HSBC Global Jan11

Global Economics
January 2011
Karen Ward
Senior Global Economist
HSBC Bank plc
+44 20 7991 3692
karen.ward@hsbcib.com
Karen joined HSBC in 2006 as UK economist. In 2010 she was appointed Senior Global Economist with responsibility for monitoring
challenges facing the global economy and their implications for financial markets. Before joining HSBC in 2006 Karen worked at the
Bank of England where she provided supporting analysis for the Monetary Policy Committee. She has an MSc Economics from
The world in 2050
University College London.
Quantifying the shift in the global economy
With the rapid growth of the emerging markets, the global economy is experiencing a seismic
shift. In this piece, we argue that this shift is set to continue. By 2050, the collective size of the
economies we currently deem 'emerging' will have increased five-fold and will be larger than
the developed world. And 19 of the 30 largest economies will be from the emerging world.
At the same time, there will be a marked decline in the economic might – and potentially the
political clout – of many small population, ageing, rich economies in Europe.
By Karen Ward
Disclosures and Disclaimer This report must be read with the disclosures and analyst
certifications in the Disclosure appendix, and with the Disclaimer, which forms part of it
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
The world in 2050

 19 of the 30 largest economies will be emerging economies
 The emerging economies will collectively be bigger than the
developed economies
 Global growth will accelerate thanks to the contribution from the
emerging economies
With the rapid growth of the emerging markets, the global economy is experiencing a seismic shift. But why is
this change occurring? Will it continue? And how will the world look if it does? The answers to these
questions are important for investors' decisions today.
In this piece, we provide a framework for thinking about these issues. Based on our analysis of the Top 30
economies ranked by size of GDP in 2050, our conclusions are as follows:
 World output will treble, as growth accelerates on the back of the emerging economies. On average,
annual world growth is projected to be accelerate towards 3% compared with growth of just over 2%
in the 2000s (Chart 1). Emerging-world growth will contribute twice as much as the developed world
to global growth over this period.
 By 2050, the emerging world will have increased five-fold and will be larger than the developed
world (Chart 2).
 19 of the top 30 economies by GDP will be countries that we currently describe as ‘emerging’ (Table 3).
 China and India will be the largest and third-largest economies in the world, respectively.
 Substantial progress up the global league table will be made by a host of other emerging economies –
most notably, Mexico, Turkey, Indonesia, Egypt, Malaysia, Thailand, Colombia and Venezuela.
 These projections combine prospects for per capita GDP and the demographic outlook. Income per
capita should grow in all the countries that we consider. But demographic patterns vary significantly
across the world and have a major influence on growth prospects.
 The US and UK, with better demographic outlooks, are relatively successful at maintaining their positions.
 But the small-population, ageing, rich economies in Europe are the big losers. Switzerland and the
Netherlands slip down the grid significantly, and Sweden, Belgium, Austria, Norway and Denmark
drop out of our Top 30 altogether.
1
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
 This may have implications for the ability of these economies to influence the global policy agenda.
Already Europe has been forced to concede two seats on the IMF’s executive board in order to make
way for some emerging economies. This adds a whole new dimension to the current Eurozone crisis,
and provides a significant incentive to euro-area countries to work through their current difficulties
and remain a union.
 Demographic change is even more dramatic outside of Europe. The working population will rise by
73% in Saudi Arabia and fall by 37% in Japan. That is reflected in these countries' differing fortunes
in our top 30 table (Chart 4).
 By 2050, the seismic shift in the global economy will have only just begun. Despite a seven-fold
increase (Chart 5), income per capita in China will still be only 32% of that in the US and scope for
further growth will be substantial. This ‘base effect’ must be considered when comparing current
growth in the emerging world with that of the developed world.
 Energy availability need not hinder this path of global development so long as there is major
investment in efficiency and low-carbon alternatives. Meeting food demand may prove more of a
challenge, but improvements in yield and diet could fill the gap. In the final section, we discuss our
preliminary thoughts on this topic.
1. Growth in the emerging markets will boost global growth
% Contributions to global growth %

4.0 4.0
3.0 3.0
2.0 2.0
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 2020s 2030s 2040s
Dev eloped Markets Emerging markets Global
Source: HSBC Calculations
2
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
Visual Summary
2. EM will be bigger than DM by 2050
Constant 2000 USD, Tn EM vs DM in 2050 Constant 2000 USD, Tn

60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
2010 2050
Dev eloped Markets Emerging Markets
3. The top 30 in 2050

Size of economy in Rank change Income per capita
Order in 2050 2050 (Bn, Constant between now ____ (Constant 2000 USD) _____ Population
by size 2000 USD) and 2050 2050 2010 (Mn)
1 China 24617 2 17372 2396 1417
2 US 22270 -1 55134 36354 404
3 India 8165 5 5060 790 1614
4 Japan 6429 -2 63244 39435 102
5 Germany 3714 -1 52683 25083 71
6 UK 3576 -1 49412 27646 72
7 Brazil 2960 2 13547 4711 219
8 Mexico 2810 5 21793 6217 129
9 France 2750 -3 40643 23881 68
10 Canada 2287 0 51485 26335 44
11 Italy 2194 -4 38445 18703 57
12 Turkey 2149 6 22063 5088 97
13 S. Korea 2056 -2 46657 16463 44
14 Spain 1954 -2 38111 15699 51
15 Russia 1878 2 16174 2934 116
16 Indonesia 1502 5 5215 1178 288
17 Australia 1480 -3 51523 26244 29
18 Argentina 1477 -2 29001 10517 51
19 Egypt 1165 16 8996 3002 130
20 Malaysia 1160 17 29247 5224 40
21 Saudi Arabia 1128 2 25845 9833 44
22 Thailand 856 7 11674 2744 73
23 Netherlands 798 -8 45839 26376 17
24 Poland 786 0 24547 6563 32
25 Iran 732 9 7547 2138 97
26 Colombia 725 13 11530 3052 63
27 Switzerland 711 -7 83559 38739 9
28 Hong Kong 657 -3 76153 35203 9
29 Venezuela 558 7 13268 5438 42
30 South Africa 529 -2 9308 3710 57
3
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
4. The outlook for working population is vastly different across economies

Saudi
Egy pt
Israel
Venezuela
Malay sia
India
Colombia
Argentina
Turkey
Ireland
Australia
Indonesia
South
US
Iran
Canada
Norw ay
Mex ico
UK
Brazil
Sw eden
Sw itzerland
France
Thailand
Belgium
Denmark
Netherland
Hong Kong
Finland
China
Spain
Austria
Singapore
Greece
Italy
Germany
Russia
S. Korea
Poland
Japan
-40 -15 10 35 60
% change in w orking population betw een 2010 and 2050
Source: UN projections, HSBC calculations
5. The rise in income per capita in the emerging world will dwarf that of the US in the coming years
% %
Grow th in income per capita 2010 - 2050
900 900
800 800
700 700
600 600
500 500
400 400
300 300
200 200
100 100
0 0
na
dia
ela
ea
n
il
US
ina
bia
ng
t
a
sia
bia
ia
ic o
s ia
y
yp
az
I ra
ric
lan
an
rke
nti
ss
or
Ko
In
zu
ne
Ch
ra
Eg
lom
ex
lay
Br
Af
ail
Po
hK
Ru
Tu
ge
iA
ne
do
ng
Th
Ma
uth
Co
Ar
ut
ud
Ve
In
Ho
So
So
Sa
4
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
Why do economies grow?

 The emerging markets are at a very early stage of development
 Global growth will now be powered by the emerging economies
What spurs growth? improve living standards through much of the 20th
century (Table 6).
We are moving into a world where global growth
will be powered by emerging economies, rather As we look into the future, we need to work out how
than held back by them. The question is why so much of this is due to improvements in the
many of the emerging markets are now managing foundations of economic growth, to establish
to ‘catch up’ having failed so miserably to whether the recent growth spurt can be sustained.
6. What is driving these growth spurts

Annual average growth in GDP per capita 1913-50 1950-73 1973-98
World 0.9 2.9 1.3
United States 1.6 2.5 2.0

Western Europe 0.8 4.1 1.8
Japan 0.9 8.1 2.3
Total Asia ex Japan 0.0 2.9 3.5

China -0.6 2.9 5.4
Hong Kong n/a 5.2 4.3
Malaysia 1.5 2.2 4.2
Singapore 1.5 4.4 5.5
South Korea -0.4 5.8 6.0
Taiwan 0.6 6.7 5.3
Thailand -0.1 3.7 4.9
India -0.2 1.4 2.9
Indonesia -0.2 2.6 2.9
Latin America 1.4 2.5 1.0

Argentina 0.7 2.1 0.6
Brazil 2.0 3.7 1.4
Chile 1.0 1.3 2.6
Colombia 1.5 2.1 1.7
Mexico 0.9 3.2 1.3
Peru 2.1 2.5 -0.3
Uruguay 0.9 0.3 2.1
Venezuela 5.3 1.6 -0.7
Eastern Europe 0.9 3.8 0.4

Former USSR 1.8 3.4 -1.8
Africa 1.0 2.1 0.0

Egypt -0.1 1.5 3.0
South Africa 1.3 2.2 -0.3
Morocco 1.6 0.7 1.9
Ghana 1.1 1.0 -0.5
Source: Maddison, The World Economy, OECD Development Centre Studies
5
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
To get to projections for total GDP, we start by Economic governance

modelling income per capita and then incorporate The first set of variables are rule of law, monetary
the demographic outlook. stability, democracy and government interference,
Our estimations of per capita income are based proxied by government spending. All try to
heavily on the work of Harvard’s Robert Barro1. The capture sound economic governance.
keys determinants of economic development are This is clearly one area where there has been
split into three groups (full details can be found in significant change in the past couple of decades and
Appendix 1): which plays a major role in the recent progress
1 Economic governance: the degree of from a number of these emerging economies.
monetary stability, political rights and the Most obviously there have been some significant
level of democracy, the rule of law, the size regime changes around the world. Communism in
of government (with large government large swathes of the world, including the Soviet
restricting activity). Union and Mao’s China, effectively divided the
2 Human capital: the level of education, economic world and closed these systems off to
health of the population and fertility rate. both trade and the technological progress in the
West. How can you ‘copy and paste’ the
3 The starting level of income per capita. technologies of the world’s best economic
Before we go into these variables in more detail, performers if you can’t see what they are doing?
it’s worth pointing out that we don’t include These command economies often failed to
variables such as savings or investment rates. The allocate their domestic resources efficiently,
reason is that these should be endogenous to the suffering from low productivity and a lack of
system. We are looking to identify the exogenous, technological advance.
structural factors that would mean people want to
invest. This should provide us with a more As a result, through the 1950s, ‘60s and early
rigorous framework for considering how ‘70s, given income per capita was coming from
economies have changed and whether growth can such a low base, we should have seen income per
be sustained. In our view, this is a key reason why capita growth far outstrip that of Western Europe
our study differs from some previous studies or the US. Russia’s performance in the ‘50s and
which try to extrapolate how the inputs will grow, ‘60s was reasonable but wasn’t sustained (Table
often using current investment rates. These will 6). Of course, the threat of war also played a key
tend to overstate growth. role in how resources were allocated. In the
1970s, military and space spending consumed
15% of GDP in the Soviet Union, three times that
in the US and five times that in Europe.
These ‘iron curtains’ have now been drawn back,

opening these economies up to trade, and the
technology available in developed nations.
India's relative underperformance over the same

period also stemmed from significant government
1 control and an inability to efficiently allocate
Determinants of Economic Growth: A cross-country
empirical study, Robert J Barro
6
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
resources, partly by shielding domestic business Latin America, by contrast, had made itself
from foreign competition following Indian considerably more open to the competition, trade
independence. Through much of the ‘70s and and capital offered by the global economy but
‘80s, the government dominated industrial activity found itself plagued through the 1970s and ‘80s
by controlling both the licensing to trade or by a lack of monetary control, giving rise to
import and the loanable funds available for such frequent inflationary outbursts and debt crises
activity (and this allocation was often riddled with (Chart 7). An improvement in governance has
corruption). Time and again, this led to production played a key role in turning economic fortunes in
shortages and balance of payments crises. In the parts of LATAM. This had led to other supply-
early 1990s, India made significant strides in side improvements that tend to follow a period of
correcting at least some of these supply-side low and stable inflation.
issues. Industrial licensing was largely removed
Behind all these individual country stories between
and import restrictions were pared back on capital
the ‘70s and ‘90s, there was a major rethink of how
and industrial inputs. While there are still certain
best to run economies to aid economic
problems in government administration, the
development. The traditional thinking had been that
Indian economy has again been opened up to the
state control and economic planning, public
demand and technological know-how of the more
investment and protection from the volatility of the
developed economies.
world market was the best recipe for promoting
7. A lack of monetary discipline has plagued LATAM’s history economic development. Self-sufficiency was the
% Yr Inflation % Yr goal, so foreign trade was seen as a hindrance and
1000 3200 therefore a tax opportunity.
2800
800 2400 From the late 1970s, a stream of work from the
600 2000
1600 NBER, World Bank and IMF started to challenge
400 1200
800
this form of governance. They began advocating
200
400 market-friendly and open-border policies to promote
0 0
economic development. This work culminated in the
1961 1967 1973 1979 1985 1991 1997 2003 2009
Chile (LHS) Argentina (RHS)
publication of what was termed by some as the
Brazil (RHS) ‘Miracle Book’ by the World Bank in 19932.
Source: World Bank
2
The East Asian Miracle: economic growth and public policy,
World Bank, Oxford University Press, 1993
7
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
How does democracy fit into the story of success Barro’s work actually showed that too much
through liberalisation? It is generally assumed that democracy wasn’t necessarily a good thing for
democratic systems will be most successful in economic growth (of course it may be the best
achieving growth because the population will want model for social development). He found that at very
the highest standard of living possible and so will high levels of democracy, income redistribution
vote for governments offering policies most capable becomes a dominant force, which serves to restrain
of delivering growth. It’s certainly true that the most entrepreneurial endeavours. And democracy places a
democratic systems have delivered the best disproportionate weight on winning current votes,
investment prospects as characterised by the rule of potentially at the expense of future votes, and
law index (Chart 8). therefore can hinder the investment required for
long-term development.
But there are authoritarian regimes that have still
delivered a good ‘rule of law’, China and Singapore Overall, authoritarian regimes can deliver economic
being the clearest examples. And in parts of Latin success if the system manages to set in place the
America, democracy has done little to raise their incentives that a market-based system naturally
score for rule of law. delivers, namely competition and a motivation to
drive efficiency.
8. Some authoritarian regimes have been more successful at delivering good investment conditions than more liberal systems
1.2
Ireland+Netherlands+Swed
1.0 en+Denmark+A ustria+No r
way+Finland
A ustralia+UK+
Canada
Germany+US+Japan+Fran
China +
Singapore S. Korea ce+Spain+Switzerland+B e l
0.8 Saudi A rabia
gium
Turkey Greece+P o land
Rule of Law Index
Iran + Russia India + M alaysia Italy+Israel
0.6
Egypt
Indonesia
Thailand Ho ng Kong So uth A frica + A rgentina

0.4
Co lo mbia
M exico + B razil
0.2
Venezuela
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Democracy Index
Source: Political Risk Services International Country Risk Guide & Freedom House political rights index
8
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
9. China’s state-owned enterprises are in decline And China has clearly opened itself up to foreign
% of total urban employ ment in state-ow ned enterprises direct investment and global trade, and in 2001
100 100 joined the World Trade Organisation. Such
engagement with the developed world allows it to
80 80
mimic and develop the technologies of the West.
60 60
40 40 There are still challenges to overcome which have
20 20 the potential to raise China’s growth rate further.
In particular, fuzziness of certain ownership
0 0
arrangements, especially in the regional enterprise
60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 00 04 08
sector, and a lack of legal infrastructure will all
Source: CEIC constrain China’s potential. Moreover, the state-
controlled banking system is the only official
There are a number of examples of how this has game in town for borrowers and savers.
been achieved in China (for further details see Inside Liberalisation of the financial sector will better
the growth engine (Zhang Zhiming, December 8, align borrowers and savers and should lead to a
2010). De-centralising and privatising production to more efficient allocation of capital.
the regional level and running down the old state-
owned industry model (Chart 9) has led to ‘industry But it’s worth remembering that during the 1970s
rivalry’ between the regions delivering competition Japan was criticised using many of the arguments
and incentives for the state governments. that now face China. The Japanese catch-up effort
was bolstered significantly by government policy.
Another example in China is the ‘household Large corporate groups (keiretsu) and banks had
responsibility system’ whereby land was leased to close ties, and the Ministry of Trade and industry
rural households with set taxes and rents. provided administered guidance to firms and
Households had every incentive to improve banks which influenced what were deemed ‘key
productivity because they then reaped the rewards. industries’. Indeed, the criticisms were such a
hindrance to Japan’s global economic reputation
that it made a significant donation to the World
Bank for it to complete the ‘Miracle Book’ to
examine the issue.
9
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
Human capital 10. The more educated a nation, the more likely an economy
will be able to catch up and innovate
The next set of variables in the model focus on the Norw ay
productivity of the worker – the level of education US
Australia
being the most significant (Chart 10). It’s all very
S. Korea
well having the latest technology, but if a Germany
workforce hasn’t been sufficiently trained it won’t Ireland
Japan
be able to use it. And once ‘copy and paste’
Sw eden
growth is complete, it seems likely the most Canada
educated workforce will be the one able to Hong Kong
Netherland
innovate and drive technological progress. Israel
Greece
Another important determinant of the productivity Belgium
of the workforce is health, which Barro proxies France
Spain
with life expectancy. If you expect to live, and Saudi
therefore work, for a long time, it will be worth Malay sia
while investing years getting yourself educated. Of Denmark
Finland
course, on the other end of the spectrum, a Iran
population that lives a long time but spends a large Sw itzerland
Poland
period of time in retirement could place a burden
China
on the working population. But we should capture Russia
this in our model due to the high levels of UK
Austria
government spending required to support an ageing Italy
population. Growth will therefore be constrained in Argentina
Mex ico
countries with a high dependency ratio.
South
Singapore
Barro also takes into account the level of fertility. Colombia
A higher fertility rate means investment goods are Brazil
spread more thinly, and with more productive Thailand
Egy pt
capacity devoted to child rearing, it reduces Venezuela
output per capita. Of course, when we consider Turkey
India
total growth, high-fertility economies will get a
Indonesia
boost for this reason.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
The role of mortality, fertility and life expectancy Average years of male schooling
is explored in some detail in the chapter entitled
‘Running out of workers’ in Stephen King’s book Source: Barro-Lee
Losing Control (Yale University Press, 2010).
10
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
The starting level of income per 11. The Tigers’ pounce
capita % Per capita income relativ e to US %

140 140
The model then includes the current level of GDP on 120 120
the basis that if a country has the right economic 100 100
infrastructure, growth in low-income economies will 80 80
60 60
be amplified in the short run as additional investment
40 40
produces high returns. These fade when the law of 20 20
diminishing returns kicks in. 0 0
1960 1966 1972 1978 1984 1990 1996 2002 2008
To illustrate this ‘law’, take the example of a South Korea Japan
Hong Kong Singapore
roadsweeper. With no equipment at all, it takes
Source: World Bank, HSBC Calculations
this roadsweeper a long time to clear one street by
collecting the litter by hand. Now supply him with
But extrapolating the rates of growth in
a broom, and he will be able to clean many more
investment spending into the future, as many did,
streets than before. His productivity – output per
suggested that Japanese income per capita would
worker – in this case measured in clean streets,
continually outpace that of the US. This wasn’t
will have risen dramatically.
the case; investment spending slowed and any
Now supply him with two brooms and there is a growth that has been achieved over the last two
possibility he can clean streets a little faster, but decades has only been achieved by technological
the gain in productivity is unlikely to be anywhere progress (Chart 12).
near as great as that seen with the first broom.
12. Japan’s experience highlights the diminishing
This is what we know as the law of diminishing contribution to growth by labour and capital
marginal returns. Incremental capital additions % Japan %
generate smaller output gains as the level of the 12 12
capital stock increases and at some point further 10 10
investment is pointless. There is no point having 8 8
6 6
three brooms when you only have two arms. 4 4
2 2
Because of diminishing returns one can’t simply 0 0
extrapolate current growth or investment rates. -2 -2
Just consider the mistakes made with forecasts for 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s
Japan in the early 1960s. An explosion in C apital Labour T echnological progress
investment fuelled extremely high rates of growth Source: Technological progress is calculated as the residual using the cobb-douglas
production function
and income per capita rose from just 50% of the
level seen in the US in 1960 to being equal to the
The same is true of the growth seen in some of the
levels of income by the early 1970s (Chart 11).
other Asian tigers – as income per capita rose,
growth has slowed (Charts 13-15).
11
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
13. Growth rates slow as economies develop as seen in Japan… 16. A whole new bunch of economies are improving their
relative standard of living
J apan % Per capita income relativ e to US %

15
10 10
Real GDP Growth
10 8 8
5 6 6
4 4
0
2 2
-5
0 0
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
1960 1966 1972 1978 1984 1990 1996 2002 2008
Real GDP per capita Indonesia Brazil China India
Source: World Bank, HSBC Calculations Source: World Bank and HSBC calculations
14. …South Korea… Of course, many of the new economies are so far
South Korea from reaching developed status that these
15
constraints will not kick in for some time. Just look
10
Real GDP Growth
at the axis on Chart 16. Despite rapid growth,

5
income per capita in China, in constant dollar terms,
0
is currently just 6% of that seen in the US. In India,
-5 income per capita is just 2% of that in the US.
-10
The fact that these economies have a long way to go
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
in their development is also clear when we look at
Real GDP per capita
the sectoral breakdown. As economies develop, they
Source: World Bank, HSBC Calculations become more efficient at producing basic goods. So
once you’ve got a tractor it’s much easier to produce
15. …and Taiwan
the food you need and you can concentrate your
Taiw an resources in producing other goods and services.
20
This is what we tend to call moving up the value-
Real GDP Growth
15
added chain (Chart 18).
10
5
0
-5
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Real GDP per capita
Source: World Bank, HSBC Calculations
12
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
17. The fastest growing economies are still very early in their stage of development
Agricultural output as % of GDP

20% 20%
15% 15%
10% 10%
5% 5%
0% 0%
India
Indonesia
Russ ia
Australia
Italy
Netherlands
US
UK
China
Poland
Spain
S. Korea
Canada
France
Japan
Switzerland
Brazil
Mexico
Turkey
Germany
Source: World Bank, HSBC
18. The more capital you acquire the less you need to devote 19. 40% of China’s workforce is still working in primary industry
to agricultural production
GDP per capita % Share of employ ment w ithin primary industry %

50000 80 80
40000 60 60
30000 40 40
20000 20 20
10000
0 0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
0.0% 5.0% 10.0 % 15.0% 20.0% Real GDP per capita, chained 1990 USD'000s
% GDP from ag riculture US Japan C hina
Source: World Bank, HSBC Source: IMF and HSBC calculations
As such, the expansion into other industries means In China, 12% of output is still agricultural
that in the G7 on average, agricultural production is production (Chart 17) but perhaps more strikingly,
now less than 3% of all goods produced. it requires 40% of its working population to
deliver this (Chart 19). This highlights how the
automation of food production and the ability of
workers to move towards other forms of
production – the ‘urbanisation’ of the workforce –
still has a long way to go.
The employment statistics are less reliable for

other economies. But given around 18% of output
in India is still agricultural, a similar story will
hold. There are still a lot more resources to be put
towards more productive use (Chart 17).
13
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
The model economy So we then consider a second scenario, in which

we assume that over the next 40 years, all
To test the reliability of the model, we started by
economies reach the ‘optimal’ economic
taking the economic infrastructure in 2000 and
infrastructure. This is the highest possible level of
creating projections for 2000-2010 and were
achievement from any of the countries in our
satisfied with the results. Further details of the model
sample. For example, everyone brings education
and all the results are discussed in Appendix 1.
standards up to that of the best in class (Norway),
To simplify the analysis, we are working in everyone improves rule of law to the highest
constant 2000 US dollar terms. Further possible score of 1, etc.
appreciation of emerging-market currencies
The results of these two scenarios are shown in
against the dollar will extend the conclusions of
the appendix. Our base case scenario sits between
this report. We consider the top 40 so that we can
these two options. Essentially, each country gets
see who is coming up the chart to enter the top 30,
half way there in improving its imperfections.
but it is perfectly feasible that some economies
There are many reasons that such a rosy outlook
outside of the top 40 might demonstrate such
will not pan out, which we discuss in the final
impressive growth that they leapfrog many places
section, but for now we assume government will
to reach the Top 30. Our economics team in Asia
continue to progress rather than regress in their
believe the Philippines may be one such example.
economic policies.
We had to draw the line somewhere, but this is an
important caveat to our final list. And of course the economic infrastructure could
develop even more quickly than forecast. Turkey
To get to our base case projections, we considered
is one example. Following the worst financial
two scenarios. The first assumes that the
crisis in Turkey's history in 2001, the ruling
‘economic infrastructure’ is fixed at that evident
administration embarked on an impressive
today. But to constrain these economies to not
political, constitutional and economic reform
making any improvements would be unfair. For
agenda, which was eventually rewarded with the
example, there is a clear trend that education
formal launch of accession negotiations with the
standards are improving (Chart 20).
European Union in 2006. We expect this
20. EM is making progress in improving its economic improving domestic political stability to be
infrastructure, enhancing its long-run potential
acknowledged by an "investment grade" status for
Number of School Years
15 15 Turkey in 2011. For this reason, we have raised
Turkey’s democracy rating to equal that of
10 10
Malaysia (an index level of 0.5).
5 5
0 0
75 80 85 90 95 00 05 10
Russia C hina Brazil

India US
Source: www.BarroLee.com
14
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
21. Defining the 'economic infrastructure'

Income per capita Average years of Life Fertility Rule of Government Democracy Inflation
(Constant 2000 USD) male schooling expectancy Law consumption (% GDP) Index Rate (%)
Australia 26243 (16) 12.1 (3) 81 (6) 1.9 (16) 0.92 (8) 16.9 (22) 1.0 (1) 2.83 (19)
Austria 26455 (13) 9.53 (27) 80 (12) 1.4 (34) 1.0 (1) 18.2 (17) 1.0 (1) 1.96 (32)
Belgium 24758 (18) 10.5 (14) 80 (15) 1.8 (23) 0.83 (11) 23.1 (6) 1.0 (1) 2.08 (30)
Canada 26335 (15) 11.3 (9) 80 (10) 1.6 (28) 0.91 (10) 19.3 (13) 1.0 (1) 1.60 (36)
Denmark 31418 (9) 10.0 (19) 78 (21) 1.8 (20) 1.0 (1) 26.5 (1) 1.0 (1) 2.14 (28)
Finland 27150 (12) 9.97 (20) 79 (20) 1.8 (22) 1.0 (1) 22.3 (7) 1.0 (1) 2.19 (26)
France 23881 (19) 10.5 (15) 81 (5) 1.9 (15) 0.83 (11) 23.1 (5) 1.0 (1) 1.46 (38)
Germany 25082 (17) 11.8 (5) 80 (16) 1.3 (36) 0.83 (11) 18.0 (18) 1.0 (1) 1.74 (35)
Greece 14382 (23) 10.6 (13) 79 (17) 1.5 (29) 0.75 (22) 17.0 (20) 1.0 (1) 2.75 (20)
Ireland 27964 (10) 11.6 (6) 78 (22) 2.1 (13) 1.0 (1) 15.9 (25) 1.0 (1) 1.48 (37)
Italy 18702 (20) 9.50 (28) 81 (4) 1.4 (33) 0.66 (29) 20.2 (9) 1.0 (1) 1.98 (31)
Japan 39434 (3) 11.5 (7) 82 (1) 1.3 (37) 0.83 (11) 17.9 (19) 1.0 (1) 0.02 (40)
Netherlands 26375 (14) 11.0 (12) 80 (14) 1.7 (26) 1.0 (1) 25.0 (3) 1.0 (1) 1.76 (34)
Norway 40933 (2) 12.2 (1) 80 (12) 1.9 (17) 1.0 (1) 19.2 (14) 1.0 (1) 2.22 (25)
Spain 15698 (22) 10.3 (16) 81 (8) 1.4 (32) 0.83 (11) 19.2 (15) 1.0 (1) 2.15 (27)
Sweden 31777 (8) 11.5 (8) 81 (7) 1.9 (19) 1.0 (1) 25.9 (2) 1.0 (1) 1.79 (33)
Switzerland 38738 (4) 9.87 (22) 82 (3) 1.4 (31) 0.83 (11) 10.5 (37) 1.0 (1) 0.89 (39)
UK 27646 (11) 9.59 (26) 79 (18) 1.9 (18) 0.92 (8) 21.7 (8) 1.0 (1) 2.57 (22)
US 36354 (6) 12.2 (2) 78 (22) 2.1 (13) 0.83 (11) 15.8 (26) 1.0 (1) 2.11 (29)
Developed 27860 10.86 80 1.7 0.9 19.8 1.0 1.9
Egypt 3002. (34) 8.76 (31) 70 (36) 2.8 (3) 0.58 (31) 20.0* (36) 0.17 (34) 13 (3)
Iran 2138 (38) 9.92 (21) 71 (34) 1.8 (25) 0.67 (25) 11.1 (35) 0.17 (34) 18.7 (2)
Israel 37005 (5) 11.3 (10) 81 (9) 2.9 (2) 0.67 (25) 24.2 (4) 1.0 (1) 3.23 (17)
Poland 6562. (26) 9.87 (23) 75 (24) 1.3 (35) 0.75 (22) 19.4 (12) 1.0 (1) 3.55 (14)
Russia 2934 (35) 9.68 (25) 67 (38) 1.4 (30) 0.67 (25) 16.9 (21) 0.17 (34) 11.5 (4)
Saudi Arabia 9832 (25) 10.3 (17) 73 (29) 3.1 (1) 0.83 (11) 19.6 (10) 0 (38) 6.36 (10)
South Africa 3710 (31) 8.55 (32) 51 (40) 2.5 (7) 0.41 (35) 19.1 (16) 0.83 (22) 8.58 (5)
Turkey 5087 (29) 7.01 (38) 71 (33) 2.1 (12) 0.75 (22) 12.8 (30) 0.5 (31) 8.48 (7)
CEEMEA 8784 9.43 70 2.3 0.7 16.8 0.5 9.2
China 2396 (37) 9.80 (24) 73 (28) 1.7 (27) 0.83 (19) 12.9 (29) 0 (38) 3.30 (16)
Hong Kong 35202 (7) 11.0 (11) 82 (1) 1.0 (40) 0.42 (33) 8.32 (40) 0.33 (31) 2.27 (24)
India 790 (40) 6.65 (39) 63 (39) 2.7 (4) 0.67 (25) 11.7 (33) 0.5 (28) 8.53 (6)
Indonesia 1178 (39) 6.24 (40) 70 (35) 2.1 (11) 0.5 (32) 8.41 (39) 0 (38) 7.00 (9)
Malaysia 5223 (28) 10.1 (18) 74 (25) 2.5 (5) 0.66 (29) 12.2 (32) 0.5 (28) 2.68 (21)
S. Korea 16462 (21) 11.8 (4) 79 (19) 1.1 (39) 0.83 (19) 15.2 (27) 0.83 (22) 3.34 (15)
Singapore 45957 (1) 9.1 (30) 80 (11) 1.2 (38) 0.83 (19) 10.0 (38) 0.33 (31) 3 (18)
Thailand 2743 (36) 7.49 (36) 68 (37) 1.8 (24) 0.42 (33) 12.4 (31) 0.17 (34) 2.28 (23)
Asia 13744 9.05 74 1.8 0.6 11.4 0.3 4.1
Argentina 10516 (24) 9.34 (29) 73 (26) 2.2 (10) 0.41 (35) 13.4 (28) 0.83 (22) 7.89 (8)
Brazil 4710 (30) 7.63 (35) 72 (32) 1.8 (21) 0.33 (37) 19.4 (11) 0.83 (22) 4.72 (13)
Colombia 3051 (32) 7.69 (33) 72 (30) 2.4 (8) 0.33 (37) 16.3 (23) 0.67 (26) 5.58 (11)
Colombia 3051 (32) 7.69 (33) 72 (30) 2.4 (8) 0.33 (37) 16.3 (23) 0.67 (26) 5.58 (11)
Venezuela 5437 (27) 7.02 (37) 73 (27) 2.5 (6) 0.16 (40) 11.5 (34) 0.5 (28) 26.2 (1)
LATAM 5354 7.88 73 2.3 0.3 15.4 0.7 10.0
Overall 18002 9.79 76.1 1.9 0.7 16.9 0.7 4.9
Note: *We were unable to reconcile the World Bank data on Egyptian government consumption and thus replaced it with the national source. **We have altered the level of democracy based on our judgment about recent improvements
(see text). The 2009 Gastil estimate is 0.33. Source: See table below.
Data description
Variable Description Source
Average years of male schooling The average number of years spent in education by males in 2010 www.barrolee.com
Life expectancy The life expectancy of total population in 2008; natural log taken. World Bank
Fertility The number of births per woman in 2008; natural log taken World Bank
Rule of law An index between 0 and 1 which measures the attractiveness of the investment climate based Political Risk Services International
on the level of law enforcement, contract sanctity and property rights. Data for 2009 Country Risk Guide
Government consumption Percentage of GDP accounted for by government consumption in 2008. World Bank
Democracy index An indicator of political rights, originally compiled by Gastil from 1972-1994. It measures the Freedom House political rights index
right of all adults to vote and compete for public office and to have a decisive vote on public
policies. Measured between 0 and 1, where 1 represents a full democracy.
Inflation rate CPI Inflation (% year);average 2004-2007. World Bank
Source: HSBC
15
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
Table 23 using, the inputs in Table 21, show the 23. The model's per capita growth projections
model’s base scenario projections for per capita ___ Average annual per capita growth in 2000USD
2010-20 2020-30 2030-40 2040-50
growth.
US 0.6% 1.1% 1.5% 1.8%
There is a relatively narrow range for income per Japan 1.3% 1.6% 1.9% 2.0%
China 6.5% 5.7% 5.1% 4.6%
capita growth in the developed world, which range Germany 2.1% 2.2% 2.3% 2.4%
UK 1.4% 1.6% 1.8% 2.0%
from 0.5% in Sweden and Norway (although not France 1.2% 1.5% 1.8% 2.1%
capturing natural resources, Norway’s full potential Italy 1.6% 2.4% 2.5% 2.7%
India 4.0% 4.5% 4.8% 5.1%
may be underestimated) to 2.6% in Switzerland. Brazil 2.2% 2.7% 3.1% 3.5%
Canada 1.9% 2.1% 2.2% 2.3%
The differences can largely be accounted for by S. Korea 3.7% 3.4% 3.1% 3.0%
Spain 2.4% 3.1% 3.0% 2.9%
variations in schooling and size of government, Mexico 2.1% 3.9% 3.7% 3.6%
Australia 1.8% 2.0% 2.1% 2.2%
which acts as a drag on real activity. If a country is Netherlands 1.3% 1.6% 1.9% 2.1%
already rich for its given infrastructure (such as the Argentina 2.4% 2.6% 2.7% 2.8%
Russia 5.1% 4.8% 4.6% 4.4%
US), this will constrain further growth. So growth in Turkey 4.0% 3.9% 3.8% 3.7%
Sweden 0.5% 1.1% 1.6% 1.9%
per capita income in the US is lower than other Switzerland 2.6% 2.4% 2.2% 2.1%
developed-world economies. The model is Indonesia 3.0% 3.7% 4.2% 4.7%
Belgium 1.2% 1.5% 1.9% 2.1%
essentially saying that its education and other Saudi Arabia 2.0% 2.2% 2.4% 2.6%
Poland 4.0% 3.9% 3.8% 3.7%
infrastructure variables barely justify the level of Hong Kong 3.0% 2.7% 2.6% 2.5%
income per capita, so future growth is constrained. Austria 2.7% 2.6% 2.5% 2.4%
Norway 0.5% 1.1% 1.5% 1.7%
22. Western government’s have become bloated in recent
South Africa 1.1% 1.9% 2.6% 3.3%
decades Thailand 3.7% 4.0% 4.1% 4.2%
Denmark 0.6% 1.1% 1.5% 1.8%
Change in gov ernment ex penditure as a % of GDP Israel -1.3% 0.3% 1.0% 1.6%
Singapore 3.6% 3.2% 2.7% 2.3%
% points 1970 - 2007 % points
Greece 3.1% 3.0% 2.9% 2.9%
10 10 Iran 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5%
8 8
Egypt 2.8% 4.0% 4.2% 4.3%
6 6
4 4 Venezuela 1.4% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0%
2 2 Malaysia 5.4% 4.6% 4.1% 3.6%
0 0 Finland 1.6% 1.8% 1.9% 2.1%
-2 -2 Colombia 3.0% 3.3% 3.6% 3.8%
-4 -4 Ireland 1.9% 2.0% 2.0% 2.1%
Source: Barro and HSBC
the ark
Ca S
Au U K
ain
a
Fr s
Ge da
De ly
ce
y
nd
ali
U
an
I ta
na
an
Sp
N e nm
rla
s tr
rm
Non-Japan Asia produces a diversified crop. We

Source: World Bank, HSBC calculations
split these into three broad groups, the ‘good
infrastructure poor’, the ‘good infrastructure rich’
But on our assumptions, it is not just the and the ‘poor infrastructure poor’. The ‘good
developing world that is sorting its policy infrastructure poor’ group contains China and
imperfections. The developed world also improves Malaysia. These economies all have good
its economic foundations in part by reversing some foundations in that the education levels are
of the rise in government spending seen over the reasonably high, they have a good rule of law and
previous four decades in many of the Western monetary stability and relatively low fertility rates.
economies (Chart 22), although we accept that These economies are therefore expected to converge
ageing populations will make this a challenge. relatively quickly.
This explains why growth in the developed world
The ‘good infrastructure rich’ includes Hong
accelerates through the forecast horizon.
Kong and Singapore and to a lesser extent South
16
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
Korea. These economies already have high has seen the majority of Mexican exports travel to
income per capita relative to the rest of the region. the US. As such, Mexican growth is extremely
However, these economies score highly from well correlated with US growth and per capita
having a small government and a combination of income has failed to grow at the pace the model
low democracy but strong rule of law. would have forecast. Therefore for the first 10
years we have restricted Mexican per capita
The ‘poor infrastructure poor’ include India,
growth to be between that delivered by the model
Indonesia and Thailand. These economies
and that which we expect for the US. The per
currently have low levels of education and score
capita growth projections in LATAM also suffer
less highly for rule of law and monetary stability.
due to high rates of fertility. Of course, when we
However, school levels are improving and we
start to look at total growth rates, LATAM will
account for further improvement over our forecast
get a significant boost for this very reason.
horizon. Therefore while these countries start off
with less impressive growth rates, their growth CEEMEA is already a very diverse region.
rates accelerate through the forecast horizon. Israel’s income per capita is already above that of
the US and this year it joined the OECD.
As a group, LATAM fails to achieve the income
per capita growth rates seen by the star performers Outside of Israel, Russia has a good level of
in Asia. In general, the education rates are lower schooling and low fertility which offsets the
across the region and a low score for rule of law relatively low score for rule of law and democracy.
plays a significant role in restraining growth. The Poland scores much more highly on all counts.
rule of law index averages just 0.4 on average in Turkey and Egypt lag in terms of infrastructure with
the region which is half that of the star performers reasonably low levels of education. South Africa’s
in Asia. This reduces the annual per capita growth outlook is constrained by the extremely low life
rate by 1%. The region also still suffers from a expectancy related to the AIDS pandemic. At just 51
lack of monetary stability, although there are years, this knocks 1.5% points off the growth
significant differences across LATAM. projections, relative to Turkey. One hopes that a
solution to this disease is found over our time
Brazil’s relatively low growth rate is the one that
horizon, which should then serve to boost South
most stands out, relative to expectations, and
Africa’s growth rate significantly.
certainly relevant to recent growth rates. In this
model, the low level of schooling acts as a major In the context of the model, with a good level of
constraint. Of course, what the model is not education, Iran would produce good growth rates.
capturing is the natural resources that Brazil has However, the backcasting exercise shows that Iran
and how, enhanced by its trade links with China, has failed to achieve this. Poor relations with the
this has spurred growth. The model is quite rest of the world and the trade and capital
possibly understating Brazil’s growth potential. sanctions likely play a key role here. This just
shows how the model cannot capture all of the
On the model, Mexico would have the strongest
issues, and Iran is the one country where we
growth rate in the LATAM region as it has
haven’t taken the model’s forecast but have
relatively high levels of schooling, and low
replaced it with the past growth rate.
government interference. It suffers on rule of law,
but no more than Brazil. However, at present at
least, the North American Free Trade Agreement
17
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
Demographic challenges
 Differences in the demographics alone could explain as much as
2.5% points in GDP growth differentials in the coming decades
So far, we have established how the economic 25. Demographic challenges will be a significant drag on growth
in some areas
conditions will affect how much an individual will
__ Average Yearly Working Population Growth % _
be able to produce. But this is only part of the 2010-20 2020-30 2030-40 2040-50
story. The number of people being put to work US 0.5% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3%
will vary substantially across economies in the Japan -0.9% -0.7% -1.4% -1.2%
China 0.2% -0.1% -0.7% -0.5%
coming years. Germany -0.4% -1.1% -1.0% -0.7%
UK 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3%
24. The performance of Japan in the ‘lost decades’ doesn’t France -0.1% -0.1% -0.2% 0.0%
look as bad when demographic trends are accounted for Italy -0.2% -0.6% -1.1% -0.6%
India 1.7% 1.2% 0.7% 0.1%
%Yr GDP per capita %Yr Brazil 1.1% 0.2% -0.2% -0.7%
Canada 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 0.3%
6 6 S. Korea 0.0% -1.0% -1.3% -1.3%
4 4 Spain 0.4% -0.1% -0.7% -0.7%
Mexico 1.2% 0.5% -0.3% -0.5%
2 2 Australia 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%
0 0 Netherlands -0.2% -0.5% -0.4% 0.1%
-2 -2 Argentina 1.0% 0.8% 0.4% -0.1%
Russia -0.9% -0.8% -0.6% -1.1%
-4 -4 Turkey 1.4% 0.7% 0.2% -0.2%
-6 -6 Sweden -0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%
Switzerland 0.0% -0.3% -0.2% 0.2%
90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 Indonesia 1.3% 0.6% 0.0% -0.2%
US Japan Belgium -0.1% -0.3% -0.2% 0.0%
Saudi Arabia 2.6% 1.7% 1.1% 0.6%
Source: World Bank and HSBC calculations
Poland -0.8% -0.7% -0.7% -1.5%
Hong Kong 0.2% -0.6% -0.2% -0.3%
Austria 0.0% -0.6% -0.6% -0.3%
Demographics matter but are often ignored. People Norway 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3%
South Africa 0.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.2%
often put the stagnation of Japan relative to other Thailand 0.3% -0.2% -0.3% -0.3%
Denmark -0.2% -0.3% -0.4% 0.2%
developed nations down to the deleveraging after Israel 1.4% 1.2% 0.8% 0.5%
the asset bubbles of the late 1980s. While this has Singapore 0.2% -1.1% -0.7% -0.3%
Greece -0.2% -0.4% -0.8% -0.8%
undoubtedly played a role, the demographic shift Iran 1.0% 0.9% 0.3% -0.7%
Egypt 1.9% 1.6% 1.1% 0.5%
that has taken place explains at least some of this Venezuela 1.7% 1.2% 0.8% 0.3%
relative performance (Chart 24). Malaysia 1.7% 1.1% 0.7% 0.2%
Finland -0.5% -0.3% 0.0% -0.2%
Colombia 1.5% 0.9% 0.5% 0.2%
Table 25 highlights how each country’s working Ireland 0.9% 0.9% 0.2% -0.1%
population is expected to grow on average in each Source: UN and HSBC Calculations
decade. These projections are taken from the UN.
18
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
In the coming decade, average GDP growth The outlook for working population in parts of
should be 1.5% points higher in the US than in Europe is similarly challenging, particularly in
Japan based on the demographics alone. India’s Russia, Poland and Germany.
GDP growth should be more than 2.5% points
On the other side of the spectrum, Saudi Arabia,
higher than Japan’s for this reason.
with the highest fertility rate, gets a significant
Perhaps the most striking way to see what’s going boost to growth with the working population
on is to look at the total change over the whole expected to growth by more than 70%. Egypt isn’t
40-year period (Chart 26). far behind. Certain parts of Asia – Malaysia,
India, and Indonesia – will all see strong growth
Japan’s workforce will shrink by a whopping
in their workforce.
37%. South Korea’s demographic outlook isn’t a
lot better, falling by 32%. Singapore, China and
South Korea will also see more than double-digit
declines in total working population.
26. The outlook for working population is vastly different across economies
Saudi
Egy pt
Israel
Venezuela
Malay sia
India
Colombia
Argentina
Turkey
Ireland
Australia
Indonesia
South
US
Iran
Canada
Norw ay
Mex ico
UK
Brazil
Sw eden
Sw itzerland
France
Thailand
Belgium
Denmark
Netherland
Hong Kong
Finland
China
Spain
Austria
Singapore
Greece
Italy
Germany
Russia
S. Korea
Poland
Japan
-40 -15 10 35 60
% change in w orking population betw een 2010 and 2050
Source: UN projections, HSBC calculations
19
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
27. Total population growth declines over time… 28…but the downturn is even more stark in working population
Av erage annual population grow th 2010-2050 Working population g row th 2010-2050

1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%
1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
-0.5% -0.5% -0.5% -0.5%

2010-2020 2020-2030 2030-2040 2040-2050 2010-2020 2020-2030 2 030-2040 2040-2050
Dev eloped CEEMEA LATAM Asia ex . Japan Dev eloped CEEMEA LATAM Asia ex . Japan
Source: UN projections, simple averages of countries in our Top 30 in each region Source: UN projections, simple averages of countries in our Top 30 in each region
Looking at this on a regional basis, it’s clear that Immigration flows are another feature which can
while population growth is set to slow throw these projections heavily off course.
significantly across the world (Chart 27), the
A perhaps more predictable deviation from these
slowdown in working population is even greater
projections would be retirement ages. These are
(Chart 28). But there is a large dispersion by
already rising in Western economies as people are
region. The working population in the developed
living longer and funding public pensions proves
world will only grow for one more decade and
too much of a burden on fiscal positions.
barely at that. CEEMEA, despite being dragged
down by Russia and Poland, has a better outlook There could also be government incentives to try and
than the developed world but well below that of raise the fertility rate. Russia has recently announced
the other emerging regions. a scheme whereby couples producing three children
or more are entitled to a certain amount of land. This
By far the best region, in terms of available
again highlights the uncertainty around forecasting
workers, is LATAM due to the rate of fertility
this far in to the future.
which is still reasonably high, averaging 2.1 births
per woman. Charts showing the demographic profile by
country can be found in Appendix 2.
Of course these working age projections are
subject to a considerable degree of uncertainty.
The most morbid is disease, which could raise the
mortality rate. By contrast, medical breakthroughs
could lower the mortality rate.
20
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
Putting everything
together
 Asia will continue demonstrating extremely strong growth rates and
those with large populations will overtake Western powerhouses
 Latin America will feature more heavily in the global league tables
 The league table losers – the small European countries – may
struggle to maintain their influence in global policy forums
Adding our outlook for income per capita to the But there are other bright stars in Asia. Malaysia,
demographic projections, we get to total growth Thailand and Indonesia all demonstrate rapid rates
rates found in Table 30. For the first 10 years, the of growth and as their education and policy
breakdown into per capita and workforce growth systems develop, these are likely to be sustained
is shown in Chart 29. over our forecast horizon.
It will come as no surprise to see that China is In CEEMEA, Russia is projected to continue its
near the top of the growth table. But as income rapid expansion, but it scores fewer points for
per capita rises and the one-child policy leads to a monetary stability and has a less-supportive
demographic headwind, India’s growth rate soon demographic outlook than some of its Asian
overtakes that of China beyond 2030. rivals, which limits its relative performance. Of
course, with the model not accounting for an
29. Total growth broken into per person output and workforce growth
Av erage annual grow th 2010 to 2020
8% 8%
6% 6%
4% 4%
2% 2%
0% 0%
-2% -2%
Denma rk
India
Iran
Indonesia
Argentina
Hong
Ireland
Spa in
Austria
Australia
South
Netherlan
J apan
Saudi
Israel
Italy
Egypt
UK
US
China
Colombia
Russia
Thailand
Singapore
S. Korea
Poland
Venezuela
Greece
Switzerlan
Canada
Finland
France
Swe den
Brazil
Belgium
Malaysia
Mexico
Turkey
Germany
Norway
Per Capita Grow th Demographics

21
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
economy’s natural resources, movements in the 30. The model's total GDP projections
oil price could play a key role in sending these 2010-20 2020-30 2030-40 2040-50
Russian projections off track. In the CEEMEA US 1.1% 1.4% 1.9% 2.1%
Japan 0.4% 0.9% 0.5% 0.8%
region, Turkey and Egypt each look set for a China 6.7% 5.5% 4.4% 4.1%
better run. Germany 1.7% 1.1% 1.4% 1.7%
UK 1.6% 1.7% 1.9% 2.2%
France 1.1% 1.4% 1.6% 2.1%
Latin America, helped by an encouraging Italy 1.4% 1.9% 1.5% 2.1%
demographic outlook also produces good growth India 5.7% 5.6% 5.5% 5.2%
Brazil 3.3% 2.9% 2.9% 2.8%
rates. Colombia looks set to deliver the fastest Canada 2.3% 2.1% 2.6% 2.5%
S. Korea 3.7% 2.3% 1.8% 1.7%
growth rates in the LATAM region, although by Spain 2.8% 2.9% 2.3% 2.2%
not accounting for Brazil’s natural resources, we Mexico 3.3% 4.4% 3.5% 3.1%
Australia 2.4% 2.3% 2.5% 2.6%
may be underestimating the potential pace of Netherlands 1.1% 1.2% 1.5% 2.2%
Argentina 3.4% 3.3% 3.1% 2.7%
growth in Brazil. Russia 4.2% 4.0% 4.0% 3.3%
Turkey 5.3% 4.7% 4.0% 3.5%
As we step back and think about what is Sweden 0.4% 1.3% 1.7% 2.1%
Switzerland 2.6% 2.0% 2.0% 2.3%
happening, in essence there have been structural Indonesia 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.5%
improvements in the economic governance of Belgium 1.0% 1.2% 1.7% 2.1%
Saudi Arabia 4.5% 3.9% 3.5% 3.2%
these economies. Assuming governments continue Poland 3.3% 3.2% 3.1% 2.1%
Hong Kong 3.2% 2.1% 2.4% 2.2%
to improve on recent advances, income per capita Austria 2.7% 1.9% 1.9% 2.1%
will continue to catch up with the levels seen in Norway 0.9% 1.3% 1.5% 2.1%
South Africa 1.5% 2.4% 3.1% 3.5%
the Western world. This is making them more Thailand 4.0% 3.8% 3.8% 4.0%
attractive investment destinations and such Denmark 0.5% 0.8% 1.1% 2.0%
Israel 0.1% 1.6% 1.8% 2.1%
investment is lifting income per capita. And if Singapore 3.7% 2.1% 2.0% 2.1%
Greece 2.9% 2.6% 2.2% 2.1%
you’re already large by population, you will Iran 4.5% 4.4% 3.8% 2.8%
become large in economic size. Egypt 4.7% 5.6% 5.2% 4.8%
Venezuela 3.1% 3.2% 3.3% 3.3%
Malaysia 7.1% 5.7% 4.7% 3.8%
Finland 1.1% 1.4% 1.9% 1.9%
Colombia 4.5% 4.2% 4.1% 4.0%
Ireland 2.8% 2.8% 2.2% 1.9%
Source: Barro and HSBC
22
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
Taking a look at the global leaderboard in 2050 By contrast, the small by population and well-
and compare that to how it stands today (Table 31 developed economies in Europe will find
- order in 1970 included for illustration), the US themselves slipping rapidly down the league table,
may then find its ego somewhat bruised by falling or disappearing from the Top 30 altogether.
off the top spot but it will, of course, remain a Indeed, by our calculations, Sweden, Austria,
dominant force at international policy meetings. Norway and Denmark all find themselves falling
out of the list by 2050. As we’ve already
mentioned, income per capita is still rising, so in
some ways this doesn’t matter. However, these
countries may find themselves having less of a
say in the global policy arena. As competition
hots up for the world’s scarce resources, this may
become an issue.
31. The potential reshuffle between now and 2050 is no different from that seen in the last forty years
___________ Order in 1970 _____________ ____________ Order in 2010_____________ ___________ Order in 2050 ____________
1 US 1 US 1 China
2 Japan 2 Japan 2 US
3 Germany 3 China 3 India
4 UK 4 Germany 4 Japan
5 France 5 UK 5 UK
6 Italy 6 France 6 Germany
7 Canada 7 Italy 7 Brazil
8 Spain 8 India 8 Mexico
9 Brazil 9 Brazil 9 France
10 Mexico 10 Canada 10 Canada
11 Netherlands 11 S. Korea 11 Turkey
12 Australia 12 Spain 12 Italy
13 Switzerland 13 Mexico 13 S. Korea
14 Argentina 14 Australia 14 Spain
15 Sweden 15 Netherlands 15 Russia
16 India 16 Argentina 16 Indonesia
17 Belgium 17 Russia 17 Argentina
18 China 18 Turkey 18 Australia
19 Austria 19 Sweden 19 Egypt
20 Denmark 20 Switzerland 20 Malaysia
21 Turkey 21 Indonesia 21 Saudi Arabia
22 South Africa 22 Belgium 22 Thailand
23 Venezuela 23 Saudi Arabia 23 Netherlands
24 S. Korea 24 Poland 24 Poland
25 Greece 25 Hong Kong 25 Colombia
26 Norway 26 Austria 26 Switzerland
27 Finland 27 Norway 27 Iran
28 Saudi Arabia 28 South Africa 28 Hong Kong
29 Iran 29 Thailand 29 Venezuela
30 Portugal 30 Denmark 30 South Africa
Source: World Bank and HSBC calculations
23
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
Over the limit?

 Energy availability need not hinder this path of global
development ...
 ...so long as there is major investment in efficiency and low-
carbon alternatives
 Meeting food demand may prove more of a challenge, but
improvements in yield and diet could fill the gap
Over the limit? As a result of these market and policy failures, the Nick Robins
Head of Climate Change Centre
global economy’s ‘ecological footprint’ has of Excellence
The scale of economic expansion forecast in this
doubled since 1966. By 2007, humanity was using HSBC Bank plc
report over the next four decades raises inevitable +44 207 991 6778
the equivalent of 1.5 planets each year to support nick.robins@hsbc.com
questions about environmental feasibility: Put
its consumption levels, according to the Zoe Knight
simply, does the planet have enough capacity to Climate Change Strategy
environmental group, WWF. HSBC Bank plc
sustain this tripling in economic output by 2050?
+44 207 991 6715
The answer is a cautious yes: The world economy Essentially, the global economy has entered a period zoe.knight@hsbcib.com
can triple its income, but only if levels of resource of ecological deficit – depleting natural assets faster
productivity are improved many times over. than these can be replenished. And this is at a time
when more than 1 billion people are still under-
More than two planets
nourished, lack access to electricity as well as
Global prosperity depends on an array of
modern sanitation. By 2030, the footprint is
ecosystem services, notably the provision of
projected to have deepened to two planets’ worth of
natural resource inputs (such as food, fuel and
resources each year and to 2.8 planets in 2050.
materials), as well the regulation of natural
Clearly, it is possible to deplete natural assets for a
processes (e.g. water filtration, crop pollination
time – but continuing resource overshoot runs the
and climate stability). Most of these services are
risk of localised and, increasingly, global constraints
under-priced in today’s global economy – with the
on economic activity. Looking ahead to 2050, the
inevitable result that many natural assets are
major challenges for growth flow from climate
becoming over-exploited. Not only are many
change, as well as land and water availability for
externalities – such as carbon costs – poorly
food production.
priced, but additional agricultural, energy and
water subsidies encourage further depletion: fossil
fuels alone received USD557bn in government
support in 2008.
24
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
Running out of inputs? pointing to the risk of ‘peak oil’ disrupting

Much of the discussion about ecological capacity economic stability. A report on energy security
has been cast in the language of ‘running out’ of from the Lloyds insurance market concludes, for
key inputs, notably energy and metals. example, that “we are heading for a global oil
supply crunch and price spike”. Reserves of coal
In the case of metals, core commodities such as and gas are more plentiful, however. And supplies
aluminium, iron and even copper are widely of renewable energy are for all intents and
available, and easily recyclable. Even rare earths purposes unlimited (and to date, untapped), at
are not so rare. Total global production in 2009 of over 3,000 times larger than current energy needs.
14 key ‘rare earth’ materials amounted to 127,520
tonnes. Yet, according to a recent report by the The International Energy Agency’s (IEA) latest
US Department of Energy, global reserves stand Energy Technology Perspectives report shows in
at some 99 million tonnes. The issue, however, is its BLUE Map scenario that it is possible to raise
that current production is highly concentrated, energy production by 2050 while simultaneously
with 95% of output accounted for by just one reducing coal, oil and gas consumption below
country, China. current levels (Chart 32).
Energy availability is somewhat more Indeed, for an additional upfront cost of

complicated. The era of cheap and easily USD46trn in energy efficiency, renewables,
accessible oil supplies is clearly over, with some nuclear and ‘clean coal’, fuel savings amounting
32. A low-carbon future in 2050 will use less energy than ‘business as usual’ in 2030: world primary energy supply by fuel (BoE)
24000 Other
Biomass and w aste
22000
Hy dro
20000 Nuclear
Natural gas
18000
Oil
16000 Coal
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
2007 Baseline 2030 Baseline 2050 BLUE Map 2050
Source: IEA, Energy Technology Perspectives 2010
25
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
to USD112trn could be generated by 2050. One Feeding the world

consequence would be a significant reduction in The growing sense of confidence that a practical
the projected cost of oil (Chart 33). pathway exists to a clean-energy economy by
33.A low-carbon future could drive down the oil price 2050 is not yet in place for food and water. The
Food and Agriculture Organisation projects that a
140 Baseline Scenario BLUE Map Scenario
70% increase in food production will be needed
120
by 2050. But growth in yields has been falling
100
from 3.2% a year in 1960 to 1.5% in 2000. In
80
addition, the scope for increasing the area under
60
cultivation is limited by the need to halt the
40
decline in soil and water resources, the loss of
20
species as well as the erosion of ecosystem quality
0
that is proceeding on the back of rising food
2006
2010
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2014
2018
2022
2026
2030
2034
2038
2042
2046
2050
consumption. In 1995, about 1.8 billion people

Source: IEA, Energy Technology Perspectives 2010
were living in areas experiencing severe water
stress; by 2025, about two-thirds of the world’s
Breaking the link
population – about 5.5 billion people – are
The fundamental issue for energy therefore is not so expected to live in areas facing moderate to severe
much its availability to meet global needs, but the water stress.
cost, either in terms of emissions or the investment
required today to deliver alternative energy sources. Climate change will further compound the issue.
In terms of the climate change impact of greenhouse Although governments agreed in Cancun in
gas (GHGs) emissions, fossil fuels account for December 2010 to try to hold the increase in
around 60% of the global total. To have a reasonable average global temperatures below 2۫C this
chance of holding long-term global warming to century, current commitments remain insufficient.
around 2 degrees Celsius, GHGs will need to be cut As a result, the world could well warm by 2۫C by
by half by 2050 – at a time when the global 2050, and in some projections by as early as 2024
economy is more than tripling. (see Too Close for Comfort, December 2009).
This would have severe implications for
Greenhouse gas emissions are the largest and agricultural yields, as well as water availability,
fastest-growing component of the global with greater incidence of extreme events such as
economy’s ‘ecological footprint’ – and according droughts and floods.
to a report for the PRI investor alliance, these
emissions generated an external damage costs of Yet the potential for meeting nutritional needs and
USD4.5trn in 2008, some 7.5% of global GDP; sustaining resources in a world of 9 billion people
this external cost is projected to rise to over 12% with much higher incomes clearly exists. With
of global GDP by 2050. investment, yields can be improved, crops can be
adapted to a changing climate, and post-harvest
Breaking the historic link between economic losses can be cut. And the need to slow and
growth and carbon emissions will certainly be reverse the negative health impacts of over-
hard. But it is both technologically feasible and consumption offers another way of matching
economically attractive. resources with rising incomes and human well-
being. Approximately 1.5bn adults were
26
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
overweight in 2005, with 400 million obese. By On the road to 2050, we expect what are currently
2015, the World Health Organisation projects that ‘off balance sheet’ costs – whether in terms of
this could rise 2.3 billion and 700 million carbon emissions or biodiversity loss – to be
respectively. In the UK, a quarter of adults are brought more formally into economic decision-
already obese, a figure that is projected to grow to making. This will reward the corporations and
60% of men and 50% of women in 2050. countries that make resource productivity a key
element of long-term strategy. Even with the
The Mother of Opportunity
current modest targets, we expect the low-carbon
While Keynes and Friedman are currently battling economy to grow by 10% CAGR over the next
it out in the economic conundrum of how to decade to reach over 2% of global GDP (see
generate growth, the contest of the coming Sizing the climate economy, September 2009).
decades will be between Malthus’ economics of
scarcity and Stern’s3 economics of green growth. We believe that there will be a deepening of
There are real limits to the continued expansion of deployment and innovation in the decades
the global economy’s ‘ecological footprint’ – and thereafter, with the ‘climate economy’ potentially
if these are not confronted then economic output playing an equivalent role to the ‘knowledge
and human well-being will become increasingly economy’ in the past century. It will be growth,
constrained. But growth can also be delivered by but not as we know it.
investing in the markets, technologies, knowledge
and business models that improve resource
productivity and sustain natural assets.
3
Lord Stern is author of The Economics of Climate Change.
27
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
What might go wrong?

 Our projections are based on policymakers making ‘good’ decisions
 The most pressing risk is that open borders, which have played
such a key role in development, are closed
34. The last few decades have been remarkably peaceful for projections. And, of course, trade wars can be
the global economy
followed by real wars. We probably don’t need to
20yr rolling Standard devation of US GDP
12% 12% go any further in highlighting how this would
10% 10% disrupt our projections.
8% 8% Cyclical interruptions
6% 6% Our model is a structural model of potential supply
4% 4% and therefore ignores cyclical factors and whether
2% 2% there are ebbs and flows in demand.
0% 0% Natural disasters
1891 1920 1949 1978 2007
Natural disasters can send economies seriously off
Source: Maddison long-term US GDP data
course as their development seeks to replace what
In a nutshell, our projections are based on a was lost rather than make any further leap forward.
rather rosy backdrop – everything is going right, Factors the model isn’t picking up
governments and policymakers are doing the
No model can perfectly capture all the
right thing. Of course, there are a number of reasons
idiosyncratic factors that will constrain or boost
things might not play out in the way we have
an economy’s development. One of the most
assumed. We should remind ourselves that up until
significant variables we are not capturing is the
the recent turmoil we had seen a remarkably calm
natural resources with which an economy is
period for the global economy as a whole (Chart 34).
endowed and how this drives its relative terms of
Border barriers and war trade and its bargaining power in the global
The biggest danger is that the open borders that economy. There are also important trade linkages
have delivered so much prosperity are closed. It’s that we are not capturing. Brazil has developed
hard to see how such a wave of protectionism close trade ties with the emerging markets, which
could benefit any individual economy, and appears to have accelerated its development.
certainly not the system as a whole. But
politicians’ motivation tends to be about getting
through the next election, rather than long-term
growth. As such, bad politics is a key risk to these
28
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
Supply-side setbacks
The supply-side advances in both the developed
and emerging markets, which have managed to
deliver growth without inflation, could go into
reverse. The prospect of China’s labour force
becoming more militant is at the forefront of a
number of investors’ minds. And in the western
world, faced with an ongoing squeeze in real
income, further cuts to public pension provision
and increases in retirement ages, one can’t rule
out a re-emergence of labour unionisation.
29
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
References
Barro, R. J., 1989. Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries. NBER Working Paper No. 3120.
Barro, R. J., 1991. Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, Vol. 106 (2), pp. 407-443.
Barro, R. J., Lee, J. W., 2001. International data on educational attainment: updates and implications.
Oxford Economic Papers, Vol 3, pp. 541-563.
Barro, R. J., Lee, J. W., 1994. Sources of economic growth. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on
Public Policy, Volume 40, June 1994, pp. 1-46.
Bassanini, A., Scarpetta, S., 2001. The Driving Forces of Economic Growth: Panel Data Evidence For the
OECD Countries. OECD Economic Studies, Vol 33 (2), pp. 9-56.
Calderon, C., Serven, L., 2004. The Effects of Infrastructure Development on Growth and Income
Distribution. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3400.
Desai, V. A., 1999. The Economics and Politics of Transition to an Open Market Economy: India. OECD
Development Centre Working Paper No. 155.
Dowrick, S., Nguyen, D. T., 1989. OECD Comparative Economic Growth 1950-1985: Catch-Up and
Convergence. The American Economic Review, Vol 79 (5), pp. 1010-1030.
Food and Agriculture Organisation, How to Feed the World in 2050, 2009
Goodhart, C., Xu, C., 1996. The Rise of China as an Economic Power. Centre for Economic Performance
Discussion Paper No. 299, London School of Economics and Political Science, London.
IEA, Energy Technology Perspectives 2010
King, Stephen D, 2010, Losing Control: Emerging Threats to Western Prosperity, Yale University Press
Krugman, P., 1994. The Myth of Asia’s Miracle, Foreign Affairs, Vol 73 (6), pp. 62-78
Leipziger, D. M., Thomas, V., 1993. The Lessons of East Asia: An Overview of Country Experience. The
World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Lucas Jr, R. E., 1988. On the Mechanics of Economic Development. Journal of Monetary Economics,
Vol 22, pp. 3-42.
Maddison, A., 2007. Chinese Economic Performance in the Long Run, 2nd ed. OECD Development
Centre, Paris.
Mankiw, G. N., Romer, D., Weil, D.N., 1992. A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth. The
Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 107 (2), pp.407-437.
OECD, 2010. Perspectives on Global Development 2010: Shifting Wealth, OECD Development Centre,
Paris
30
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
Paldam, M., 2003. Economic freedom and success of the Asian tigers: an essay on controversy. European
Journal of Political economy, Vol. 19, pp. 453-477
Prasdad, E. S., 2006. Modernising China’s Growth Paradigm. International Monetary Fund Policy
Discussion Paper.
UK Government Office for Science, Tackling Obesities: Future Choices, 2007
UN Principles for Responsible Investment, Why externalities matter to institutional investors, 2010
US Department of Energy, Critical Materials Strategy, December 2010
WWF, Living Planet Report 2010
The World Bank, 1993, The East Asian Miracle: economic growth and public policy, A World Bank
Policy Research Report, Oxford University Press, Oxford
The World Bank, 2009. World Development Report 2009: Reshaping Economic Geography, The World
Bank, Washington, DC.
World Health Organisation. Obesity and Overweight, 2010
United Nations, 2002. Forecasts of the Economic Growth in OECD Countries and Central and Eastern
European Countries for the Period 2000-2040. UN, New York.
Lloyds, 360 Risk Insight: Sustainable Energy Security, 2010
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature, 2010
31
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
Appendix 1
Barro’s growth model
A1. The model A2. Testing the model by forecasting growth from 2000-09
Variable Coefficients Model Actual Forecast
Forecast growth rate error
Log GDP -0.018
Male schooling 0.002 China 6.7% 9.6% 2.9%
Log GDP * schooling -0.004 India 4.6% 5.5% 0.9%
Log life expectancy 0.044 Russia 5.5% 5.2% -0.3%
Log fertility -0.016 US 0.7% 0.8% 0.2%
Government consumption ratio -0.136 UK 1.5% 1.2% -0.3%
Rule of law index 0.029 Brazil 2.2% 2.1% -0.1%
Democracy index 0.090 Japan 0.9% 0.8% -0.1%
Democracy index squared -0.088 Germany 1.4% 0.8% -0.6%
Inflation rate -0.043 France 0.8% 0.8% -0.1%
Italy 2.0% 0.0% -2.1%
Source: Barro with HSBC adjustment to schooling
Spain 3.1% 1.2% -1.9%
Canada 1.7% 1.3% -0.4%
Mexico 3.7% 0.8% -2.9%
To test whether the model was too simplistic we Australia 1.7% 1.7% 0.0%
used the data on the economic infrastructure for S. Korea 3.8% 3.9% 0.1%
Netherlands 1.2% 1.1% -0.1%
our forty countries in 2000 and predicted the Turkey 1.6% 2.4% 0.8%
average per capita income over the past ten years. Poland 5.2% 4.1% -1.1%
Indonesia 1.9% 3.8% 1.9%
Belgium 1.1% 1.0% -0.1%
We made two amendments to Barro’s original Switzerland 2.2% 1.4% -0.8%
Sweden 0.5% 1.4% 0.9%
model. First, we lowered slightly the convergence Thailand 5.1% 3.1% -2.0%
rate, in line with more recent literature (See Argentina 3.3% 2.6% -0.7%
Greece 3.0% 3.0% 0.0%
OECD 2001). Malaysia 6.3% 2.8% -3.4%
Ireland 1.8% 2.2% 0.4%
Second, it appeared that the original model was Finland 1.7% 1.8% 0.1%
South Africa 2.0% 2.2% 0.2%
overstating the impact of education. In Barro’s Denmark 0.4% 0.5% 0.1%
Austria 2.3% 1.3% -1.1%
original model, an extra year of schooling served to
Norway 0.0% 1.2% 1.2%
raise GDP growth by 1.2% points. Those with very Saudi Arabia 2.4% 1.0% -1.4%
Hong Kong 5.1% 4.3% -0.8%
high levels of education, such as Germany, were Colombia 2.2% 2.4% 0.2%
forecast to grow much more quickly than they Venezuela 1.4% 2.1% 0.7%
Iran 5.6% 3.6% -2.1%
achieved. And countries such as India with very low Israel -0.4% 1.5% 1.9%
Singapore 5.5% 3.2% -2.3%
levels of education were barely forecast to grow at Egypt 5.4% 2.9% -2.5%
all. However, recalibrating the model to lower the Source: Barro and HSBC calculations
impact of education produced remarkably accurate

forecasts for such a simple model. The main areas of
failure are in Asia, where the region in the early part
of the 2000-2010 period was still recovering from
the Asian crisis.
32
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
Creating the base scenario

forecasts
A3. Model’s projections assuming the ‘economic infrastructure’ A4. Model’s projections assuming the ‘economic infrastructure’
doesn’t improve improve to the highest possible level
2010-20 2020-30 2030-40 2040-50 2010-20 2020-30 2030-40 2040-50
US 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% US 0.5% 1.6% 2.3% 2.8%

Japan 1.2% 1.2% 1.0% 0.9% Japan 1.2% 2.1% 2.7% 3.2%
China 6.6% 5.2% 4.2% 3.5% China 6.6% 6.0% 5.8% 5.6%
Germany 2.1% 1.8% 1.5% 1.3% Germany 2.1% 2.8% 3.2% 3.6%
UK 1.3% 1.1% 0.9% 0.7% UK 1.3% 2.1% 2.7% 3.2%
France 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.7% France 1.2% 2.1% 2.8% 3.4%
Italy 2.1% 1.7% 1.4% 1.2% Italy 2.1% 2.9% 3.5% 4.0%
India 4.1% 3.4% 3.0% 2.6% India 4.1% 5.4% 6.5% 7.3%
Brazil 2.3% 1.7% 1.4% 1.1% Brazil 2.3% 3.5% 4.7% 5.7%
Canada 1.9% 1.6% 1.3% 1.1% Canada 1.9% 2.5% 3.0% 3.4%
S. Korea 3.9% 2.9% 2.4% 1.9% S. Korea 3.9% 3.7% 3.9% 4.0%
Spain 2.9% 2.5% 2.0% 1.7% Spain 2.9% 3.4% 3.7% 4.0%
Mexico 3.6% 3.0% 2.5% 2.1% Mexico 3.6% 4.1% 4.4% 4.7%
Australia 1.9% 1.5% 1.3% 1.1% Australia 1.9% 2.3% 2.8% 3.1%
Netherlands 1.2% 1.1% 0.9% 0.8% Netherlands 1.2% 2.2% 2.9% 3.4%
Argentina 2.5% 1.9% 1.6% 1.3% Argentina 2.5% 3.1% 3.6% 4.2%
Russia 5.1% 4.3% 3.5% 2.9% Russia 5.1% 5.5% 5.7% 6.0%
Turkey 4.0% 3.4% 2.9% 2.5% Turkey 4.0% 4.4% 4.7% 4.9%
Sweden 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Sweden 0.5% 1.7% 2.6% 3.2%
Switzerland 2.6% 2.1% 1.7% 1.4% Switzerland 2.6% 2.6% 2.7% 2.7%
Indonesia 3.1% 2.6% 2.1% 1.8% Indonesia 3.1% 4.7% 6.2% 7.3%
Belgium 1.1% 1.0% 0.8% 0.7% Belgium 1.1% 2.1% 2.9% 3.5%
Saudi Arabia 1.9% 1.5% 1.2% 1.0% Saudi Arabia 1.9% 2.6% 3.3% 3.9%
Poland 4.1% 3.3% 2.7% 2.2% Poland 4.1% 4.4% 4.8% 5.1%
Hong Kong 3.0% 2.4% 1.9% 1.6% Hong Kong 3.0% 3.0% 3.1% 3.2%
Austria 2.7% 2.2% 1.8% 1.5% Austria 2.7% 3.0% 3.2% 3.3%
Norway 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% Norway 0.4% 1.5% 2.3% 2.8%
South Africa 1.1% 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% South Africa 1.1% 2.9% 4.5% 5.9%
Thailand 3.8% 3.1% 2.7% 2.2% Thailand 3.8% 4.7% 5.5% 6.1%
Denmark 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% Denmark 0.6% 1.7% 2.6% 3.3%
Israel -0.1% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% Israel -0.1% 1.3% 2.4% 3.3%
Singapore 4.2% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% Singapore 4.2% 3.4% 3.0% 2.6%
Greece 3.0% 2.6% 2.1% 1.7% Greece 3.0% 3.5% 3.8% 4.1%
Iran 6.2% 5.1% 4.2% 3.4% Iran 6.2% 6.0% 5.9% 5.8%
Egypt 3.5% 4.3% 3.8% 3.2% Egypt 3.5% 4.5% 5.3% 6.1%
Venezuela 1.4% 1.0% 0.7% 0.5% Venezuela 1.4% 2.8% 4.1% 5.3%
Malaysia 5.4% 4.3% 3.5% 2.9% Malaysia 5.4% 4.8% 4.5% 4.2%
Finland 1.5% 1.3% 1.1% 0.9% Finland 1.5% 2.3% 2.8% 3.3%
Colombia 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.7% Colombia 3.0% 4.1% 5.0% 5.7%
Ireland 1.6% 1.5% 1.3% 1.1% Ireland 1.6% 2.3% 2.7% 2.9%
Source: HSBC Calculations Source: HSBC Calculations
33
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
Appendix 2: Population demographic changes to 2050.
Millions Millions Billions Billions

Developed world Developing world
1000 1000 6 6
800 800 5 5
4 4
600 600
3 3
400 400
2 2
200 200 1 1
0 0 0 0
Learning Working Retired Learning Working R etired
1990 2010 2030 2050 1990 2010 2030 2050
Source: United Nations, HSBC Source: United Nations, HSBC
Millions Millions Millions Millions

US Japan
300 300 100 100
250 250
80 80
200 200
60 60
150 150
100 100
40 40
50 50 20 20
0 0 0 0
Learning Working Retired Learning Working Retired
1990 2010 2030 2050 1990 2010 2030 2050

German y
China
60 60
1200 1200 50 50
40 40
800 800
30 30
400 400 20 20
10 10
0 0 0 0
1990 2010 2030 2050 1990 2010 2030 2050
34
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011

UK Franc e
50 50 50 50
40 40 40 40
30 30 30 30
20 20 20 20
10 10 10 10
0 0 0 0
Learning Working Retired Learning Workin g Retired
1990 2010 2030 2050 1990 2010 2030 2050
Millions Millions Millions

Italy Millions
India
40 40
1200 1200
30 30
800 800
20 20
400 400
10 10
0 0
0 0
Learning Workin g Retired
1990 2010 2030 2050 1990 2010 2030 2050

Brazil Canada
200 200
30 30
150 150 25 25
20 20
100 100
15 15
50 50 10 10
5 5
0 0 0 0
Learning Workin g Retired Learning Working Retired
1990 2010 2030 2050

1990 2010 2030 2050
35
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011

Republic of Korea Spain
40 40 40 40
30 30 30 30
20 20 20 20
10 10 10 10
0 0 0 0
Learning Workin g Retired Learning Working Retir ed
1990 2010 2030 2050 1990 2010 2030 2050

Mexico Austral ia
100 100 20 20
80 80
15 15
60 60
40 40 10 10
20 20 5 5
0 0
0 0
Learning Working Retired
Learning Working Retired
1990 2010 2030 2050 1990 2010 2030 2050

Netherlands Argentina
15 15 40 40
30 30
10 10
20 20
5 5 10 10
0 0 0 0
1990 2010 2030 2050 1990 2010 2030 2050
36
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011

Russian Federation Turkey
120 120 70 70
60 60
80 80 50 50
40 40
30 30
40 40 20 20
10 10
0 0 0 0
Learning Workin g Retired Learning Workin g Retired
1990 2010 2030 2050 1990 2010 2030 2050

Sweden Switzerl and
8 8 6 6
6 6 5 5
4 4
4 4 3 3
2 2
2 2 1 1
0 0 0 0
1990 2010 2030 2050 1990 2010 2030 2050

Indones ia Belgium
200 200
8 8
150 150 6 6
100 100 4 4
50 50 2 2
0 0 0 0
1990 2010 2030 2050 1990 2010 2030 2050
37
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011

Saudi Arabia
Portugal
30 30
8 8
25 25
20 20 6 6
15 15 4 4
10 10
2 2
5 5
0 0 0 0
Learning Working R etired Learning Working Retired
1990 2010 2030 2050

1990 2010 2030 2050

Hong Kon g Austria
6 6 6 6
5 5
4 4 4 4
3 3
2 2 2 2
1 1
0 0 0 0
1990 2010 2030 2050 1990 2010 2030 2050

Norway South Afr ica
4 4 40 40
3 3 30 30
2 2 20 20
1 1 10 10
0 0 0 0
1990 2010 2030 2050 1990 2010 2030 2050
38
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011

Thailand Denmark
60 60 4 4
50 50 3 3
40 40
30 30 2 2
20 20 1 1
10 10
0 0 0 0
1990 2010 2030 2050 1990 2010 2030 2050

Israel Singapore
8 8
4 4
6 6 3 3
4 4 2 2
2 2 1 1
0 0 0 0
1990 2010 2030 2050 1990 2010 2030 2050
Millions Millions
Greece Millions Iran Millions
8 8 80 80
6 6 60 60
4 4 40 40
2 2 20 20
0 0 0 0
Learning Workin g Retired Learning Working Retired
1990 2010 2030 2050 1990 2010 2030 2050
39
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
Millions Millions
Egypt Millions Venezuela Millions
80 80 30 30
60 60 20 20
40 40
20 20 10 10
0 0 0 0
1990 2010 2030 2050 1990 2010 2030 2050

Malaysia Finland
30 30 4 4
25 25 3 3
20 20
15 15 2 2
10 10
1 1
5 5
0 0 0 0
1990 2010 2030 2050 1990 2010 2030 2050
Millions Millions
Millions Colombia Millions Ireland
50 50 4 4
40 40 3 3
30
30 2 2
20
10 20 1 1
0 10 0 0
1990 2010 2030 2050 1990 2010 2030 2050
40
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
Notes
41
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
Disclosure appendix
Analyst Certification
The following analyst(s), economist(s), and/or strategist(s) who is(are) primarily responsible for this report, certifies(y) that the
opinion(s) on the subject security(ies) or issuer(s) and/or any other views or forecasts expressed herein accurately reflect their
personal view(s) and that no part of their compensation was, is or will be directly or indirectly related to the specific
recommendation(s) or views contained in this research report: Karen Ward, Nick Robins and Zoe Knight
Important Disclosures
This document has been prepared and is being distributed by the Research Department of HSBC and is intended solely for the
clients of HSBC and is not for publication to other persons, whether through the press or by other means.
This document is for information purposes only and it should not be regarded as an offer to sell or as a solicitation of an offer
to buy the securities or other investment products mentioned in it and/or to participate in any trading strategy. Advice in this
document is general and should not be construed as personal advice, given it has been prepared without taking account of the
objectives, financial situation or needs of any particular investor. Accordingly, investors should, before acting on the advice,
consider the appropriateness of the advice, having regard to their objectives, financial situation and needs. If necessary, seek
professional investment and tax advice.
Certain investment products mentioned in this document may not be eligible for sale in some states or countries, and they may
not be suitable for all types of investors. Investors should consult with their HSBC representative regarding the suitability of
the investment products mentioned in this document and take into account their specific investment objectives, financial
situation or particular needs before making a commitment to purchase investment products.
The value of and the income produced by the investment products mentioned in this document may fluctuate, so that an
investor may get back less than originally invested. Certain high-volatility investments can be subject to sudden and large falls
in value that could equal or exceed the amount invested. Value and income from investment products may be adversely
affected by exchange rates, interest rates, or other factors. Past performance of a particular investment product is not indicative
of future results.
Analysts, economists, and strategists are paid in part by reference to the profitability of HSBC which includes investment
banking revenues.
For disclosures in respect of any company mentioned in this report, please see the most recently published report on that
company available at www.hsbcnet.com/research.
* HSBC Legal Entities are listed in the Disclaimer below.
Additional disclosures
1 This report is dated as at 04 January 2011.
2 All market data included in this report are dated as at close 28 December 2010, unless otherwise indicated in the report.
3 HSBC has procedures in place to identify and manage any potential conflicts of interest that arise in connection with its
Research business. HSBC's analysts and its other staff who are involved in the preparation and dissemination of Research
operate and have a management reporting line independent of HSBC's Investment Banking business. Information Barrier
procedures are in place between the Investment Banking and Research businesses to ensure that any confidential and/or
price sensitive information is handled in an appropriate manner.
42
Economics
Global abc
4 January 2011
Disclaimer
* Legal entities as at 31 January 2010 Issuer of report
'UAE' HSBC Bank Middle East Limited, Dubai; 'HK' The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation
HSBC Bank plc
Limited, Hong Kong; 'TW' HSBC Securities (Taiwan) Corporation Limited; 'CA' HSBC Securities (Canada)
Inc, Toronto; HSBC Bank, Paris branch; HSBC France; 'DE' HSBC Trinkaus & Burkhardt AG, Dusseldorf; 8 Canada Square, London
000 HSBC Bank (RR), Moscow; 'IN' HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Private Limited, Mumbai; E14 5HQ, United Kingdom
'JP' HSBC Securities (Japan) Limited, Tokyo; 'EG' HSBC Securities Egypt S.A.E., Cairo; 'CN' HSBC Telephone: +44 20 7991 8888
Investment Bank Asia Limited, Beijing Representative Office; The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Fax: +44 20 7992 4880
Corporation Limited, Singapore branch; The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, Seoul
Website: www.research.hsbc.com
Securities Branch; The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, Seoul Branch; HSBC
Securities (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd, Johannesburg; 'GR' HSBC Pantelakis Securities S.A., Athens; HSBC
Bank plc, London, Madrid, Milan, Stockholm, Tel Aviv, 'US' HSBC Securities (USA) Inc, New York; HSBC
Yatirim Menkul Degerler A.S., Istanbul; HSBC México, S.A., Institución de Banca Múltiple, Grupo
Financiero HSBC, HSBC Bank Brasil S.A. - Banco Múltiplo, HSBC Bank Australia Limited, HSBC Bank
Argentina S.A., HSBC Saudi Arabia Limited., The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited,
New Zealand Branch.
This document is issued and approved in the United Kingdom by HSBC Bank plc for the information of its Clients (as defined in the Rules of FSA) and those
of its affiliates only. If this research is received by a customer of an affiliate of HSBC, its provision to the recipient is subject to the terms of business in place
between the recipient and such affiliate. In Australia, this publication has been distributed by The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (ABN
65 117 925 970, AFSL 301737) for the general information of its “wholesale” customers (as defined in the Corporations Act 2001). Where distributed to retail
customers, this research is distributed by HSBC Bank Australia Limited (AFSL No. 232595). These respective entities make no representations that the
products or services mentioned in this document are available to persons in Australia or are necessarily suitable for any particular person or appropriate in
accordance with local law. No consideration has been given to the particular investment objectives, financial situation or particular needs of any recipient.
The document is distributed in Hong Kong by The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited and in Japan by HSBC Securities (Japan) Limited.
Each of the companies listed above (the “Participating Companies”) is a member of the HSBC Group of Companies, any member of which may trade for its
own account as Principal, may have underwritten an issue within the last 36 months or, together with its Directors, officers and employees, may have a long or
short position in securities or instruments or in any related instrument mentioned in the document. Brokerage or fees may be earned by the Participating
Companies or persons associated with them in respect of any business transacted by them in all or any of the securities or instruments referred to in this
document. In Korea, this publication is distributed by either The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, Seoul Securities Branch ("HBAP
SLS") or The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, Seoul Branch ("HBAP SEL") for the general information of professional investors
specified in Article 9 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (“FSCMA”). This publication is not a prospectus as defined in the FSCMA.
It may not be further distributed in whole or in part for any purpose. Both HBAP SLS and HBAP SEL are regulated by the Financial Services Commission and
the Financial Supervisory Service of Korea. This publication is distributed in New Zealand by The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, New
Zealand Branch.
The information in this document is derived from sources the Participating Companies believe to be reliable but which have not been independently verified.
The Participating Companies make no guarantee of its accuracy and completeness and are not responsible for errors of transmission of factual or analytical data,
nor shall the Participating Companies be liable for damages arising out of any person’s reliance upon this information. All charts and graphs are from publicly
available sources or proprietary data. The opinions in this document constitute the present judgement of the Participating Companies, which is subject to change
without notice.
This document is neither an offer to sell, purchase or subscribe for any investment nor a solicitation of such an offer. HSBC Securities (USA) Inc. accepts
responsibility for the content of this research report prepared by its non-US foreign affiliate. All US persons receiving and/or accessing this report and
intending to effect transactions in any security discussed herein should do so with HSBC Securities (USA) Inc. in the United States and not with its non-US
foreign affiliate, the issuer of this report. In Singapore, this publication is distributed by The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, Singapore
Branch for the general information of institutional investors or other persons specified in Sections 274 and 304 of the Securities and Futures Act (Chapter 289)
(“SFA”) and accredited investors and other persons in accordance with the conditions specified in Sections 275 and 305 of the SFA. This publication is not a
prospectus as defined in the SFA. It may not be further distributed in whole or in part for any purpose. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation
Limited Singapore Branch is regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. Recipients in Singapore should contact a "Hongkong and Shanghai Banking
Corporation Limited, Singapore Branch" representative in respect of any matters arising from, or in connection with this report. HSBC México, S.A.,
Institución de Banca Múltiple, Grupo Financiero HSBC is authorized and regulated by Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público and Comisión Nacional
Bancaria y de Valores (CNBV). HSBC Bank (Panama) S.A. is regulated by Superintendencia de Bancos de Panama. Banco HSBC Honduras S.A. is regulated
by Comisión Nacional de Bancos y Seguros (CNBS). Banco HSBC Salvadoreño, S.A. is regulated by Superintendencia del Sistema Financiero (SSF). HSBC
Colombia S.A. is regulated by Superintendencia Financiera de Colombia. Banco HSBC Costa Rica S.A. is supervised by Superintendencia General de
Entidades Financieras (SUGEF). Banistmo Nicaragua, S.A. is authorized and regulated by Superintendencia de Bancos y de Otras Instituciones Financieras
(SIBOIF).
The document is intended to be distributed in its entirety. Unless governing law permits otherwise, you must contact a HSBC Group member in your home
jurisdiction if you wish to use HSBC Group services in effecting a transaction in any investment mentioned in this document. HSBC Bank plc is registered in
England No 14259, is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority and is a member of the London Stock Exchange. (070905)
© Copyright. HSBC Bank plc 2010, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, on
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of HSBC Bank plc. MICA (P)
142/06/2010 and MICA (P) 193/04/2010
43
abc
Global Economics Research Team

Global Sophia Ma
Associate
Stephen King
Global Head of Economics Emerging Europe, Middle East and Africa
+44 20 7991 6700 stephen.king@hsbcib.com
Alexander Morozov
Karen Ward +7 495 783 8855 alexander.morozov@hsbc.com
+44 20 7991 3692 karen.ward@hsbcib.com Murat Ulgen
+90 212 376 4619 muratulgen@hsbc.com.tr
Madhur Jha
+44 20 7991 6755 madhur.jha@hsbcib.com Simon Williams
+971 4 507 7614 simon.williams@hsbc.com
Europe Liz Martins
Janet Henry +971 4 423 6928 liz.martins@hsbc.com
Chief European Economist
+44 20 7991 6711 janet.henry@hsbcib.com Latin America
Astrid Schilo Argentina

+44 20 7991 6708 astrid.schilo@hsbcib.com Javier Finkman
Chief Economist, South America ex-Brazil
Germany +54 11 4344 8144 javier.finkman@hsbc.com.ar
Lothar Hessler
+49 21 1910 2906 lothar.hessler@hsbctrinkaus.de Ramiro D Blazquez
Senior Economist
France +54 11 4348 5759 ramiro.blazquez@hsbc.com.ar
Mathilde Lemoine
+33 1 4070 3266 mathilde.lemoine@hsbc.fr Jorge Morgenstern
Economist
United Kingdom +54 11 4130 9229 jorge.morgenstern@hsbc.com.ar
Stuart Green
+44 20 7991 6718 stuart1.green@hsbcib.com Brazil
Andre Loes
Andrew Grantham Chief Economist
+44 20 7991 2170 andrew.grantham@hsbcib.com +55 11 3371 8184 andre.a.loes@hsbc.com.br
North America Constantin Jancso

Senior Economist
Kevin Logan +55 11 3371 8183 constantin.c.jancso@hsbc.com.br
+1 212 525 3195 kevin.r.logan@us.hsbc.com
Marcos Fernandes
Ryan Wang +55 11 6847 9787 marcos.r.fernandes@hsbc.com.br
+1 212 525 3181 ryan.wang@us.hsbc.com
Mexico
Stewart Hall Sergio Martin
+1 416 868 7523 stewart_hall@hsbc.ca Chief Economist
+52 55 5721 2164 sergio.martinm@hsbc.com.mx
Asia Pacific
Central America
Qu Hongbin
Lorena Dominguez
Managing Director, Co-head Asian Economics Research and
Economist
Chief Economist Greater China
+52 55 5721 2172 lorena.dominguez@hsbc.com.mx
+852 2822 2025 hongbinqu@hsbc.com.hk
Frederic Neumann
Managing Director, Co-head Asian Economics Research
+852 2822 4556 fredericneumann@hsbc.com.hk
Leif Eskesen
Chief Economist, India & ASEAN
+65 6239 0840 leifeskesen@hsbc.com.sg
Paul Bloxham
Chief Economist, Australia and New Zealand
+61 2925 52635 paulbloxham@hsbc.com.au
Song Yi Kim
+852 2822 4870 songyikim@hsbc.com.hk
Donna Kwok
+852 2996 6621 donnahjkwok@hsbc.com.hk
Sherman Chan
+852 2996 6975 shermanwkchan@hsbc.com.hk
Wellian Wiranto
+65 6230 2879 wellianwiranto@hsbc.com.sg
Seiji Shiraishi
+81 3 5203 3802 seiji.shiraishi@hsbc.co.jp
Yukiko Tani
+81 3 5203 3827 yukiko.tani@hsbc.co.jp
Sun Junwei
Associate
Global Economics
January 2011
Karen Ward
HSBC Bank plc
+44 20 7991 3692
karen.ward@hsbcib.com
Karen joined HSBC in 2006 as UK economist. In 2010 she was appointed Senior Global Economist with responsibility for monitoring
challenges facing the global economy and their implications for financial markets. Before joining HSBC in 2006 Karen worked at the
Bank of England where she provided supporting analysis for the Monetary Policy Committee. She has an MSc Economics from
The world in 2050
University College London.
Quantifying the shift in the global economy
With the rapid growth of the emerging markets, the global economy is experiencing a seismic
shift. In this piece, we argue that this shift is set to continue. By 2050, the collective size of the
economies we currently deem 'emerging' will have increased five-fold and will be larger than
the developed world. And 19 of the 30 largest economies will be from the emerging world.
At the same time, there will be a marked decline in the economic might – and potentially the
political clout – of many small population, ageing, rich economies in Europe.
By Karen Ward
Disclosures and Disclaimer This report must be read with the disclosures and analyst
certifications in the Disclosure appendix, and with the Disclaimer, which forms part of it

HSBC Global Jan11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HSBC Global Jan11

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HSBC Global Jan11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Economics

Quantifying the shift in the global economy

The world in 2050

1. Growth in the emerging markets will boost global growth

% Contributions to global growth %

Constant 2000 USD, Tn EM vs DM in 2050 Constant 2000 USD, Tn

Dev eloped Markets Emerging Markets

Source: HSBC Calculations

3. The top 30 in 2050

4. The outlook for working population is vastly different across economies

Source: HSBC Calculations

Why do economies grow?

6. What is driving these growth spurts

United States 1.6 2.5 2.0

Total Asia ex Japan 0.0 2.9 3.5

Latin America 1.4 2.5 1.0

Eastern Europe 0.9 3.8 0.4

Africa 1.0 2.1 0.0

To get to projections for total GDP, we start by Economic governance

These ‘iron curtains’ have now been drawn back,

India's relative underperformance over the same

Iran + Russia India + M alaysia Italy+Israel

Thailand Ho ng Kong So uth A frica + A rgentina

Losing Control (Yale University Press, 2010).

The starting level of income per 11. The Tigers’ pounce

capita % Per capita income relativ e to US %

Japan in the early 1960s. An explosion in C apital Labour T echnological progress

J apan % Per capita income relativ e to US %

at the axis on Chart 16. Despite rapid growth,

Source: World Bank, HSBC Calculations

Agricultural output as % of GDP

GDP per capita % Share of employ ment w ithin primary industry %

Source: World Bank, HSBC Source: IMF and HSBC calculations

The employment statistics are less reliable for

The model economy So we then consider a second scenario, in which

Russia C hina Brazil

21. Defining the 'economic infrastructure'

Non-Japan Asia produces a diversified crop. We

decade. These projections are taken from the UN.

Av erage annual population grow th 2010-2050 Working population g row th 2010-2050

1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%

0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

-0.5% -0.5% -0.5% -0.5%

Per Capita Grow th Demographics

Over the limit?

Running out of inputs? pointing to the risk of ‘peak oil’ disrupting

Energy availability is somewhat more Indeed, for an additional upfront cost of

Source: IEA, Energy Technology Perspectives 2010

to USD112trn could be generated by 2050. One Feeding the world

consumption. In 1995, about 1.8 billion people

What might go wrong?

IEA, Energy Technology Perspectives 2010

UK Government Office for Science, Tackling Obesities: Future Choices, 2007

US Department of Energy, Critical Materials Strategy, December 2010

WWF, Living Planet Report 2010

World Health Organisation. Obesity and Overweight, 2010

Lloyds, 360 Risk Insight: Sustainable Energy Security, 2010

impact of education produced remarkably accurate

Creating the base scenario