In the year 2050..... I will also experience intellectual deja vu

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Share

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Uri Dadush and Bennett Stacil have released The G20 in 2050, in which you learn the following:

China will become the world’s largest economy in 2032, and grow to be 20 percent larger than the United States by 2050. Over the next forty years, nearly 60 percent of G20 economic growth will come from Brazil, China, India, Russia, and Mexico alone. However, these emerging markets will not rise among the world’s richest countries in per capita terms: their average income in 2050 will still be 40 percent below that of the G7 states today. The end of the decades-old correlation between economic size and per capita income will have profound effects on global economic governance.

Hmmm.... yes, this sounds familiar:

  

Studies by Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank on growth trends for big developing economies contains some startling predictions. By 2010, the annual growth in aggregate demand from Brazil, Russia, India, and China will be greater than the combined growth of the United States, Japan, Germany, Italy, and Great Britain. By 2020, China and India are projected to have the second and third largest economies.  By 2025, the annual growth in aggregate demand from the four leading developing economies will be twice that of the G-7.  By 2030, the combined purchasing power of China's and India's consumers is projected to be five times that of today's United States.  While simple extrapolations from the recent past can be misleading, economic and demographic trends suggest that growth of India and China will shift what is currently a bipolar economic distribution of power into a more multipolar world.

As the number of actors increases, the likelihood of creating a concert of common preferences among them necessarily declines.  This holds with particular force if these countries achieve great power market size while still having low per capital incomes.  In addition to the current tension between the American and European varieties of capitalism, another source of preference divergence could emerge among the great powers:  the tension between rich countries willing to trade off economic growth for quality of life issues, and still-developing countries that are more reluctant to sacrifice growth.

The Carnegie report does have some nicer visuals, however.  Give it a look. 
 
Facebook|Twitter|Digg

BRETT

7:06 AM ET

November 20, 2009

As the number of actors

As the number of actors increases, the likelihood of creating a concert of common preferences among them necessarily declines.

Do we have a fan of Hegemonic Stability Theory in the house?

Seriously, though, you have a point. Why they wanted to go to the G20 other than image issues is beyond me - it would have been much wiser to split up into smaller groups dealing with particular issues.

 

CMSBELT

1:46 PM ET

November 20, 2009

déjà vu all over again...

And what is the track record of economic extrapolations such as these?

The claims for China (and India) are reminiscent of similar predictions from the 1980s that stated Japan would be the world's #1 economy by the 21st Century, and warned the US would be #2 or #3 if it failed to adopt Japanese-style governmental management of industry.

 

FP WONK STEVE

2:22 PM ET

November 20, 2009

I have heard similar predictions as well

@To CMSbelt

I agree. With predictions such as these, I would *almost* rather subscribe to a Game Theory Prediction.....

These predictions would have to automatically assume that China's monetary policies will change drastically enough for them to blow their economy up, without giving enough account or argument to give into account domestic Chinese politics.

Their style and political trends will be the determining factor, on whether or not they will achieve that level of economic growth.

Even when one sees "signs" of increasing "democratic or western style methods", they still struggle internally and will often at times retract what they recently allowed. For example Drezner a few weeks ago or so, was annoyed at how they are still pegging their currency to the dollar.

The population, while more restless than ever, is farrrr from revolutionary levels. Chinese find it impolite to criticize anything, especially govt. Most Westerners just don't understand the impact of how that culture has, impact wise, on Chinese politics, let alone foreign and economic policy.

 

GRANT

9:01 PM ET

November 20, 2009

I personally distrust these

I personally distrust these numbers simply because they look more too far into the future. Would people in 1900 predict that by 1920 U.S soldiers would have fought in a European war? Setting the Spanish-American war aside I seriously doubt it. In 1930 would people have believed that by 1950 the majority of Japan's military would be dissolved and they would be using an American-crafted constitution? Very doubtful to say the least. I would suggest that we put predictions set more than ten years ahead to the realm of science fiction, at least those people have a chance of getting it correct.

 

Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Read More

January/February 2010