It has been nine years since I coined the acronym “BRIC,” which has become synonymous with the rise of Brazil, Russia, India and China. It has been more than seven years since my colleagues at Goldman Sachs and I first published an outlook to 2050 in which we suggested that the four BRIC economies could emerge bigger than the G7 economies, and, together with the US, would constitute the world’s five largest.
It has also been more than five years since the expression “Next Eleven,” or “N-11,” first appeared. That term bracketed the next 11 largest countries by population, and sought to determine their BRIC-like potential.
These 15 countries drive most of the positive momentum behind the world economy nowadays. China has overtaken Japan as the world’s second-largest economy, with output roughly equal to that of the other three BRIC countries combined. Their aggregate GDP stands at about US$11 trillion, or about 80 percent of the US level.
Domestic demand in the BRIC countries is even more impressive. The collective dollar value of BRIC consumers is estimated conservatively at just over US$4 trillion, possibly US$4.5 trillion. The US consumer market is worth more than double that — about US$10.5 trillion — but BRIC consumer power is currently growing at an annual rate in dollar terms of about 15 percent, which means an annual rate of roughly US$600 billion.
If this pace is maintained, BRIC consumers will be adding another US$1 trillion to the global economy by the middle of this decade. By the end of the decade, they will be worth more than US consumers.
Indeed, at some point during this decade, the BRIC economies combined will become as big as the US economy, with China’s GDP alone reaching about two-thirds that of the US. The four countries will be responsible for at least one-half of real GDP growth in the world, and possibly as much as 70 percent.
Beyond the BRICs, among the likely top 10 contributors to global GDP growth this decade are South Korea, Mexico and Turkey. From the so-called developed world, only the US is guaranteed a place on this list — and the top 20 could include Iran, Nigeria, the Philippines and Vietnam.
So how should we now think about the term “emerging markets?”
A few weeks ago, I decided with my colleagues to pursue the term “growth economies,” which Goldman Sachs adopted last year to describe how we treat many of the world’s most dynamic markets. At its simplest, a growth economy should be regarded as one that is likely to experience rising productivity, which, together with favorable demographics, points to economic growth that outpaces the global average.
However, an economy also needs sufficient size and depth in order to allow investors not only to invest, but also to exit when appropriate. So we opted for the following: Any economy outside the so-called developed world that accounts for at least 1 percent of current global GDP should be defined as a growth economy.
At this size, currently about US$600 billion, an economy should be large enough to allow investors and businesses to operate as they do in advanced countries, yet also be likely to grow faster. All other economies should continue to be defined as emerging markets. According to this definition, eight countries currently qualify: the BRIC countries, along with South Korea, Indonesia, Mexico and Turkey, while others — including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria and the Philippines — could join the list in the next 20 years.
It is also time that investors started to benchmark their portfolios more appropriately. In the past few decades, it has become conventional for equity investors to base their decisions on neutral benchmarks determined by the market capitalization of companies and indices. However, this gives much more weight to the US economy and its companies relative to so-called emerging markets.
An alternative approach is to use a GDP-weighted benchmark. For bold and aggressive investors, a benchmark that incorporates future predicted GDP gives a lot more weight to emerging markets, especially to the growth economies.
The index that Goldman Sachs calculates every year for about 180 countries, called a Growth Environment Score (GES), is used to monitor productivity and the likelihood of sustainable growth. The index goes from 0 to 10, with 13 sub-indices for overall growth and productivity. Currently, for example, South Korea’s GES is 7.5, compared with 6.9 for the US.
Economies that remain small and have low GES scores are appropriately treated as emerging markets with lots of risk. While they may grow significantly and escape from their current situation, they are vulnerable to adverse developments in core developed countries — especially the US — and in these countries’ financial markets.
Countries with low GES scores need to undertake policies that allow them to rise.
For example, we forecast that within the next 20 years Nigeria, home to around 20 percent of Africa’s population, could account for 1 percent of global GDP. However, its current GES score of 3.9 is significantly below the BRIC and N-11 average. On the other hand, Nigeria’s economy has almost doubled in size over the last 13 years. If it maintains this progress, before 2030 it will no longer be an “emerging economy.”
That would be an exciting development for Nigeria — and for Africa. Even more exciting is the likelihood that Nigeria will not be alone in its graduation into a growth economy.
Jim O’Neill is chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management and a member of the board of the Bruegel think tank.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE/EUROPE’S WORLD
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Ursula K. le Guin in The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas proposed a thought experiment of a utopian city whose existence depended on one child held captive in a dungeon. When taken to extremes, Le Guin suggests, utilitarian logic violates some of our deepest moral intuitions. Even the greatest social goods — peace, harmony and prosperity — are not worth the sacrifice of an innocent person. Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), since leaving office, has lived an odyssey that has brought him to lows like Le Guin’s dungeon. From late 2008 to 2015 he was imprisoned, much of this