rebuild their economy but to become great exporting powers. When I was a child in the 1950s, "Made in Japan" meant cheap, shoddy goods. By 1990, Japan had reached a point where its economic power did not rest on entry-level goods powered by low wages but by advanced technology. It had to move away from high growth to a different set of behaviors. China, like Japan before it, is confronted by a similar transition.

    Post-China 16: Emerging Economies
    The process is fraught with challenges. At the beginning of the process, what these countries have to sell to their customers is their relative poverty. Their poverty allows them to sell labor cheaply. If the process works and the workers are disciplined, investment pours in to take advantage of the opportunities. Like the investors, local entrepreneurs prosper, but they do so at the expense of the workers, whose lives are hard and brutal.

    It's not just their work; it's their way of life. As workers move to factories, the social fabric is torn apart. But that rending of life opens the door for a mobile workforce able to take advantage of new opportunities. Traditional life disappears; in its place stand the efficiencies of capitalism. Yet still the workers come, knowing that as bad as their lot is, it is better than it once was. American immigration was built on this knowledge. The workers bought their willingness to work for long hours and low wages. They knew that life was hard but better than it had been at home, and they harbored hopes for their children and with some luck, for themselves.

    As the process matures, low wages rise -- producing simple products for the world market is not as profitable as producing more sophisticated products -- and the rate of growth slows down in favor of more predictable profits from more complex goods and services. All nations undergo this process, and China is no exception. This is always a dangerous time for a country. Japan handled it well. China has more complex challenges.

    The PC16

    Indeed, China is at the fringes of its low-wage, high-growth era. Other countries will replace it. The international system opens the door to low-wage countries with appropriate infrastructure and sufficient order to do business. Low-wage countries seize the opportunity and climb upon the escalator of the international system, and with them come the political and business elite and the poor, for whom even the brutality of early industrialism is a relief.

    But identifying these countries is difficult. Trade statistics won't capture the shift until after it is well underway. In some of these countries, such as Vietnam and Indonesia, this shift has been taking place for several years. Though they boast more sophisticated economies than, say, Laos and Myanmar, they can still be considered members of what we are calling the Post-China 16, or PC16 -- the 16 countries best suited to succeed China as the world's low-cost, export-oriented economy hub.

    In general, we are seeing a continual flow of companies leaving China, or choosing not to invest in China, and going to these countries. This flow is now quickening. The first impetus is the desire of global entrepreneurs, usually fairly small businesses themselves, to escape the increasingly non-competitive wages and business environment of the previous growth giant. Large, complex enterprises can't move fast and can't use the labor force of the emerging countries because it is untrained in every way. The businesses that make the move are smaller, with small amounts of capital involved and therefore lower risk. These are fast moving, labor-intensive businesses who make their living looking for the lowest cost labor with some organization, some order and available export facilities.

    In looking at this historically, two markers showed themselves. One is a historical first step: garment and footwear manufacturing, a highly competitive area that demands low wages but provides work opportunities that the population, particularly women, understand in principle. A second marker is mobile phone assembly, which requires a work force that can master relatively simple operations. Price matters greatly in this ruthlessly competitive market.

    Therefore we tried to determine places where these businesses are moving. We were not looking for the kind of large-scale movements that would be noticed globally, but the first movements that appear to be successful. Where a handful of companies are successful, others will follow, so long as there is labor, some order and transportation. Some things are not necessary or expected. The rule of law, understood in Anglo-Saxon terms of the written law, isn't there at this stage. Things are managed through custom and relationships with the elite. Partnerships are established. Frequently there is political uncertainty, and violence may have recently occurred. These are places that are at the beginning of their development cycle, and they may not develop successfully. Investors here are risk takers -- otherwise they wouldn't be here.

    The beginning of China's boom is normally thought of as 1978-1980. The Cultural Revolution had ended a few years before. It was a national upheaval of violence with few precedents. Mao Zedong died in 1976, and there had been an intense power struggle, with Deng Xiaoping consolidating power in 1977. China was politically unstable, had no clear legal system, sporadic violence and everything else that would make it appear economically hopeless. In fact, Egbert F. Dernberger and David Fasenfest of the University of Michigan wrote a paper for the Joint Economic Committee of Congress titled "China's Post-Mao Economic Future." In this paper, the authors state: "In the next seven years as a whole, the rate of industrial investment and production, more than the total of the last 28 years, imply a level of imports and industrial labor force such that the exports, transportation facilities, social overhead capital, energy and middle-level technical personnel requirements would exceed any realistic assessment of Chinese capabilities."

    I don't mean to criticize the authors. This was the reasonable, conventional wisdom at the time. It assumed that the creation of infrastructure and a managerial class was the foundation of economic growth. In fact in China, it was the result of economic growth. The same can be said for rule of law, civil society, transparency and the other social infrastructure that emerges out of the social, financial and managerial chaos that a low-wage economy almost always manifests. Low-wage societies develop these characteristics possibly out of the capital formation that low-wage exports generates. The virtues of advanced industrial society and the advantages of pre-industrial society don't coincide.

    There is no single country that can replace China. Its size is staggering. That means that its successors will not be one country but several countries, most at roughly the same stage of development. Taken together, these countries have a total population of just over 1 billion people. We didn't aim for that; we realized it after we selected the countries.

    The point to emphasize is that identifying the PC16 is not a forecast. It is a list of countries in which we see significant movement of stage industries, particularly garment and footwear manufacturing and mobile phone assembly. In our view, the dispersal of industries that we see as markers of early-stage economic growth is already underway. In addition, there are no extreme blocks to further economic growth, although few of these countries would come to mind as having low political risk and high stability -- no more than China would have come to mind in 1978-1980. I should also note that we have excluded countries growing because of energy and mineral extraction. These countries follow different paths of development. The PC16 are strictly successors to China as low wage, underdeveloped countries with opportunities to grow their manufacturing sectors dramatically.

    The new activity is focused on Africa, Asia and to a lesser extent, Latin America. When you look at the map, much of this new activity is focused in the Indian Ocean Basin. The most interesting pattern is in the eastern edge of Sub-Saharan Africa: Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia. Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Myanmar and Bangladesh are directly on the Indian Ocean. The Indochinese countries and the Philippines are not on the Indian Ocean, and even though I don't want to overstate the centrality of the Indian Ocean, they are nearby. At the very least we can say that there are two ocean basins, the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea. You might want to read my colleague Robert D. Kaplan's book Monsoon on this region.

    There are some countries in Latin America: Peru, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and Mexico. A special word needs to be included on Mexico. The area north of Mexico City and south of the U.S. borderlands has been developing intensely in recent years. We normally would not include Mexico but the area in central-southern Mexico is large, populous and still relatively underdeveloped. It is in this area, which includes the states of Campeche, Veracruz, Chiapas and Yucatan, where we see the type of low-end development that fits our criteria. Mexico's ability to develop its low-wage regions does not face the multitude of challenges China faces in doing the same with its interior.

    All of this has to be placed in context. This is not the only growth process underway. It is most unlikely that all of these countries will succeed. They are not yet ready, with some exceptions, for advanced financial markets or quantitative modeling. They are entering into a process that has been underway in the world since the late 1700s: globalism and industrialism combined. It can be an agonizing process and many have tried to stop it. They have failed not because of their respective ruling classes, which would have the most to lose. It doesn't take place because of multinational corporations. They come in later. It takes place because of profit-driven jobbers who know how to live with instability and corruption. It also takes place because of potential workers looking to escape their lives for what to them seems like a magnificent opportunity but for us seems unthinkable.

    The parabola of economic development dictates that what has not yet risen will rise and eventually fall. The process unleashed in the Industrial Revolution does not seem to be stoppable. In our view, this is the next turning of the wheel.




    Read more: The PC16: Identifying China's Successors | Stratfor
    Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eloquai)
    China's successors? I'm certainly not of the 'China is going to rule the world and its economy' school, but it has only gone from 7.7% to 7.5% growth. Hardly time to be talking of successors just yet.
    What this guy is saying. Yes China is slowing down and will probably slow down even further by the end of this decade, but that is what the Chinese government wants (to avoid overheating and to change from an investment and export oriented model to a consumption based model).

    All of those 16 countries will grow at a rapid pace as well, but none of them will ever have the economic clout that China has nor will it ever be such a big economic miracle that China was.

    The only exception COULD be India but it has a lot of challenges and obstacles to overcome
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I made a post on this and I can't be bothered to re-type my perspective on it again so I'll just link it to you.

    http://geopoliticalcompass.blogspot....political.html

    For the lazy..

    Spoiler:
    Show
    The Chinese economy has benefited tremendously from decades of a low-wage, export-based system that has allowed it to consistently to grow. Recently, China has explored its economic and foreign strategic interests in exploring markets that are not so crowded in Africa and Central/Southern Americas. Most crucially, however, is China's territorial claims to the South China Sea which forecasted, by 2025, will consist of nearly half of the world's GDP passing through the maritime territories of Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. As a consequence of its development, it is a major power and will continue to be so.

    However, it may start to change. With the mainstream media calling into question the validity of the "Chinese economic miracle", the Chinese economy according to Chinese figures grew by 7.5pc as opposed to its 10.2pc in 2010. The slowing growth is an illustration of the limitations of the thirty-year model. The model has relied on obscenely low-wages in comparison to the West whereby workers in China are unable to afford to the products they produce. Thus, the Chinese system relies on heavy exportation in order for products to be purchased.

    The result of which has created an interdependent relationship between the China and the United States. However, China are beginning to feel the brunt of this interdependency. The Western economic model traditionally contracts and expands and so to does the demand. Western demand is the crux of China's economic model. It has done this without much acknowledgement of the contractions in demand in the Western world and is predominantly the reason it finds itself in the declining growth, insecure and uncertain.

    Unemployment has been a concern for China and will continue to be. The social consequences of unemployment in history have always been synonymous with social stability. It is worth noting that there are 900m Chinese people who are in poverty. The average wage between is reported to be around $2-4000. China finds itself at a crossroads with no easy option to make. China must be able to create employment to curtail social unrest but it does this at create expense. By subsidizing failing businesses which only leads to the production costs rising. This inevitably rises inflation and inflation undermines a nation's ability to be competitive in an export driven market.

    Condense social unrest

    The government has put plans into creating the framework of urbanization and consumerism in China. The limit of the high-export, low-wage model has just about been reached and turning 800 million or so workers into consumers will be the greatest challenge the government faces the next decade. One of these measures is by increasing the minimum wages to 40 pc of average provincial salaries.

    Constructing a consumer culture will be a difficult and painful task but it is a necessary task. The culture of pragmatism in the Communist Party of China will see China become a new role in the international system. The long process is primarily to curtail and condense social unrest as individuals in China become "more free". On the surface, this seems paradoxical. An economy and society where individuals are free, mobile and driven by a competitive economy controlled by a strong, firm central government.

    In essence, Beijing are playing a balancing act. The transition to a consumer economy is being paid by subsidies in inefficient businesses to keep unemployment levels down to curtail social unrest whilst gradually deconstructing export-driven businesses into pillars for consumerism without attracting the social unrest it brings. As for the success of this policy is up for contention and only time will tell. One thing's for certain - China will be a very different country than it has been the past three decades.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    It's very hard to give credence to this new list. Experts have been repeatedly predicting countries' rise for ages now. China, the country they like to hark on the most, still hasn't come close to overtaking the US economy and is still starkly inadequate to compete with the US in terms of military. I do think China will continue its growth and continue to become a superpower, but on par with the US, not instead of.

    Even the BRIC prediction has not proven true. India is the most promising nation, but it has so many problems that stall its economy. It'll have to tackle with huge social problems over the coming years. Brazil is still growing but much more slowly, and Russia's economy isn't doing too well, and is marred by corruption, centralisation and a decreasing population.

    I do reckon that nations like Mexico, the Philippines and Indonesia will continue to grow, though.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I'll be honest I think they just picked any country that looked likely to see quick economic development. This way they appear to be bale to predict the future whilst at the same time they have picked so many countries at least one of them is likely to turn out to be right.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To be a financial hegemon a nation needs to have abundant resources and a cheap labour pool. Whilst the 13 emerging 'successors' that have been pointed out will no doubt continue to grow, China is a far larger, far more historically adept nation.

    All the nations pointed out are far too small to be the leader. They are backchatter politically and economically. The only feasible successor would be a competitive regional bloc.

    Personally, with the BRICS Development Bank in construction and the Eurasian Community finally beginning to mould itself, it'll be more of a regional battle between the EU, Eurasian Community, (+BRICS) and the U.S., rather than the meager countries pointed out to have short-term growth from, as a previous poster pointed out, a peripheral position of primary production.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I really find it hard to trust any of these reviews and studies. Just like when I read about China 'taking over the world'. China's economic development in figures is just not representative of economic development in real terms across the broad population. The fact is that China's wealth is concentrated in very small pockets of population that are demographically spread out across a massive area. Social mobility is still extremely low with future wealth still highly dependent on the outrageously intense Gao Kao uniform university exams. In my personal opinion, these are major, MAJOR issues that countries such as US, UK and the majority of EU countries did not have to face during their own economic boom eras, and if they did, then to a FAR lesser extent. I don't think a country is fully able to take on the mantle of being a 'superpower' unless they go some way to addressing the massive poor/rich divide that is present in so many of the so called up and coming economic powers. But then again I can't see this happening any time soon in China, not unless the current crop of politicians die out quickly. At the risk of sounding like a pretentious a**e, as someone who grew immersed in both British and Chinese culture, to me, it's plain to see that Mao still has an effect on the youth of today in China (though it's dying out) and that effects just about everything that everyone does on a daily basis. THAT I believe, is the main obstacle to becoming a true superpower. Though that is a whole other conversation that I can't be bothered to get into now...Good thread though!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    i doubt it, mostof these countries have rather unpleasant problems already which wont be solved in the near future... they all suffer from hugepopulations, internal strife etc. theonlything going formostofthem is dirt cheap labour or natural resources... leaving aside theyre corruptas hell :rolleyes: either way they will all go the same way as every other power... workers will demand rightsprices will rise and they will fall... we saw it here, europe, america and beginings in china we're running out of countries to exploit...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cl_steele)
    i doubt it, mostof these countries have rather unpleasant problems already which wont be solved in the near future... they all suffer from hugepopulations, internal strife etc. theonlything going formostofthem is dirt cheap labour or natural resources... leaving aside theyre corruptas hell :rolleyes: either way they will all go the same way as every other power... workers will demand rightsprices will rise and they will fall... we saw it here, europe, america and beginings in china we're running out of countries to exploit...
    That's simplifying it a bit.....
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    My personal opinion is that Brazil, Indonesia and Mexico will be the primary stories (along with China) until say 2050, there are countries which get close in resources and labour but the three mentioned are already well ahead of the Likes of Nigeria and the East African Federation (assuming it forms).

    Beyond this there is a lot of clutter (Phillipenes, Vietnam, Turkey ect..) however none of these will be the dominant regional players, let alone global.

    (Original post by navarre)
    It's very hard to give credence to this new list. Experts have been repeatedly predicting countries' rise for ages now. China, the country they like to hark on the most, still hasn't come close to overtaking the US economy and is still starkly inadequate to compete with the US in terms of military. I do think China will continue its growth and continue to become a superpower, but on par with the US, not instead of.

    Even the BRIC prediction has not proven true. India is the most promising nation, but it has so many problems that stall its economy. It'll have to tackle with huge social problems over the coming years. Brazil is still growing but much more slowly, and Russia's economy isn't doing too well, and is marred by corruption, centralisation and a decreasing population.

    I do reckon that nations like Mexico, the Philippines and Indonesia will continue to grow, though.
    Agreed. The problem with the BRICS is that Russia is poorly managed and suffering population decline which means it's growth is heavily dependent on certain exports and the proceeds from this not sufficiently exploited, India also while eventually the biggest economy on paper (probably) is a perpetual disappointment and to get China levels of growth will probably require a good decade to sufficiently restructure its economy and infrastructure.

    In terms of the whole superpower thing China was only ever going to rival the USA economically.

    The main talking point over the next decades i believe will be the emergence of regional blocks giving an advantage to those countries like the USA, EU, South America, China, India and Indonesia. African blocks will probably take too long to catch up to play important global roles and most other countries will be side stories.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by navarre)
    It's very hard to give credence to this new list. Experts have been repeatedly predicting countries' rise for ages now. China, the country they like to hark on the most, still hasn't come close to overtaking the US economy and is still starkly inadequate to compete with the US in terms of military. I do think China will continue its growth and continue to become a superpower, but on par with the US, not instead of.

    Even the BRIC prediction has not proven true. India is the most promising nation, but it has so many problems that stall its economy. It'll have to tackle with huge social problems over the coming years. Brazil is still growing but much more slowly, and Russia's economy isn't doing too well, and is marred by corruption, centralisation and a decreasing population.

    I do reckon that nations like Mexico, the Philippines and Indonesia will continue to grow, though.
    Yeah, people overhype it just for views. Reality is China has its own problems and is not looking for a fight with the US. Just consider that if you go to China, most people are very envious of the US. China sends thousands of students to study at US universities each year for instance.

    Also, while the US is rather united as a country, China is not. Its a large group of different ethnic groups that all have their stereotypes and long held beliefs. There are even language barriers. This is because for thousands of years transportation limitations have made communication difficult. The US is still young, so they are united. Its not even really a comparison. China will continue to grow economically, instituting reforms and eventually settling in as a 1st world nation. This will take it to about 2040-2050. After that well no one knows. Anyone who can predict what will happen in 40 years with certainty will be very very rich indeed.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Lets face it china is now screwed. They built an economy based on cheap labor from poor workers. Their economy grew rapidly as companies from all over the world sent product there to be manufactured. The thing is that the people are less poor now and are demanding better wages. Labor is therefore less cheap. Companies move out and factories close. This is compounded by rising fuel costs meaning that companies want their products manufactured closer to home.

    China built a rapid growing economy with no future planning and will soon be paying a heavy price


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    I think the EU will see some resurgence, with the increasing new additions like Croatia (small but it's something) and perhaps big players like Turkey. Ties with Russia are economically better, though I don't see them being the best of friends concerning human rights. I still think Russia will become a bigger (but not major) power again, despite the corruption and population issues, exports grow and the welfare is improving steadily.

    Not sure what will happen to the US, Canada, Japan (and perhaps South Korea). If the US fall under China, an establishment joining all 3/4 nations could be a good answer to maintain their status. Especially since Japan and South Korea are the black sheep of the Asian family (look at China and NK for instance!)

    But, I suspect Mexico, South Africa, India, Indonesia, Brazil and Argentina could become more serious players in the future.

    For me, I think superpower trading blocs and unions will be more present in the future than just one superpower nation.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    So according to the Think Tank Stratfor China is slowing down and so they have identified 16 nations that they believe will take China's place as fast growing up and coming economic powers. Below is a map showing the nations.

    Spoiler:
    Show


    So what do people think of these nations, will they become large economic powers? Will we see similar growth in these nations as we have in China?

    I stole the map from this article: The PC16: Identifying China's Successors You can read it for free but they want an email address :rolleyes: Only briefly read it so I can't comment too much on their speculation or rationale
    Most of this map is bs. Bangladesh won't even exist in a few years due to rising sea. Tanzania/Kenya are only rising due to tourism and that won't increase much. DR has more room for growth in tourism but will never be a super power. Tbh I can't remember the rest of the map


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    China's growth has been utterly dependent on the minority having lots and lots of money and the poor (mainly migrant workers) propping up the bottom with cheap wages. I don't see cheap wages going away until social disparity is narrowed. That's China's main problem that it needs to fight - social immobility - The problem when you compare to this country, is that the poor do not get the opportunity to lift themselves out of their situation - whereas, for the most part, people in countries such as UK and US are able to do so, regardless of their own social situation. Ironically even though China is a so called' communist' state, it is not very socialist in barely any aspects that can actively support the worst-off in society. The lack of a meaningful welfare system allows a lot of people with great potential to slip through the cracks and never fully achieve their potential as a human being. That's a huge factor. Then again, it's not as easy as that. The issue is never solely one of social and economic reform but something that has to come from the very basis of culture in China - that's something that is still highly influenced by events of 1949 and the subsequent years.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.